ABSTRACT 

Final Resource Protection Study / Environmental Impact Statement

Curecanti National Recreational Area

Gunnison and Montrose Counties, Colorado

August 2008

This Final Resource Protection Study / Environmental Impact Statement (RPS/EIS) describes and 

analyzes in detail two alternatives, and makes recommendations for conserving natural, cultural, 

recreational, and scenic resources on lands within and surrounding the area administered as 

the Curecanti National Recreation Area. Potential environmental consequences of the two 

alternatives are assessed. Additional alternatives were considered, but eliminated from detailed 

assessment. The study is in response to Section 11 of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 

Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-76).

This RPS/EIS is being prepared by the National Park Service (NPS), with the Bureau of 

Reclamation (Reclamation) as a cooperating agency. The EIS process will conclude with the 

release of a Record of Decision (ROD) that documents the National Park Service’s selected 

alternative. The ROD will be released no sooner than 30 days following the release date of 

this Final RPS/EIS, which is the date that the Environmental Protection Agency’s Notice of 

Availability appears in the Federal Register. Upon completion of the EIS process, a Report 

to Congress will be jointly prepared by NPS and Reclamation, and sent through the NPS 

Washington Offi ce to the Department of the Interior, to be forwarded to Congress. The report 

will summarize the study’s fi ndings and make recommendations. Implementation of those 

recommendations will then depend on congressional action. The Final RPS/EIS and the 

Record of Decision will accompany the Report to Congress. If the Record of Decision fi nds 

that Congress should pass new legislation for the NRA, the report will identify issues to be 

addressed in that new legislation. In other words, the Secretary of the Interior will make the 

recommendation to Congress, based on recommendations developed by the National Park 

Service and Bureau of Reclamation.

Pursuant to Reclamation law, including the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, and a 

1965 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Bureau of Reclamation and the National 

Park Service, Reclamation manages two projects (including dams, reservoirs, power plants, 

access roads, and other related facilities) and NPS manages the natural and cultural resources, 

recreational use, and related facilities, all within an area that for forty years has been referred to 

as the Curecanti National Recreation Area (NRA). However, the area has not yet been formally 

designated by Congress as a national recreation area, and has no legislated boundary.

Alternative 1: No Action (Continuation of Existing Conditions). Under Alternative 1, the 

 Bureau of Reclamation would continue to operate and maintain the dams, reservoirs, power 

plants, access roads, and related facilities at Curecanti; and they and their assigns would 

continue to have unrestricted access to their lands and land interests, water and water interests, 

and facilities, pursuant to Reclamation law, the 1965 MOA, and other applicable laws and 

regulations. The National Park Service would continue to manage the natural and cultural 

resources, recreational opportunities, and associated facilities within the existing NRA, pursuant 

to Reclamation law, NPS law, the 1965 MOA, and other applicable laws and regulations. The 

National Park Service would continue to cooperate with neighboring landowners in the service 
of resource conservation as existing staff time and funding permit. This would consist primarily 

of providing limited technical assistance and advice. There would be no changes in the amount 

of land included within the NRA, other than occasional additions that might occur due to 

future specifi c legislative authority. A permanent NPS presence would not be assured under this 

alternative.

One of the major impacts of Alternative 1 would be the continuation of the current pattern of 

land use changes on private property surrounding the NRA. This would increase the possibility 

of adverse impacts on resources such as animal habitat and water quality, and the spectacular 

natural scenery that surrounds the NRA. In turn, this would be more likely to adversely aff ect the 

enjoyment of NRA visitors and residents alike.

Alternative 2: The Proposed Action: It is recommended under Alternative 2 that Congress 

legislatively establish Curecanti as a National Recreation Area with a legislated boundary, which 

would include approximately 10,040 acres of additional adjacent lands that are currently managed 

by other federal and state agencies. The 1965 MOA between the Bureau of Reclamation and the 

National Park Service would be revised accordingly. Under Alternative 2, Reclamation would 

operate and maintain the dams, reservoirs, associated power plants, access roads, and related 

facilities at Curecanti; and they and their assigns would have unrestricted access to their lands 

and land interests, water and water interests, and facilities, pursuant to Reclamation law, the 

revised MOA, and other applicable laws and regulations. The new NRA legislation would designate 

the National Park Service to be responsible for managing the natural, cultural, and recreational 

resources, visitor use and education, and associated facilities. Such management would be pursuant 

to Reclamation law, NPS law, including the new legislation establishing the NRA, the revised MOA, 

and other applicable laws and regulations. It is also recommended that Congress authorize NPS 

to work in partnership with private landowners in a designated Conservation Opportunity Area 

surrounding the NRA, and employ various tools in the service of resource conservation. These 

tools would include, but not be limited to, acquiring interests in land from willing landowners, 

such as fee simple, or conservation easements. The benefi t of this approach is that neighboring 

landowners, assisted by conservation partners, could work with the National Park Service to utilize 

cooperative conservation eff orts that could maintain and/or improve resources such as animal 

habitat and water quality throughout the area; would better ensure the preservation of the area’s 

spectacular natural scenery; and would enhance the enjoyment and recreational opportunities for 

residents and visitors alike. A permanent NPS presence would be assured under this alternative.

There would be no adverse impact to Reclamation operations under either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, is the 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative.

Review and Comment Period for the Draft RPS / EIS. From July 17 through October 22, 2007, 

NPS held a public and agency review and comment period on the Draft Resource Protection Study/

Environmental Impact Statement. As a result, NPS received a total of 35 letters, faxes, and Internet 

entries on the document. Of these, 63% supported Alternative 2 (Proposed Action); 26% were 

neutral, not specifying which alternative was favored; and 11% supported Alternative 1 (No Action). All 

comments received, as well as meeting records related to this project, are being retained as a part of 

the project’s administrative record. The comments are summarized in this Final RPS/EIS, along with 

NPS responses.

For more information about this document, please contact:

Superintendent

Curecanti National Recreation Area

102 Elk Creek

Gunnison, CO 81230.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT iii

SUMMARY

 SUMMARY

 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF

THE STUDY

This Final Resource Protection Study/

Environmental Impact Statement (RPS/

EIS) describes two alternatives and 

analyzes in detail their impacts, and makes 

recommendations for the conservation of 

natural, cultural, recreational, and scenic 

resources on land within and surrounding 

the area traditionally known as the Curecanti 

National Recreation Area (NRA). The 

two alternatives are briefl y described in 

this Summary chapter, and their primary 

diff erences are compared in the table at the 

end of this Summary.

The study recommends Alternative 2 as the 

Proposed Action, or preferred alternative. 

Numerous other alternatives were considered, 

but eliminated from detailed assessment. 

They are identifi ed in Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Including the Proposed Action, under 

the heading Alternatives Considered but 

Eliminated from Detailed Assessment.

Curecanti NRA is located in southwestern 

Colorado, stretching approximately 40 

miles along the Gunnison River basin 

in Gunnison and Montrose Counties. It 

is comprised of 41,790 acres of federal 

lands and waters, providing a variety of 

recreational opportunities in a spectacular 

geological setting.

Although not offi cially designated as such 

by Congress, the term “National Recreation 

Area” has been applied to the area 

immediately surrounding and including the 

three reservoirs of the Aspinall Unit of the 

 Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 

– Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, and Crystal. 

Congress has recognized the term “National 

Recreation Area” in legislation pertaining 

thereto, such as the act which authorized this 

study, and annual appropriations.

Since Curecanti has not been offi cially 

designated by Congress as an NRA, it does 

not have a legislated boundary. However, the 

area which comprises the NRA is shown on 

the Existing Conditions map in Chapter 1, 

Purpose of and Need for Action. 

The NRA is managed by the Bureau 

of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the 

National Park Service (NPS) pursuant to 

Reclamation law, including the Colorado 

River Storage Project Act of 1956, and a 

1965 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

between the Bureau of Reclamation and 

the National Park Service. The Bureau of 

Reclamation manages two Reclamation 

projects (including dams, reservoirs, power 

plants, access roads, and other related 

facilities); while the National Park Service 

manages the natural and cultural resources, 

opportunities for visitor recreation and 

understanding, and associated facilities.

This study is being conducted in response to 

Section 11 of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison 

National Park and Gunnison Gorge National 

Conservation Area Act of 1999 (Public Law 

106-76), key sections of which appear in 

Appendix A. As stated in that legislation, the 

purpose of this study is to:

 Assess the natural, cultural, 

recreational, and scenic resource 

value and character of the land within 

and surrounding Curecanti NRA 

(including open vistas, wildlife habitat, 

and other public benefi ts);

 Identify practicable alternatives 

that protect the resource value and 

character of the land within and 

surrounding the Curecanti NRA;

 Recommend a variety of economically 

feasible and viable tools to achieve the 

purposes described in paragraphs (1) 

and (2); and

 Estimate the costs of implementing the 

approaches recommended by the study.

This RPS/EIS is being prepared by the 

National Park Service, with the Bureau of 

Reclamation as a cooperating agency. The 

EIS process will conclude with the release of 

a Record of Decision (ROD) that documents 
SUMMARY

iv CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

the National Park Service’s selected 

alternative. The ROD will be released no 

sooner than 30 days following the release date 

of this Final RPS/EIS, which is the date that 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s Notice 

of Availability appears in the Federal Register. 

Upon completion of the EIS process, a Report 

to Congress will be jointly prepared by NPS 

and Reclamation. The National Park Service, 

as lead agency on the study, will then submit 

the report to the Secretary of the Interior, who 

will in turn submit it to Congress. The report 

will do the following:

 Contain the fi ndings of the study 

required by Section 11(a) of Public 

Law 106-76;

 Make recommendations to Congress 

with respect to the fi ndings of the 

study; and

 Make recommendations to Congress 

regarding action that may be taken 

with respect to the land described in 

the report.

 Implementation of those 

recommendations will then depend on 

congressional action. The Final RPS/

EIS and the Record of Decision will 

accompany the Report to Congress. 

If the Record of Decision fi nds that 

Congress should pass new legislation 

for the NRA, the report will identify 

issues to be addressed in that new 

legislation. In other words, the 

Secretary of the Interior will make the 

recommendation to Congress, based 

on recommendations developed by the 

National Park Service and the Bureau 

of Reclamation.

 PRIMARY EMPHASIS OF THE STUDY

 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

AND PRIMARY CONCERNS

Throughout the study, from its beginning 

in 2000, the National Park Service has 

communicated and consulted with other 

federal, state, and county agencies, American 

Indian Tribes, elected offi cials, private 

landowners and other stakeholders, and the 

general public to gather information, identify 

opportunities and concerns, and develop 

recommendations for the conservation of 

resources within and surrounding Curecanti 

NRA. These eff orts included initial public and 

agency scoping meetings, three newsletters, use 

of the NRA’s website, and many meetings and 

workshops throughout the project. The major 

meetings and list of consultants are presented 

in Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination.

This study is about identifying ways 

that will allow the National Park 

Service to work in partnership with 

private landowners and others to 

more eff ectively conserve the natural, 

cultural, recreational, and scenic 

resources and character of the land 

within and surrounding Curecanti 

NRA. As the study evolved, it became 

clear that it should evaluate whether 

or not to recommend to Congress that 

the NRA be formally established with 

a legislated boundary, what changes 

should be made to the boundary, and 

what agency or agencies should be 

responsible for managing the NRA.

This study is not about making 

recommendations pertaining to water 

rights or operations of Reclamation 

projects; infringing on the rights 

of landowners; or making any 

recommendation that would use 

condemnation or other tools not in 

partnership and cooperation with 

private landowners.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT v

SUMMARY

There were two primary concerns expressed 

throughout the project. One was that the 

Bureau of Reclamation wanted to be sure that 

implementation of any actions resulting from 

the study would have no adverse impacts on 

their operations, or those of their partnering 

agencies, such as Western Area Power 

Administration (Western). Therefore, it is 

important to emphasize the following:

The other primary concern was that the 

National Park Service should not propose 

anything in the study that would be forced 

upon private landowners against their will 

or desires, or that would intrude upon 

their property rights. Furthermore, some 

landowners opposed any boundary being 

drawn around their property to include them 

within a future NRA, even though they would 

be able to retain their property rights. These 

concerns strongly infl uenced the selection of 

the Proposed Action, and the dismissal from 

detailed analysis of some alternatives that had 

initially been considered.

Elected offi cials expressed a desire to be kept 

informed of the ongoing local reaction to the 

project as it progressed; and county offi cials 

wanted to be involved in the study process. 

 Gunnison County worked especially closely 

with the National Park Service on the project, 

because they were developing a county-wide 

comprehensive plan that might integrate 

some of the study’s recommendations. 

Neighboring land managing agencies 

expressed increased interest in working 

with the National Park Service on resource 

management issues of mutual concern 

through the Joint Agency Management Eff ort 

that was instituted as part of the study. In 

response to all these desires, the National 

Park Service has maintained communication 

with federal, state, and county elected and 

government offi cials throughout the project.

 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION

(CONTINUATION OF EXISTING

CONDITIONS)

Under Alternative 1, the Bureau of 

Reclamation, pursuant to its authority under 

Reclamation law, and in accordance with the 

1965 MOA with the National Park Service, and 

other applicable laws and regulations, would 

continue to operate, maintain, replace, and 

expand (as necessary) dams, reservoirs, power 

plants, access roads, and other related facilities 

associated with two Reclamation projects; 

and they and their assigns would continue to 

have unrestricted access to their lands and 

land interests, water and water interests, and 

facilities. The National Park Service, pursuant 

to Reclamation law, NPS law, the 1965 MOA, 

and other applicable laws and regulations, 

would continue to manage the natural and 

cultural resources, recreational opportunities, 

and associated facilities within the existing 

NRA. However, the permanence of the 

National Park Service as the manager of said 

resources would not be assured.

For both alternatives in the Resource 

Protection Study, the Bureau of 

Reclamation and Western Area Power 

Administration would continue their 

administrative jurisdiction and 

responsibilities within and adjacent to 

the national recreation area, including 

construction, operation, maintenance, 

replacements, and additions; and they 

and their assigns would continue to 

have unrestricted access to their lands 

and land interests, water and water 

interests, and facilities; consistent 

with Reclamation law and other 

applicable laws and regulations. 

Formal establishment of the area as 

an NRA under Alternative 2 would 

not amend or supplement existing 

Reclamation law applicable to the 

Aspinall Unit or the Uncompahgre 

Project. The Bureau of Reclamation, 

Western Area Power Administration, 

and the National Park Service would 

consult with each other, as necessary 

and appropriate. Thus, there would 

be no adverse impacts to Reclamation 

and Western responsibilities under 

either alternative.
SUMMARY

vi CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

The National Park Service would continue 

to operate with an emphasis on conserving 

the natural, cultural, recreational, and 

scenic resources within the NRA. Regarding 

land outside the NRA, the National Park 

Service would continue to work with 

neighboring land management agencies 

to resolve resource and visitor use issues 

of mutual concern, and to cooperate with 

private landowners surrounding the NRA to 

address matters of resource conservation, 

as staff time and funding permits. However, 

opportunities to partner with neighboring 

landowners in the service of resource 

conservation would be limited, and would 

consist primarily of providing some technical 

assistance and suggestions.

There would be no change in the amount of 

land included within the NRA, other than 

occasional additions that might occur because 

of future specifi c legislative authority. Thus, 

the NRA would continue to encompass 

approximately 41,790 acres of land.

For direct comparison to the estimated costs 

of Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, the 

estimated cost of Alternative 1 is $500,000. 

This money would need to be spent on 

missing and corrective surveys, posting, and 

fencing along the existing administrative NRA 

boundary, even if the Proposed Action is 

not implemented. Under Alternative 1, there 

would be no additional recurring annual costs.

One of the major impacts of Alternative 1 

would be the continuation of the current 

pattern of land use changes on private property 

surrounding the NRA. This would increase the 

possibility of adverse impacts on resources such 

as animal and raptor habitat, water quality, and 

the spectacular natural scenery that surrounds 

the NRA. In turn, this would be more likely to 

adversely aff ect the enjoyment of NRA visitors, 

and the quality of life for local residents.

Other resources that could be directly or 

indirectly adversely aff ected by development 

and land use that is insensitive to resource 

conservation include geological and 

paleontological resources; displacement of 

native vegetation, including riparian and 

wetland communities, by the spread of 

noxious weeds; fi sheries; natural lightscape 

and night sky; natural soundscape; and 

archeological resources. 

 ALTERNATIVE 2: THE PROPOSED ACTION

Under Alternative 2, it is recommended that 

Congress legislatively establish Curecanti as a 

National Recreation Area with a new legislated 

boundary, and that the 1965 MOA between the 

 Bureau of Reclamation and the National Park 

Service be revised accordingly. The Bureau of 

Reclamation, pursuant to Reclamation law, 

the revised MOA, and other applicable laws 

and regulations, would operate, maintain, 

replace, and expand (as necessary) dams, 

reservoirs, power plants, access roads, and 

other related facilities associated with two 

Reclamation projects; and they and their 

assigns would have unrestricted access to 

their lands and land interests, water and 

water interests, and facilities. The legislation 

would designate the National Park Service 

to be responsible for managing the natural, 

cultural, and recreational resources, visitor 

use and education, and associated facilities. 

Such management would be pursuant to 

Reclamation law, NPS law, including the 

new legislation establishing the NRA, the 

revised MOA, and other applicable laws 

and regulations. Under this alternative, the 

permanence of the National Park Service 

as the manager of these resources would be 

assured.

Under Alternative 2, the National Park 

Service would expand its eff orts to infl uence 

the conservation of the natural, cultural, 

recreational, and scenic resources on lands, 

both within and surrounding the NRA. In 

addition, it is recommended that Congress 

authorize the National Park Service to work 

in partnership with private landowners in a 

designated Conservation Opportunity Area 

(COA) surrounding the NRA to implement 

a variety of tools that would enhance the 

long-term conservation of natural, cultural, 

recreational, and scenic resources.

These tools would include technical assistance 

and environmental information provided 

by the National Park Service to landowners; 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT vii

SUMMARY

general agreements that could set the stage 

for short-term and long-term commitments 

to cooperative assistance; incentive payments 

related to resource conservation through 

a variety of government grant programs; 

acquisition of conservation easements; 

purchase and retained use and occupancy, 

such as 25-year leases, or life estates; and fee 

simple acquisition of property via purchase, 

land exchange, or donation. All tools would 

be subject to the cooperation and willingness 

of the landowner involved. The availability 

of some of these tools would be subject to 

congressional authorization and the NPS 

budget process, in light of competing demands 

from other NPS units.

This study recognizes that the availability of 

federal funds for acquiring interests in land 

may be limited. However, some of the goals 

and objectives of Alternative 2 would still be 

achievable through the application of other 

tools that could be used to provide incentives to 

willing landowners for conserving resources.

The newly legislated NRA boundary would 

encompass 51,830 acres, which would include 

approximately 10,040 acres of additional 

adjacent lands that are currently managed by 

other federal and state agencies. The COA 

would consist of 24,300 acres of private 

property outside the NRA boundary. The 

National Park Service would be authorized 

by Congress to acquire interests in private 

property in the COA from willing landowners. 

Lands in which the National Park Service 

would want to acquire an interest would 

be identifi ed by a future land protection 

plan. However, current thinking is that 

approximately 2,400 acres of land would be 

identifi ed for acquisition in fee simple; and 

conservation easements would be placed 

on approximately 8,100 acres of land—all 

of which would be subject to agreement by 

respective landowners. A landowner may also 

choose to work with a regional or national 

land trust or other conservation organization 

rather than the National Park Service. Land 

protected through such partners, including 

conservation easements held by land trusts, 

would generally meet the needs of resource 

protection, as envisioned by this study.

The one-time cost of implementing 

Alternative 2 is estimated to range from 

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

interests in land, such as through conservation 

easements and fee simple ownership. The 

relatively large range is because of the many 

variables pertaining to acquiring interests in 

land. These include the results of a required 

land protection plan, potential changes in 

fair market value of property, options relating 

to acquiring conservation easements, the 

availability of matching grants and similar 

cost-sharing opportunities, the participation 

of partners and third parties to help acquire 

interests in land, willingness of landowners to 

cooperate, and negotiations with landowners.

In addition to the one-time costs shown 

above, as Alternative 2 becomes fully 

implemented, there will be a recurring annual 

cost of $160,000 for the equivalent of two 

full-time employees. The employees would 

be needed: (1) to completely implement 

and sustain the Proposed Action; and (2) 

for operational requirements pertaining to 

lands added to the NRA, including resource 

and visitor management and protection, 

interpretation, construction and maintenance, 

and administration.

One of the major impacts of Alternative 2 is that 

neighboring private landowners, in partnership 

with the National Park Service, would have 

a greater opportunity, and would be more 

likely to use, a variety of tools to conserve 

resources on their property. With congressional 

authorization, and subject to competing 

demands from other NPS units, there would be 

more opportunity for funds to be available for 

the establishment of conservation easements, 

or the acquisition of land in fee title, from 

willing landowners in the COA.

Through the COA concept, landowners 

may develop a heightened awareness of how 

their activities might aff ect natural, cultural, 

recreational, and scenic resources. This would 

help to directly and indirectly preserve and 

improve resources, such as wildlife habitat 

and water quality throughout the area; would 

better ensure the preservation of the area’s 

spectacular natural scenery, which contributes 

to the national signifi cance of this special 

place; and would enhance the enjoyment and 
SUMMARY

viii CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

recreational opportunities for residents and 

visitors alike.

Other resources that would directly or 

indirectly benefi t from development and 

land use that is conducted with increased 

sensitivity to resource conservation include: 

geological and paleontological resources; 

native vegetation, including riparian and 

wetland communities, that would experience 

a reduced spread of noxious weeds; fi sheries; 

natural lightscape and night sky; natural 

soundscape; and archeological resources.

Recreational opportunities and visitor 

enjoyment and experience could be enhanced 

through increased cooperation among private 

landowners, the National Park Service, and 

other land managing agencies in the area. This 

could be accomplished through means such 

as acquisition of easements for trails across 

private property.

In turn, private landowners could benefi t from 

economic incentives aff orded by various tools, 

including tax advantages, government grants, 

and payments for interests in land; from the 

potential increase in availability of funding 

to implement various tools of resource 

conservation; and through increased technical 

assistance from the National Park Service. 

 Landowners would also benefi t from knowing 

that they are making a greater contribution to 

the resource conservation ethic, to enhanced 

enjoyment of the spectacular Curecanti 

environment, and to a better quality of life for 

visitors and residents alike.

Land transfers and exchanges between the 

National Park Service and other federal and 

state agencies, and potential exchanges with 

adjacent private landowners, would simplify 

existing boundaries and provide for more 

effi cient and cost-eff ective management of 

resources for all involved. In general, this 

would result in long-term benefi cial impacts 

to the operations of the National Park Service 

and neighboring agencies.

New NRA legislation, a revised agreement 

between the Bureau of Reclamation and the 

National Park Service, and streamlining or 

potentially eliminating other agreements among 

various agencies, would provide a long-term 

minor benefi cial impact to agency operations 

by reducing associated personnel and costs for 

managing the lands and agreements.

There would be a long-term minor to 

moderate benefi cial impact on NPS’s ability 

to meet its mission, because of appropriately 

worded legislation for the NRA, improved 

wording in a new MOA with the Bureau of 

Reclamation, and increased consultation 

and cooperation between the National Park 

Service and other agencies, including the 

 Bureau of Reclamation. This improvement 

in consultation and cooperation among the 

agencies is already happening, through the 

 Joint Agency Management Eff ort, which is 

integral to the recommendations of this study.

 ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED

ALTERNATIVE – ALTERNATIVE 2: THE

 PROPOSED ACTION

Alternative 2 is considered to be the 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

because it best fulfi lls NPS responsibilities as 

trustee of sensitive habitat; best ensures safe, 

healthful, productive, and aesthetically and 

culturally pleasing surroundings; and best 

achieves a balance between population and 

resource use that would permit high standards 

of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities.

 FINDINGS AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

REGARDING THE STUDY’S

RECOMMENDATIONS

In the course of conducting the Resource 

Protection Study, and in writing the 

Environmental Impact Statement, numerous 

fi ndings and guiding principles were identifi ed 

that need to be emphasized and carefully 

considered when implementing the study’s 

recommendations, especially regarding 

new NRA legislation that might be enacted, 

and revised or new agreements among the 

 Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park 

Service, and/or other agencies. Many of those 

fi ndings and principles relate to laws, policies, 

regulations, and the missions of the two 

agencies, by which the Bureau of Reclamation 

and the National Park Service must operate. 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ix

SUMMARY

Some of these apply equally to the Bureau of 

Reclamation and the National Park Service, as 

federal agencies within the Department of the 

Interior. However, some of these are unique 

to each agency, since they have diff erent 

missions. These important fi ndings and 

principles are summarized below.

 The Uncompahgre Project and the 

 Aspinall Unit of the Colorado River 

Storage Project, their associated facilities, 

lands, water and other resources, and 

their use by the public, are signifi cant 

public benefi ts within and adjacent to 

the NRA.

 The majority of the lands currently 

within the NRA, and some currently 

outside of it, were withdrawn or 

acquired for Reclamation purposes, 

including the Uncompahgre Project and 

the Aspinall Unit of the Colorado River 

Storage Project.

 The current NPS presence within and 

administration of most of the NRA 

for recreation and other purposes is 

pursuant to and subject to Reclamation 

law, as amended and supplemented, 

which generally requires that such 

administration be consistent or 

compatible with the primary purposes 

of the Bureau of Reclamation’s projects. 

Thus, the Bureau of Reclamation has 

existing legal rights within and adjacent 

to the NRA that predate and take 

precedence over NPS rights or uses.

 Reclamation operations along the 

three reservoirs under the Colorado 

River Storage Project Act continue to 

provide recreational and scenic values 

that support legislative designation of 

the area as the Curecanti NRA. Any 

legislation for the NRA should allow 

that situation to continue, without any 

additional limitations on the Bureau of 

Reclamation’s operational capabilities.

 The prior intent of the Department 

of the Interior was that contiguous 

Reclamation lands along the 

Gunnison River, upstream of the Black 

Canyon of the Gunnison National 

Park, were to be administered by the 

National Park Service for recreational 

and other purposes pursuant to 

Reclamation law. The 1965 MOA 

between the Bureau of Reclamation 

and the National Park Service 

provided for such management on 

 Aspinall Unit lands, pursuant to 

Section 8 of Colorado River Storage 

Project Act, and allowed for the future 

inclusion of additional acquired or 

withdrawn lands. For example, in 

1978, Uncompahgre Project lands in 

the East Portal area were added to the 

MOA and the NRA. However, the 1965 

MOA did not address future deletion 

of lands from the NRA, nor were there 

appropriate supplemental agreements 

to address the management of deleted 

lands by another federal agency. A 

revised MOA should address both 

the addition and deletion of lands 

to and from the NRA, as well as the 

management of deleted lands by 

another federal agency, or disposition 

thereof to private, state, or other 

ownership.

 The Bureau of Reclamation and the 

National Park Service have differing 

missions and management directives 

within and adjacent to the NRA. 

The current management agreement 

between the Bureau of Reclamation 

and the National Park Service should 

be updated to better reflect the roles 

and responsibilities of these respective 

agencies.

 There are numerous and varied existing 

legal rights on lands within the study area 

that may aff ect management of the NRA. 

These rights either need to be recognized 

and honored or they need to be acquired 

through appropriate means. Either way, 

these rights will aff ect management of 

the NRA. These rights include, but are 

not limited to, reserved mineral rights, 

transmission rights-of-way (Western, 

 Gunnison County Electric Association, 

Qwest Communications, etc.) and access 

rights (Lake Fork Cove and Blue Mesa 

Village subdivisions, Sapinero, etc.).
SUMMARY

x CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

 IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS

REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS

TO CONGRESS

This study’s Proposed Action recommends 

that Congress enact legislation regarding 

the offi cial designation of Curecanti NRA. 

The study team has identifi ed the following 

considerations to be of paramount importance 

in drafting any such legislation.

 Congress should designate the area 

identifi ed in the Proposed Action as the 

“Curecanti National Recreation Area.”

 Any such NRA designation and 

associated legislation should protect 

Reclamation’s ability to meet its 

mission, including project operation, 

maintenance, replacement, and land 

addition or expansion if and when 

necessary, on all of its lands and waters 

within and adjacent to the NRA. The 

 Bureau of Reclamation’s ability to meet 

its mission and to conduct projectrelated operations on any of its lands 

and waters should not be diminished or 

hindered as a result of the designation 

of the area as an NRA. Likewise, 

any such NRA designation and 

associated legislation should provide 

the National Park Service reasonable 

and appropriate authority to meet its 

mission within and adjacent to the 

NRA, provided that Reclamation’s prior 

authority to meet its mission on the 

same lands and waters is not diminished 

nor hindered in any way.

 Any such NRA designation and 

associated legislation should allow for 

future adjustments to the proposed NRA 

boundary that are mutually acceptable to 

the Bureau of Reclamation, the National 

Park Service, and other aff ected federal 

and state agencies.

Any legislation establishing the NRA should 

provide for coordinated management 

through an agreement between the Bureau 

of Reclamation and the National Park 

Service, which identifi es their respective 

roles and responsibilities. This legislation 

should be relatively broad, and not overly 

specifi c on how the NRA is to be managed. 

Other documents would go into more detail 

describing how the NRA should be managed. 

These documents would include a new MOA 

between the Bureau of Reclamation and the 

National Park Service, and a revised NPS 

general management plan or implementation 

plan for the NRA.

Bighorn sheep inhabit rugged areas within and adjacent to Curecanti NRA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xi

SUMMARY

Alternative 1: No Action

(Continuation of 

Existing Conditions)

Alternative 2:

The Proposed Action

PERTAINING TO RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES:

Land within Curecanti National Recreation Area (NRA) 

would continue to be the minimum acquired by the 

 Bureau of Reclamation for the Curecanti Unit, CRSP and 

Uncompahgre Project, and it would be less likely that 

access easements or additional land would be acquired, 

thus limiting recreational opportunities to the current 

land base. Hunting, fi shing, and other existing recreational 

activities would continue, consistent with NPS policies and 

regulations.

Land within Curecanti National Recreation Area (NRA) 

would be expanded, as 10,040 acres of other agency lands 

would be added to NRA via transfers and exchanges, and 

there would be potential to acquire access easements and/or 

additional land from willing landowners, thus providing an 

expanded land base for recreational opportunities. Hunting, 

fi shing, and other existing recreational activities would 

continue; however, there would be additional potential for 

expanded recreational activities in some areas, consistent 

with NPS policies and regulations.

PERTAINING TO CONSERVATION OF NATURAL, CULTURAL, AND SCENIC RESOURCES:

The natural rural character of the land, intrinsic scenic 

values, and other related resource values, are less likely to be 

conserved, as the National Park Service (NPS) would have 

limited resources to work in partnership with neighbors 

to acquire land interests or provide technical assistance on 

private land surrounding the NRA.

Eff orts to conserve the natural rural character of the land, 

intrinsic scenic values, and other resource values, would be 

enhanced through the cooperation of local governments 

and adjacent landowners, and the availability of tools, 

including acquisition of interests in land from willing 

landowners, that could be utilized within the proposed 

 Conservation Opportunity Area (COA).

Conservation benefi ts, including acquisition of conservation 

easements and other conservation projects, are less likely to 

be achieved, and NPS would lack authority to expend funds 

on private lands surrounding the NRA.

There would be more opportunity to meet conservation 

goals, even if funding was not immediately available for 

federal acquisition of interests in land, as NPS would 

be authorized to use an expanded assortment of other 

cooperative conservation tools within the COA.

PERTAINING TO NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE:

National signifi cance of the NRA would not be assured. 

Continued development of adjacent private property would 

likely change the scenic and rural character of the land and 

related resources, adversely aff ecting the visitor experience.

National signifi cance of the NRA would be more assured 

through cooperative conservation eff orts within the COA.

PERTAINING TO MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS:

Confusion of jurisdictional responsibilities would continue; 

management effi ciencies would less likely be achieved; NPS 

would be cautious about investing its energy and resources 

in the NRA, since NPS serves the area per agreement with a 

diff erent agency, and its long-term presence is not assured; 

and the potential loss of a NPS presence could adversely 

aff ect tourism, and consequentially, local economies.

Jurisdictional responsibilities would be clarifi ed, providing 

enhanced management effi ciencies for all agencies involved; 

NPS would be more inclined to invest energy and resources 

in the NRA; a permanent NPS presence would be assured; 

and the needs of local governments related to the economic 

benefi ts of tourism in the Curecanti area would more likely 

be met.

PERTAINING TO ADVERSE AND BENEFICIAL IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT:

Due to the lack of conservation tools available to NPS for 

working cooperatively with landowners, more adverse 

impacts to the natural, cultural, recreational, and scenic 

resources would be expected on lands within and 

surrounding the NRA.

Due to the availability of additional conservation tools 

within the COA, fewer adverse impacts and more benefi ts 

to the natural, cultural, recreational, and scenic resources 

would be expected, making this the environmentally 

preferred alternative.

PERTAINING TO IMPLEMENTATION COSTS:

With a determination that the administrative boundary is 

unlikely to change, one-time costs include completion of 

surveys, boundary posting and fencing. That cost is expected 

to be $500,000. There would be no additional recurring 

annual costs.

One-time costs include acquiring interests in land, including 

conservation easements and fee simple ownership from 

willing landowners; associated plans and administrative 

costs related to lands and partnership programs; surveys, 

boundary posting and fencing. Due to various factors 

(explained in the Final RPS/EIS), a range of costs is 

estimated to be from $3,690,000 to $14,973,000. Recurring 

costs for two staff positions and related expenditures are 

estimated to be $160,000 per year.

 THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ALTERNATIVES
SUMMARY

xii CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................iii 

LIST OF ACRONYMS .........................................................................................................xix 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

INTRODUCTION, AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA .................. 1

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY...............................................................................................................................6

NEED FOR THE STUDY .................................................................................................................................. 7

FOUNDATION FOR THE STUDY..................................................................................................................... 8

NATIONAL RECREATION AREA SPECIAL MANDATES ................................................................................. 9

NRA Purpose......................................................................................................................................... 9 

NRA Significance.................................................................................................................................. 9 

NRA Mission.........................................................................................................................................11 

NRA Mission Goals..............................................................................................................................11 

NRA Interpretive Themes ...................................................................................................................11 

RECLAMATION SPECIAL MANDATES .......................................................................................................... 12 

Reclamation Project Background and Purpose............................................................................... 12 

Reclamation Project Significance ......................................................................................................14 

Reclamation Mission........................................................................................................................... 15 

Reclamation Goals............................................................................................................................... 15 

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION (DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY) SPECIAL MANDATES............ 15 

Background and Purpose.................................................................................................................... 15 

Western’s Mission ...............................................................................................................................16 

Western’s Goals ...................................................................................................................................16 

STUDY PROCESS............................................................................................................................................16

Public and Agency Involvement ........................................................................................................16 

Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................................................................. 17 

Alternatives Development and Impacts Assessment ..................................................................... 23 

TOOLS FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ................................................................ 24

COST ESTIMATES ......................................................................................................................................... 27

STUDY OPPORTUNITIES,INTERESTS, AND ISSUES..................................................................................... 28

IMPACT TOPICS............................................................................................................................................ 28

Impact Topics Considered ................................................................................................................ 29 

Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration ................................................................ 29 

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES.............................................................................................................35

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION (CONTINUATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS)......................................... 39

Overall Concept .................................................................................................................................. 39 

National Recreation Area Designation and Boundary ..................................................................40 

Resource Conservation......................................................................................................................40 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

xiv CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

National Recreation Area Management .......................................................................................... 43 

Bureau of Reclamation Operations .................................................................................................. 43 

Other Agency Operations .................................................................................................................. 43 

Joint Agency Management Effort (JAME) ...................................................................................... 43 

Estimated Costs, Staffing Requirements, and Implementation Strategy.....................................44 

ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................................................................... 45

Overall Concept .................................................................................................................................. 45 

National Recreation Area Designation and Boundary ..................................................................49 

Resource Conservation....................................................................................................................... 51 

National Recreation Area Management........................................................................................... 54 

Bureau of Reclamation Operations ...................................................................................................55 

Other Agency Operations ...................................................................................................................55 

Joint Agency Management Effort (JAME) ...................................................................................... 56 

Estimated Costs, Staffing Requirements, and Implementation Strategy..................................... 56 

FINDINGS AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES REGARDING THE STUDY’S RECOMMENDATIONS.......................61 

IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONGRESS .............................. 62

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ASSESSMENT................................... 63

National Recreation Area Boundary................................................................................................ 63 

National Recreation Area Management ..........................................................................................64 

THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE.............................................................................64

EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED ACTION MEETS BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT CRITERIA .................66

Need and Opportunity.......................................................................................................................66 

Suitability and Feasibility ...................................................................................................................66 

EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVES IN MEETING STUDY OBJECTIVES AND NRA MISSION.................. 67

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................... 67

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.................................................................................. 67 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 83

Primary Elements of the Environment Affected by Actions......................................................... 83 

Land Units ........................................................................................................................................... 83 

NATURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................ 84 

Topography and Climate ................................................................................................................... 84 

Water Resources ................................................................................................................................. 84 

Geology and Paleontology................................................................................................................. 87 

Vegetation and Wildlife ..................................................................................................................... 88 

Special Status Species ......................................................................................................................... 92 

Natural Lightscape (Night Sky) ........................................................................................................ 97 

Natural Soundscape ........................................................................................................................... 98 

CULTURAL RESOURCES ..............................................................................................................................99 

Historical Background .......................................................................................................................99 

Archeological Resources.................................................................................................................. 100 

Historic Structures and Resources ................................................................................................. 100 

Resource Significance ....................................................................................................................... 101 

VISITOR USE, UNDERSTANDING, AND ENJOYMENT ............................................................................... 101

Recreational Opportunities.............................................................................................................. 101 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Interpretation and Educational Opportunities............................................................................. 109 

SCENIC RESOURCES.................................................................................................................................... 110 

Resource Significance ........................................................................................................................114 

REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS..........................................................................114 

Regional Setting ..................................................................................................................................114 

Population............................................................................................................................................115 

Economic Conditions ........................................................................................................................115 

NRA Contribution to Regional Economy...................................................................................... 116 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes.................................................................................................................117 

Quality of Life......................................................................................................................................117 

Private Land Use within the National Recreation Area ............................................................... 119 

Neighboring Private Lands and Landowners within the Proposed Lands................................120 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RECLAMATION, AND OTHER NEIGHBORING AGENCY 

MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS............................................................................................................ 122 

National Park Service........................................................................................................................ 122 

Bureau of Reclamation...................................................................................................................... 123 

Bureau of Land Management........................................................................................................... 125 

Colorado Department of Transportation / Federal Highway Administration ......................... 127 

Colorado Division of Wildlife.......................................................................................................... 127 

U.S. Forest Service ............................................................................................................................. 128 

Western Area Power Administration ..............................................................................................128 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................131

GENERAL METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING IMPACTS ..............................................................................131 

Definitions and Foundation for Analysis ........................................................................................131 

Resource Conservation and Development Assumptions............................................................. 132 

Cumulative Impacts...........................................................................................................................136 

Impairment Analysis..........................................................................................................................140 

NATURAL RESOURCES ...............................................................................................................................140 

Water Quality ......................................................................................................................................141 

Geology and Paleontology................................................................................................................ 143 

Vegetation and Wildlife ....................................................................................................................145 

Special Status Species ........................................................................................................................ 152 

Natural Lightscape (Night Sky) ....................................................................................................... 157 

Natural Soundscape ......................................................................................................................... 160 

CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................................164

VISITOR USE, UNDERSTANDING, AND ENJOYMENT ...............................................................................168 

Recreational Opportunities..............................................................................................................168 

Interpretation and Educational Opportunities..............................................................................174 

SCENIC RESOURCES.................................................................................................................................... 177

REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS......................................................................... 183 

Economics .......................................................................................................................................... 183 

Private Land Use within the National Recreation Area ...............................................................189 

Neighboring Private Lands and Landowners within the Proposed Lands................................192 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

xvi CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RECLAMATION, AND OTHER NEIGHBORING AGENCY 

MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS............................................................................................................196

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS........................................................................................................... 208

LOSS IN LONG- TERM AVAILABILITY OR PRODUCTIVITY TO ACHIEVE SHORT- TERM GAIN............. 208

IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ..................................................... 208 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................209 

NOTICE OF INTENT....................................................................................................................................210 

CONSULTATION WITH AGENCIES AND ELECTED OFFICIALS..................................................................210 

MEETINGS WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC, PARK VISITORS, PRIVATE LANDOWNERS, AND OTHER 

STAKEHOLDERS ..........................................................................................................................................214

MEETINGS WITH AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES...........................................................................................216 

COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS, REGULATIONS, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE POLICIES ......................................................................................................... 217 

Section 106 Consultation................................................................................................................... 217 

Consultation for Species of Concern .............................................................................................. 217 

NEWSLETTERS ............................................................................................................................................ 217 

MULTI- AGENCY REVIEW VERSION OF THE DRAFT RPS/EIS ................................................................ 218 

RECLAMATION REVIEW VERSION OF THE DRAFT RPS/EIS.................................................................... 218 

PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT RPS/EIS................................................................................................. 218 

RELEASE OF THE FINAL RPS/EIS, RECORD OF DECISION, AND REPORT TO CONGRESS ...................... 218 

LIST OF RECIPIENTS FOR THE DRAFT RPS/EIS........................................................................................219 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT RPS/EIS, AND NPS RESPONSES ........................................................................ 221 

LETTERS FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT RPS/EIS.............. 252 

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS .............................................................................................................. 288 

Preparers of the Resource Protection Study/Environmental Impact Statement ..................... 288 

Consultants........................................................................................................................................290 

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION .......................................... 297 

APPENDIX B: CURECANTI: GREAT SCENERY, OUTSTANDING RESOURCES, AND 

GOOD NEIGHBORS .................................................................................................................................... 329

APPENDIX C: LEGISLATION, POLICIES, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE 

CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND THE RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY .....................337

Legislation...........................................................................................................................................337 

Management Policies ....................................................................................................................... 339 

Management Plans ........................................................................................................................... 343 

General Agreements and Documents Pertaining Thereto.......................................................... 344 

APPENDIX D: NEEDED AGREEMENTS, RESEARCH, AND ACTION PLANS............................................... 351 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xvii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................. 355 

GLOSSARY ..........................................................................................................................363 

INDEX ................................................................................................................................ 369 

LIST OF MAPS 

REGIONAL OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................. 2

EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................ 3

COMPUTER GENERATED VIEWSHED OF LAND WITHIN AND SURROUNDING CURECANTI .................. 21

IMPORTANT RESOURCES SURROUNDING CURECANTI ............................................................................ 25

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION (CONTINUATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS)..........................................41

ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................................................................... 47

LIST OF TABLES 

THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ALTERNATIVES...................................................................xi

TABLE 1:IMPACT TOPICS RETAINED OR DISMISSED ................................................................................. 30 

TABLE 2: FACTORS CONSIDERED IN ESTABLISHING LAND UNITS...............................................38, 85, 134 

TABLE 3: EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVES IN MEETING STUDY OBJECTIVES AND 

NRA MISSION ............................................................................................................................................. 68

TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................................... 70

TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................................................... 73

TABLE 6: BIG GAME HABITAT IN PROPOSED LANDS ................................................................................ 89

TABLE 7: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE VICINITY OF CURECANTI NATIONAL 

RECREATION AREA ..................................................................................................................................... 93

TABLE 8: ANNUAL VISITATION AT CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, 1996–2005...............102

TABLE 9: POPULATION ESTIMATES ............................................................................................................115

TABLE 10: RESERVED SUB- SURFACE INTERESTS.......................................................................................118

TABLE 11: WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES..........................................................129 

TABLE 12: PROBABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT BY LAND UNIT ................................................................... 135

TABLE 13: BIG GAME HABITATS – NO- ACTION ALTERNATIVE ..............................................................147

TABLE 14: BIG GAME HABITATS – PROPOSED ACTION.............................................................................150

TABLE 15: BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT GRAZING ALLOTMENTS WITHIN THE CURRENT AND 

PROPOSED NATIONAL RECREATION AREA ............................................................................................. 205

TABLE 16: COMMENTS ON CURECANTI DRAFT RPS/EIS, AND NPS RESPONSES ................................ 223 

TABLE 17: NATIONAL RECREATION AREAS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES................................ 366
TABLE OF CONTENTS

xviii CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xix

ACRONYMS

 LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

BLCA Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMPs Best Management Practices

BMR Blue Mesa Reservoir

BP Before Present

CACS Gunnison County’s Curecanti Area Conservation Study

CDH Colorado Division of Housing

CDOLA Colorado Department of Local Aff airs

CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation

CDOW Colorado Division of Wildlife

CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

CE Conservation Easement

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CNHP Colorado Natural Heritage Program

CNPS Colorado Native Plant Society

CO 92 Colorado Highway Route 92

CO 149 Colorado Highway Route 149

COA Conservation Opportunity Area

CORPS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CPCESU Colorado Plateau Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit

CRCT Colorado River Cutthroat Trout

CREDA Colorado River Energy Distributors Association

CRSP Colorado River Storage Project

CSFS Colorado State Forest Service

D&RG Denver and Rio Grande Railroad

D&RGW Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad

DOI Department of the Interior

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FTE Full-Time Employee

FY Fiscal Year

GIS Geographic Information System

GMP General Management Plan

GMUG Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests

GPRA Government Performance and Review Act

IP Implementation Plan

IRC Internal Revenue Code
ACRONYMS

xx CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

JAME Joint Agency Management Eff ort

LARS Land Acquisition Ranking System

LCS List of Classifi ed Structures

LLC Limited Liability Corporation

LPP Land Protection Plan

LUR Land Use Regulation

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund

MGM Money Generation Model

MIS Management Indicator Species

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MWAC Midwest Archeological Center

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

NDIS Natural Diversity Information Source

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMPM New Mexico Principal Meridian

NOI Notice of Intent

NPS National Park Service

NRA National Recreation Area

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

ONPS Operation of the National Park Service

PBR Preliminary Boundary Recommendation

PILT Payment in Lieu of Taxes

Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation

ROW Right-of-Way or Rights-of-Way

RPS Resource Protection Study

RTCA Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program

SGA Special Geographic Area

SWA State Wildlife Area

TPI Total Personal Income

TPL Trust for Public Land

UCRSP Upper Colorado River Storage Project

U.S. 50 U.S. Highway Route 50

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

UVWUA Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association

Western Western Area Power Administration

WPRS Water and Power Resources Service

FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 1

 PURPOSE OF AND NEED 

FOR ACTION

 INTRODUCTION, AND BRIEF

DESCRIPTION OF CURECANTI NATIONAL

RECREATION AREA

The area administered as Curecanti National 

Recreation Area (NRA) is located in Gunnison 

and Montrose Counties in southwestern 

Colorado along the Gunnison River, as 

shown on the Regional Overview map. It 

is approximately 40 miles long from east to 

west, and is comprised of 41,790 acres of 

federal lands and waters. The NRA provides 

recreational opportunities in a spectacular 

geological setting, amidst a variety of natural, 

cultural, and scenic resources.

Today, primary visitor access to the NRA 

is via US Highway 50, which transects the 

NRA in a general east-west orientation. The 

nearest major towns are Gunnison, located 

on US 50 about fi ve miles east of the NRA; 

and Montrose, west of the NRA, located on 

US 50 about twenty miles from the Cimarron 

visitor center. The NRA can also be accessed 

via Colorado State Highway 92, which enters 

from the northwest and continues along the 

northern edge of the NRA, until it terminates 

at US 50 near Blue Mesa Dam; and via 

Colorado State Highway 149, which enters 

from the southeast, ending at US 50, on the 

east side of Blue Mesa Reservoir. These roads 

are shown on all fold-out maps.

In addition to the three major highways 

entering the NRA, there is a network of 

 Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), 

National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), US Forest Service 

(USFS), and county roads within and/or 

surrounding the NRA, most of which are open 

to public use. This highway and road system 

serves regional and local traffi c. In addition, 

utility access roads exist for the primary 

purpose of serving Western Area Power 

Administration’s (Western) system of electric 

transmission lines. Also, some access to private 

property occurs on private roads and drives 

that preexisted the NRA (i.e., grandfathered 

use), or that have since been permitted by the 

administering federal agency. 

CO 92 and US 50 (east of CO 92 intersection) 

are part of the West Elk Loop, designated by 

the Colorado Department of Transportation 

(CDOT) as a state scenic and historic byway. 

The scenic byway program is a collaborative 

eff ort to help recognize, preserve, and enhance 

selected roads throughout the United States, 

due to their scenic and/or historic values.

There are no active railroads present within 

or adjacent to the NRA. However, the Denver 

and Rio Grande Railroad historically provided 

both freight and passenger service between 

Gunnison and Montrose, as well as between 

Sapinero and Lake City. Both narrow-gauge 

lines began service in the 1880’s. The Lake 

City line was abandoned in the mid-1930s, 

while the Gunnison-to-Montrose line was 

abandoned in the late 1940s.

Curecanti NRA includes three reservoirs, 

named for corresponding dams on the 

Gunnison River: Blue Mesa Dam and 

Reservoir; Morrow Point Dam and Reservoir; 

and Crystal Dam and Reservoir, as shown 

on the Existing Conditions map. These three 

dams and reservoirs make up the Wayne N. 

Aspinall Storage Unit ( Aspinall Unit), named 

after the Colorado congressman instrumental 

in implementing the project. The Aspinall 

Unit is one of the four main units of the 

 Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) that 

was authorized by Congress in 1956. The other 

Soap Creek arm of Blue Mesa Reservoir is representative 

of the spectacular geological setting of Curecanti NRA for 

land- and water-based recreation

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

2 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Grand Junction

Colorado Springs

Denver

Pueblo

Walsenburg

Trinidad

Colorado

National

Monument

Dinosaur

National

Monument

Durango

Alamosa

Pagosa Springs

Salida

Buena Vista

Dillon

Montrose

Hotchkiss

Rocky Mountain

National Park

Mesa Verde

National Park

Great Sand Dunes

National Park & Preserve

Florissant Fossil Beds

National Monument

Black Canyon of the Gunnison

National Park

Curecanti National

Recreation Area

Gunnison

WYOMING

NEW MEXICO

UTAH

Fort Collins

COLORADO

COLORADO

Gunnison Gorge

National Conservation Area

Lake City

Delta

Crested Butte

Curecanti National

Recreation Area

REGIONAL OVERVIEW

RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY

CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Gunnison and Montrose Counties, Colorado

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

20 0 20 40 60

Miles

 IMDE 616

4/18/2005 20,019

FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 5

large dams in this project include Navajo Dam 

in New Mexico, Flaming Gorge Dam in Utah, 

and Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona. A primary 

purpose of this project is to provide storage 

of water for benefi cial consumptive use by 

the Upper Colorado River Basin states of 

Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico and Utah.

The CRSP Act provides for public recreational 

facilities, and fi sh and wildlife propagation 

facilities in connection with the CRSP. Section 

8 of the Act states, “In connection with the 

development of the Colorado River storage 

project and the participating projects, the 

Secretary [of the Interior] is authorized 

and directed to investigate, plan, construct, 

operate, and maintain (1) public recreational 

facilities on lands withdrawn or acquired 

for the development of said project or of 

said participating projects, to conserve the 

scenery, the natural, historic, and archeologic 

objects, and the wildlife on said lands, and 

to provide for public use and enjoyment of 

the same and of the water areas created by 

these projects by such means as are consistent 

with the primary purposes of said projects; 

and (2) facilities to mitigate losses of, and 

improve conditions for, the propagation of fi sh 

and wildlife. The Secretary of the Interior is 

authorized to acquire lands and to withdraw 

public lands from entry or other disposition 

under the public land laws necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of 

the facilities herein provided, and to dispose of 

them to Federal, State, and local governmental 

agencies by lease, transfer, exchange, or 

conveyance upon such terms and conditions 

as will best promote their development and 

operation in the public interest. All costs 

incurred pursuant to this section shall be 

nonreimbursable and nonreturnable”(70 Stat. 

110; 43 U.S.C. § 620(g)).

In 1958, the Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) and the National Park 

Service (NPS) jointly made a request to the 

Secretary of the Interior for NPS to be given 

the responsibility for carrying out Section 8, 

“except, of course, as it relates to provision 

number (2) concerning fi sh and wildlife.” 

The Secretary of the Interior, Fred A. Seaton, 

approved the request. (Memorandum dated 

February 17, 1958, from Conrad L. Wirth, 

Director, NPS, to Secretary of the Interior; 

Subject: Designation of Responsibility for 

Carrying Out the Provisions of Section 8, 

Public Law 485, Colorado River Storage 

Project and Participating Projects; concurred 

by Alfred R. Golze, Commissioner of 

Reclamation, on March 12, 1958; approved by 

Fred A. Seaton, Secretary of the Interior, on 

April 21, 1958.)

In 1965, pursuant to the Secretary’s delegation, 

congressional authority at 16 U.S.C. § 17j-2(b), 

and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

with Reclamation, NPS began managing 

recreation and certain other resources within 

the Aspinall Unit. Over time, the area became 

known as Curecanti National Recreation 

Area. Under the MOA, Reclamation has 

overall responsibility for the Aspinall Unit, 

including operating and maintaining the 

dams, reservoirs, associated power plants, 

and related facilities. Since 1977, Western Area 

Power Administration (Western) has operated 

and maintained the power transmission 

system and has marketed the power generated 

at the Aspinall Unit. NPS manages the 

natural and cultural resources, recreational 

opportunities, and associated facilities on and 

adjacent to the reservoirs within the NRA.

The existing NRA has a federal government 

boundary around it, most of which is 

Reclamation land that was withdrawn or 

acquired for project purposes, but some 

of which is recently acquired NPS land. 

The NRA has not been offi cially designated 

by Congress as a National Recreation 

Area, although it is recognized as such in 

federal legislation pertaining to it. Thus, the 

NRA has no legislated boundary. For this 

reason, throughout this document, the term 

“boundary,” when used in reference to the 

existing NRA, should be interpreted as an 

informal descriptor, and not as an offi cial 

line authorized by Congress. Lands which 

comprise the current NRA are shown on the 

Existing Conditions map.

In 1978, Reclamation lands in the East 

Portal area were added to the NRA, 

whereas NPS agreed to manage said lands 

INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

6 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

pursuant to the 1965 MOA. This addition, 

as part of the Uncompahgre Project, is 

subject to Federal Reclamation laws (Act 

of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and Acts 

amendatory thereof or supplementary 

thereto), but not the CRSP Act of 1956. The 

Crystal Dam Access Road, however, which 

runs through the area, is covered under 

the CRSP Act of 1956, since it replaced the 

prior East Portal access road as part of the 

Crystal Dam construction. Recreational use 

and fish and wildlife enhancement of nonCRSP lands are covered by Public Law 89-

72, as amended by Title XXVIII of Public 

Law 106-575.

 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This Curecanti NRA Resource Protection 

Study (RPS) is being conducted in response 

to Section 11 of the Black Canyon of the 

Gunnison National Park and Gunnison 

Gorge National Conservation Area Act of 

1999 (Public Law 106-76). Key sections of that 

legislation appear in Appendix C. Section 11 

states that the Secretary of the Interior, acting 

through the Director of the National Park 

Service, shall conduct a study concerning 

land protection and open space within and 

adjacent to the area administered as the 

Curecanti National Recreation Area. More 

specifi cally, Section 11 states that the purpose 

of the study is to:

 Assess the natural, cultural, 

recreational, and scenic resource 

value and character of the land within 

and surrounding Curecanti NRA 

(including open vistas, wildlife habitat, 

and other public benefi ts);

 Identify practicable alternatives 

that protect the resource value and 

character of the land within and 

surrounding the Curecanti National 

Recreation Area;

 Recommend a variety of economically 

feasible and viable tools to achieve the 

purposes described in paragraphs (1) 

and (2); and

 Estimate the costs of implementing the 

approaches recommended by the study.

The Act authorizing this study instructs the 

Secretary of the Interior to submit a report to 

Congress that:

 Contains the fi ndings of the study;

 Makes recommendations to Congress 

with respect to the fi ndings of the 

study; and

 Makes recommendations to Congress 

regarding action that may be taken 

with respect to the land described in 

the report.

As a component of the RPS, an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) is 

being prepared by NPS, with Reclamation as 

a cooperating agency. The required Report 

to Congress, or Report, will be sent to 

Congress after the EIS process is completed. 

This process will conclude with a Record 

of Decision (ROD) that documents the 

National Park Service’s selected alternative. 

The ROD will be released no sooner than 

30 days following the release date of this 

Final RPS/EIS, which is the date that the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s Notice 

of Availability appears in the Federal 

Register. The Report will be coauthored 

by NPS and Reclamation. NPS, as the lead 

agency, will then submit the Report to the 

Secretary of the Interior, who will in turn 

submit it to Congress. The Report will 

summarize the study’s findings and make 

recommendations. Implementation of 

those recommendations will then depend 

on congressional action. The Final RPS/EIS 

and the Record of Decision will accompany 

the Report. If the Record of Decision finds 

that Congress should pass new legislation 

for the NRA, the Report will identify issues 

to be addressed in that new legislation. In 

other words, the Secretary of the Interior 

will make the recommendation to Congress, 

based on recommendations developed by 

NPS and Reclamation.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 7

 NEED FOR THE STUDY

Many issues and concerns resulted in the 

need for this study. Although a 1997 General 

Management Plan (GMP) was prepared for the 

NRA (NPS 1997), it focused on management of 

resources within the NRA and did not evaluate 

resource values in areas surrounding Curecanti, 

which is now the requirement of the legislative 

mandate for this study.

Beginning in the early 1900s and into the late 

1960s, Reclamation withdrew public lands 

along the Gunnison River for several proposed 

or potential Reclamation projects. During this 

time period, additional withdrawals were made 

along the river for potential power-generation 

sites. These withdrawals closed these lands to 

entry under the U.S. mining laws and various 

disposition laws in order to keep them available 

for reclamation and power purposes.

After the Curecanti (now Aspinall) Unit 

was authorized for construction in 1956, 

Reclamation began acquiring private lands 

necessary for the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the Aspinall Unit. Additional 

lands and land interests in the vicinity of 

the Aspinall Unit were subsequently also 

withdrawn or acquired to mitigate the loss of 

wildlife habitat and stream fi sheries resulting 

from construction of the Unit. With the 

NEED FOR THE STUDY

In evaluating the congressional requirements and as a result of the public involvement 

process, NPS has summarized some important considerations relating to this study.

First, what this study is about:

 Finding ways that will allow NPS to work more eff ectively in partnership with 

neighboring private landowners and others to conserve the natural, cultural, 

recreational, and scenic resources and character of the land within and 

surrounding Curecanti NRA.

 As the study evolved, it became clear that it should evaluate whether or not to 

recommend to Congress that the NRA be formally established, with a legislated 

boundary; what changes should be made to the boundary; and what agency or 

agencies should be responsible for managing the NRA.

And second, what this study is not about:

 Making recommendations pertaining to water rights. It was the intent of the 

“ Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National 

Conservation Area Act of 1999,” hence the intent of this Resource Protection 

Study authorized by Section 11 of that act, that it not create an express or 

implied reservation of water for any purpose; that nothing aff ect any water 

rights in existence, including any water rights held by the United States; and 

that any new water rights be established in accordance with the procedural 

and substantive requirements of the laws of the State of Colorado. Thus, 

water rights is a legal issue, and will not be addressed in this study, other than 

to state that water rights would be specifi cally addressed as a condition of 

any future sale and/or exchange of property that may occur pursuant to the 

recommendations of this study.

 Operations of Reclamation projects.

 Infringing on the rights of landowners.

 Making any recommendation that would use condemnation or other tools not 

in partnership and cooperation with private landowners.
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

8 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

exception of those mitigation lands, the lands 

considered necessary for Reclamation projects 

were withdrawn or acquired for general 

Reclamation project purposes. However, during 

this process of land withdrawal and acquisition, 

little or no consideration was given to the 

potential for expanding land-based recreational 

opportunities that might be associated with an 

emerging NRA. This study now provides the 

platform for that consideration.

Over the past 50 years, it has become apparent 

that natural, cultural, recreational, and scenic 

resources beyond the current NRA should 

be evaluated for conservation and possible 

inclusion within a legislated boundary for 

Curecanti NRA. Many of these resources have 

the potential to provide enhanced recreational 

opportunities for the visitor. Scenic resources 

surrounding the current NRA are contributing 

factors to visitor enjoyment.

Development on private lands surrounding 

the NRA is on the increase. Local and regional 

concerns exist regarding the potential for 

sprawling development related to primary 

and secondary homes, particularly given the 

ongoing population growth and increase 

in assessed land values in many mountain 

communities. Compared to other mountain 

communities, particularly in the vicinity of 

NPS areas and ski resort communities, the 

area surrounding Curecanti has seen only 

minimal development. However, if additional 

development occurs near Curecanti without 

concern for the cumulative impacts to natural 

and cultural resources and to the magnifi cent 

natural vistas that contribute so much to 

the attractiveness of this area, the national 

signifi cance of the NRA could be diminished.

Because of the presence of three reservoirs 

within the recreation area, and because the 

NRA included relatively little upland beyond 

the shores of the three reservoirs, the NRA’s 

focus has been primarily on the provision 

of water-based recreation opportunities. 

However, surrounding the NRA, opportunities 

exist for land-based recreation to a greater 

extent than already provided within the 

NRA. Some of those opportunities can be 

found on land already administered by other 

government agencies, including the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM), Colorado Division 

of Wildlife (CDOW), and the U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS). Potential opportunities exist 

on private land surrounding the NRA. There is 

a need to evaluate these existing and potential 

recreation and interpretive opportunities that 

would contribute to the NRA’s purpose and 

that would provide visitors to the NRA with 

a more diverse experience, adding to their 

understanding, appreciation, and enjoyment 

of area resources. One of the goals of this 

study is to consult with neighboring agencies 

to determine if some of these opportunities 

are appropriate to include within an expanded 

NRA; and to provide an avenue for the National 

Park Service to work cooperatively with private 

landowners to realize this potential.

In addition to the above issues, there are 

a few specifi c items that this study and its 

implementation should address. These 

include: (1) mitigation of boundary issues 

and inadvertent private encroachment onto 

the NRA, based on inaccurate or incomplete 

land surveys (examples exist near Sapinero, 

Lake Fork Cove, and East Cimarron); and (2) 

legislative clarifi cation of the responsibilities 

of NPS in administering certain resources in 

the NRA. Important decisions must also be 

made regarding how to conserve lands and 

resources adjacent to the NRA in cooperation 

and partnership with landowners, counties, 

and other federal and state agencies.

 FOUNDATION FOR THE STUDY

The management of units within the 

national park system is guided by agencywide and unit-specifi c laws, regulations, 

and policies; and includes the development 

of purpose, signifi cance, mission, and goal 

statements for each NPS unit. At Curecanti 

NRA, management is also guided by 

Reclamation laws, regulations, policies, 

purpose, signifi cance, mission, and goals. 

Understanding this guidance has been 

fundamental to conducting this study. Laws, 

policies, and regulations that guide the 

management of specifi c resources within the 

NRA are listed later in this chapter under 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 9

“Impact Topics,” in the Environmental 

Consequences chapter by impact topic, and in 

Appendix C. Also included in Appendix C is 

the 1965 MOA between NPS and Reclamation.

 NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

SPECIAL MANDATES

In addition to agency-wide laws, regulations, 

and policies that govern the management 

of NPS areas, most NPS units have special 

mandates that must be followed, such as the 

unit’s enabling legislation, and agreements 

with other agencies. Because of the manner 

by which Curecanti NRA was created, and 

the prior existence on site of the Bureau of 

Reclamation, the most important special 

mandate that infl uences NPS management at 

the NRA is the recognition of, and adherence 

to, Reclamation’s own agency-wide and 

project-specifi c mandates.

In general, Reclamation’s mission is to 

manage, develop, and protect water and 

related resources in an environmentally and 

economically sound manner in the interest 

of the American public. (A more detailed 

description of Reclamation Project Purpose, 

Signifi cance, Mission, and Goals, appears 

later in this chapter, under the subheading 

of “Reclamation Special Mandates.”). To 

accomplish that mission, Reclamation must 

have administrative jurisdiction of its lands, 

land interests, water and water interests, 

and facilities necessary to fulfi ll and protect 

the authorized purposes of its respective 

projects. Other users and uses may be 

allowed on Reclamation-administered lands 

as long as they are compatible or consistent 

with a project’s primary purposes or the 

purpose for which Reclamation obtained the 

lands or land interests.

Most of the lands within the current NRA, 

and some adjacent lands, consist of public 

lands that Reclamation has withdrawn 

from other uses, and private lands acquired 

by Reclamation, all for the operation and 

management of the Aspinall Unit of the 

CRSP and the Uncompahgre Project. These 

lands and facilities are shown on the Existing 

Conditions map. NPS manages recreation and 

certain other resources on Reclamation lands 

and land interests shown within the NRA in 

accordance with the 1965 Memorandum of 

Agreement between Reclamation and NPS.

 NRA PURPOSE 

The NRA purpose statement is the most 

fundamental criterion against which 

the appropriateness of all the study’s 

recommendations is tested. Although 

Curecanti NRA is not offi cially designated by 

Congress as a National Recreation Area, the 

basic purpose of the area is interpreted from 

the 1965 Memorandum of Agreement between 

NPS and Reclamation, as well as from Section 

8 of the CRSP Act and P.L. 89-72, as amended. 

Confi rmed in the 1997 General Management 

Plan for the NRA, the purpose of Curecanti 

NRA is:

 To conserve the scenery, natural and 

cultural resources, and wildlife of 

Curecanti NRA

 To manage the lands, waters, fi sh and 

wildlife, and recreational activities 

of Curecanti NRA by means that 

are consistent with Reclamation 

law, as amended and supplemented, 

including the purposes of the CRSP 

Act and the Uncompahgre Project, and 

Reclamation agreements aff ecting the 

operation of the Aspinall Unit and the 

 Uncompahgre Project

 To provide for public understanding, 

use, and enjoyment in such a way 

as to ensure resource conservation 

and visitor safety by establishing and 

maintaining facilities and providing 

protective and interpretive services.

 NRA SIGNIFICANCE

Signifi cance statements capture the essence 

of a NPS unit’s importance to the nation’s 

natural and cultural heritage, and recognize 

the importance of the unique recreational and 

scenic resources in the area. Understanding 

NATIONAL RECREATION AREA SPECIAL MANDATES
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

10 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

signifi cance will help decision-makers 

determine those lands adjacent to Curecanti 

NRA that will provide signifi cant resources and 

opportunities for public understanding and 

enjoyment, and that will help conserve area 

resources critical to fulfi lling the unit’s purpose.

 Water resources, including three 

reservoirs that provide a variety 

of recreational opportunities in a 

spectacular geological setting

The element of water has created 

majestic landforms at Curecanti, 

provided for the evolution of life since 

prehistoric times, and now provides a 

variety of recreational opportunities. 

Three dams unique in concept and 

construction were built between 

1962 and 1976 to provide water 

storage, fl ood control, hydroelectric 

power, and other purposes. Thus, 

three reservoirs were created, which 

have provided for public recreation 

in keeping with Section 8 of the 

Colorado River Storage Project Act.

The highest reservoir, Blue Mesa, is 

the largest in Colorado and one of the 

largest high-altitude bodies of water 

in the United States. It provides an 

exciting diversity of water recreation, 

in a spectacular geological setting 

of pinnacles, bluff s, and mesas. The 

lower two reservoirs, Morrow Point 

and Crystal, are in the upper reaches 

of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison 

– one of the world’s premier steepwalled canyons. The remarkably clear 

water of the three reservoirs provides 

one of the best cold-water fi sheries in 

Colorado, attracting enthusiasts from 

throughout the nation and off ering a 

diversity of game fi sh.

 Geological, paleontological, and other 

natural resources, including abundant 

wildlife and fi sheries

The rock formations and canyons of 

Curecanti tell a story of violent volcanic 

activity, erosion, and geologic change 

that has occurred over the course of 2 

billion years. The scenic resources of 

the canyons, the needles, the pinnacles, 

the cliff s, the mesas, and the reservoirs 

provide dramatic contrast, off ering 

visitors an opportunity to pause and 

refl ect on the diversity of the landscape 

and its spaciousness.

Exposures of the Morrison Formation 

contain fossil evidence of the Mesozoic 

Era. Dinosaur bones have been found; 

and there is evidence that musk ox, 

cave lions, and cheetah roamed Blue 

Mesa during the ice ages.

Today, Curecanti protects existing 

and potential breeding habitat for 

numerous sensitive species, such as 

the bald eagle and peregrine falcon. 

The NRA provides critical winter 

range for elk, deer, and bighorn. Blue 

Mesa Reservoir is Colorado’s largest 

body of water, and is the largest 

kokanee salmon fi shery in the United 

States. Pristine tributaries provide 

an opportunity to reintroduce and 

establish breeding populations of 

native Colorado River cutthroat trout.

 10,000-year continuum of

human culture

The stories of human culture in the 

Curecanti area are recorded in the 

traces left by American Indians, 

miners, railroaders, ranchers, and 

dam builders. Archeological fi nds date 

back to some of the oldest villages 

found in North America, predating the 

pyramids. These signs document not 

only the human struggles to survive, 

but also how changes in human 

value systems, economies, society, 

technology, and the importance of 

water have shaped the use of the land 

and the character of its people.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 11

 NRA MISSION

The mission of Curecanti NRA is to conserve, 

protect, and interpret the nationally signifi cant 

and diverse natural, cultural, and scenic 

resources of Curecanti, balanced with 

the provision of outstanding recreational 

opportunities, and consistent with the purposes 

of the CRSP Act and other applicable laws, 

and to manage the area as a part of the greater 

riverine ecosystem, coordinating with other 

land-management agencies.

 NRA MISSION GOALS

Mission Goals for Curecanti NRA include 

the following.

 The natural, cultural, and scenic 

resources of the NRA are known, and 

its conditions are assessed. A process is 

in place to detect changes. High quality 

scientifi c, historic, and archeological 

information is available to guide 

management actions. Eff orts are 

made to conserve resources beyond 

NRA boundaries when authorized 

by Congress and agreed upon by 

landowners, and through cooperative 

eff orts with neighboring landmanagement agencies. Management 

actions, including mitigation, 

restoration, and maintenance, seek to 

preserve natural processes, cultural 

resources, and important scenic 

resources in perpetuity, while allowing 

compatible public use.

 The NRA is a leader in providing high 

quality, safe, diverse, and appropriate 

recreational opportunities that serve 

all population groups. Eff orts are made 

to work cooperatively with neighbors 

(private landowners and government 

agencies) to provide a seamless 

recreational experience compatible 

with resource conservation goals 

and objectives. NRA staff provides 

educational opportunities that inform, 

inspire, and promote stewardship.

 The staff fosters support by encouraging 

the general public to actively participate 

in the conservation and use of the 

NRA and to understand issues through 

outreach, educational seminars, 

partnerships, and volunteer experiences.

 The staff strives to increase 

organizational effi ciencies by: 

facilitating excellent communications 

among and within divisions; 

developing and retaining high-quality 

staff that know and support the NRA 

mission; supporting and encouraging 

work across division lines and valuing 

the work of all employees; and 

providing incentives to have employees 

work safely, effi ciently, 

and economically.

 Necessary and appropriate facilities 

are provided to support NRA 

operations and visitor needs. Area 

assets are improved, and a preventative 

maintenance program is in place to 

maintain them in good condition.

 NRA INTERPRETIVE THEMES

Interpretive themes are the fundamental 

stories that can be told about area resources, 

and that can give the visitor a better 

understanding of the national signifi cance of 

the NRA. The primary interpretive themes are 

as follows.

 The rock formations within Curecanti 

NRA document 1.7 billion years of the 

geologic processes that have created 

this landscape, with the Morrison 

formation providing fossil evidence of 

some of the region’s earliest plant and 

animal inhabitants.

 The traces, tracks, and artifacts of 

American Indians, miners, railroaders, 

explorers, and ranchers preserved 

in the NRA, document not only the 

human struggles to survive, but also 

how changing human value systems, 

technology, and the importance 

of water have shaped the use and 

character of the land and its people.

 The three reservoirs, the semiarid, 

sagebrush-covered mesas, the 

NATIONAL RECREATION AREA SPECIAL MANDATES
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

12 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Gunnison River, and the steep walls 

of the Black Canyon, provide a crucial 

habitat for a diversity of plant species 

and resident and migratory animal 

species. The viewsheds, including 

the dark night sky of the NRA, are 

recognized as primary resources; and 

management actively pursues the 

preservation of their quality.

 The three reservoirs of the Aspinall 

Unit, located within Curecanti NRA, 

embody the major uses of managed 

water—water storage, fl ood control, 

hydroelectric power, and recreation.

 RECLAMATION SPECIAL MANDATES

 RECLAMATION PROJECT 

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Facilities, lands, land interests, and water for 

two constructed and operating Reclamation 

projects, the Uncompahgre Project and 

the Aspinall Unit of the CRSP, are present 

within and immediately adjacent to the NRA. 

Reclamation law provides for the operation, 

maintenance, and replacement of project 

facilities in order to meet Reclamation’s 

mission and its projects’ primary purposes. 

Reclamation law also provides for the use of 

Reclamation lands and water areas for outdoor 

recreation, fi sh and wildlife enhancement, and 

other resource-related activities, in a manner 

that is consistent, or compatible with, primary 

project purposes. NPS currently administers 

recreational use and certain other resources 

on Reclamation lands within the NRA 

pursuant to Reclamation law and a 1965 MOA 

with Reclamation.

Most of the lands within the existing NRA, 

and some of the lands adjacent to but outside 

of the NRA, are Reclamation lands. These are 

lands withdrawn or acquired for, and available 

to, Reclamation and its managing partners, 

as necessary, for the construction, operation, 

maintenance, and replacement of facilities for 

Reclamation projects. Public lands along the 

Gunnison River were being withdrawn for 

water and power purposes from the early 1900s 

up to the late 1960s. Private lands in the area 

have been acquired for Reclamation purposes 

from the mid-1900s to the early 2000s.

Reclamation law, including PL 89-72 

as amended by Title XXVIII of PL 102-

575, allows recreation and other uses 

on Reclamation project lands and water 

areas so long as such uses are compatible 

and coordinated with a project’s primary 

purposes. Another Federal agency may 

administer Reclamation lands and water areas 

for recreation, fi sh and wildlife enhancement, 

and other resource management, protection, 

and enhancement, where those lands are 

included, or proposed for inclusion, in an 

NRA. Reclamation may enter into agreements 

for such administration upon such terms 

and conditions as will best promote the 

development and operation of such lands or 

facilities in the public interest for recreation, 

fi sh and wildlife enhancement, and resource 

protection and enhancement purposes 

while protecting Reclamation interests. NPS 

currently administers recreational use and 

certain other resources on Reclamation lands 

within the NRA. All lands within the NRA 

that are not Reclamation withdrawn lands are 

managed by NPS, some under agreement with 

other agencies.

 Uncompahgre Project 

The Uncompahgre Project (originally called 

the Gunnison Project) was authorized by the 

Secretary of the Interior on March 14, 1903, 

pursuant to the Reclamation Act of 1902. 

Construction of the initial project began in 

1904 and was completed in 1912. Rehabilitation 

of the project and construction of the Taylor 

Park Dam were approved by President 

Roosevelt on November 6, 1935. Taylor Park 

Dam was completed in 1937 (PWRS 1981).

Project features include Taylor Park Dam 

and Reservoir, the Gunnison Tunnel, seven 

diversion dams, 128 miles of canals, 438 miles 

of laterals, and 216 miles of drains. Gunnison 

River water is diverted at East Portal through 

the Gunnison Tunnel to the Uncompahgre 

Valley (PWRS 1981). Water from Taylor Park 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 13

Reservoir passes through the Aspinall Unit to 

the Gunnison Diversion Dam at East Portal.

The Uncompahgre Project provides about 

650,000 acre-feet of water annually from the 

Gunnison and Uncompahgre Rivers to the 

Uncompahgre Valley for agricultural irrigation 

on about 80,000 acres of land. Since 1970, 

about 343,000 acre-feet of project water has 

been diverted annually from the Gunnison 

River at East Portal. The 15-year average for 

agricultural crops from the Uncompahgre 

Project is $20 million per year.

The Uncompahgre Valley Water Users 

Association and the Tri-County Water 

Conservation District have an exchange 

agreement whereby up to 20,000 acre-feet of 

Gunnison River water from the Uncompahgre 

Project may be exchanged annually for 

municipal and industrial purposes at 

Montrose for an equal credit of Uncompahgre 

River water from Ridgway Reservoir. About 

8,500 acre feet are currently being exchanged 

annually under this agreement.

 Aspinall Unit, Colorado River Storage Project 

The construction, operation, and maintenance 

of the Colorado River Storage Project, 

including the Aspinall Unit (originally the 

Curecanti Unit), was authorized by the CRSP 

Act of April 11, 1956 (P.L. 84-485). Section 1 

of that act states that the CRSP was for “. . 

. the purposes, among others, of regulating 

the fl ow of the Colorado River, storing water 

for benefi cial consumptive use, making it 

possible for the States of the Upper Basin to 

utilize, consistently with the provisions of the 

Colorado River Compact, the apportionments 

made to, and among them, in the Colorado 

River Basin Compact and the Upper Colorado 

River Basin Compact, respectively, providing 

for the reclamation of arid and semiarid 

land, for the control of fl oods, and for the 

generation of hydroelectric power, as an 

incident to the foregoing purposes . . .” 

Section 8 of the CRSP Act of 1956 provides 

the authority and some direction for public 

recreational facilities and fi sh and wildlife 

propagation facilities in connection with 

the CRSP. The provisions of Section 8 are 

described in the opening section of this chapter 

on Introduction, and Brief Description of 

Curecanti National Recreation Area.

Construction of the Aspinall Unit commenced 

in 1962 with the start of Blue Mesa Dam, 

which was completed in 1966. Morrow Point 

Dam was begun in 1963 and completed in 

1968. Power generation began at Blue Mesa 

in September 1967 and at Morrow Point in 

December 1970. Construction on Crystal Dam 

began in 1973 and was completed in 1976. 

Crystal began power generation in July 1978.

Recreational opportunities on Reclamation 

lands within and adjacent to the NRA include, 

but are not necessarily limited to, camping, 

boating, stream and reservoir fi shing, hunting, 

picnicking, hiking, sightseeing, and wildlife 

viewing. Recreation development for the 

 Aspinall Unit was included in the initial 

planning for the unit. Initial development on 

 Blue Mesa Reservoir included facilities at 

the Iola site, the Elk Creek site, and the Lake 

Fork site. NPS has subsequently constructed 

additional recreational sites at East Portal; 

at various points along US Highway 50 

and State Highway 92; at Cimarron; in the 

Neversink area; at Gateview, Soap Creek, and 

other locations on the arms of Blue Mesa 

Reservoir; and at other various points along 

the Gunnison River and Crystal and Morrow 

Point Reservoirs. Additional opportunities 

for recreation within the Gunnison Basin are 

provided by lands and land interests acquired 

by Reclamation for wildlife and stream-fi shing 

mitigation related to the Aspinall Unit, and 

which were transferred to, and are managed 

for, such purposes by other agencies.

Reclamation has several agreements and 

contracts which tie Aspinall Unit water rights 

and management to other water uses in the 

Colorado River Basin. In addition to the 

various treaties and river compacts previously 

mentioned, Reclamation has a subordination 

agreement whereby 60,000 acre-feet of 

Aspinall water rights are available for 

benefi cial consumptive use in the Gunnison 

Basin upstream from Crystal Dam. Also, 

Reclamation has sold 500 acre feet of Aspinall 

RECLAMATION SPECIAL MANDATES
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

14 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Unit water to the Upper Gunnison Basin 

Water Conservancy District for its use.

 RECLAMATION PROJECT 

SIGNIFICANCE

 The Aspinall Unit and the 

 Uncompahgre Project play important 

roles in meeting local, regional, 

national, and international water 

allocation and management needs and 

requirements within the Colorado 

River basin. The CRSP provides 

water for the benefi cial consumptive 

use of Upper Colorado River Basin 

states, while helping manage waters 

of the Colorado River Basin to meet 

the terms and conditions of a treaty 

between the United States and Mexico 

and several interstate Colorado River 

compacts. The Uncompahgre Project 

provides water for the reclamation 

of about 80,000 acres of arid and 

semiarid lands in the Uncompahgre 

Valley, with a current annual crop 

value of about $20 million.

 The Aspinall Unit, as part of the CRSP, 

helps regulate the fl ow of the Colorado 

River; stores water for the benefi cial 

consumptive use by the Upper Basin 

states of their various Colorado Rivercompact water apportionments; 

reclaims arid and semiarid land; 

helps control fl oods; and generates 

hydroelectric power.

 The Aspinall Unit reservoirs are a 

very valuable hydroelectric generation 

asset for the western United States. 

CRSP generating units are scheduled 

to follow customer load-requirements, 

including peak-demand periods, as 

closely as possible, utilizing available 

generation capacity and water within 

environmental restrictions. Glen 

Canyon, the largest CRSP-generating 

resource, is scheduled to follow peak 

demands, but often cannot quickly 

follow peaking schedules due to 

environmental ramping restrictions. 

The Aspinall Unit generation units, 

particularly Morrow Point and Blue 

Mesa, are scheduled to skim the peak 

off whatever Glen Canyon is unable to 

follow. While releases from Morrow 

Point and Blue Mesa fl uctuate to meet 

peak-load demands, Crystal Dam 

and power plant operate to stabilize 

Gunnison River fl ows to benefi t the 

downstream environment, which 

includes the Black Canyon of the 

Gunnison National Park.

 Reclamation projects, lands, and water 

areas within, and adjacent to, the NRA, 

provide a portion of the agricultural 

and recreational economic base for 

Delta, Gunnison, and Montrose 

counties, and the gateway communities 

of Montrose and Gunnison.

 Reclamation lands and water areas 

were the initial basis for the NRA, 

and they provide a large majority of 

the basis for both the current and 

proposed NRAs.

 Reclamation lands and water areas 

within and adjacent to the NRA provide 

many opportunities for outdoor 

recreation. These opportunities 

include, but are not necessarily 

limited to, fi shing, boating, hunting, 

wildlife watching, hiking, camping, 

horseback riding, historic and cultural 

interpretation, cross-country skiing, 

wildlife viewing, and sightseeing.

 Reclamation land and water areas 

within and adjacent to the current 

NRA provide many opportunities 

for fi sh and wildlife enhancement. 

The reservoirs and river segments in 

the NRA provide a signifi cant cold 

water fi shery. Undeveloped lands 

provide year-round and/or seasonal 

habitat for numerous wildlife species, 

including the Gunnison Sage-grouse, 

Gunnison’s prairie dog, elk, mule deer, 

big horn sheep, bald eagle, peregrine 

falcon, to name a few. Some lands 

were acquired by Reclamation, using 

Section 8 money to meet the purpose 

of wildlife mitigation for the Aspinall 

Unit. Some of these lands, such as the 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 15

area near Neversink, are still within the 

NRA, while others were transferred to 

CDOW to be managed as a part of the 

State Wildlife System.

 RECLAMATION MISSION

Reclamation’s mission is to manage, develop, 

and protect water and related resources in 

an environmentally and economically sound 

manner in the interest of the American public.

 RECLAMATION GOALS

 Withdraw, acquire, and retain 

suffi cient lands and land interests to 

meet authorized and planned purposes 

of the respective Reclamation projects, 

and to eff ectively construct, operate, 

maintain, replace, and enhance (if, 

and when, necessary) those projects, 

as well as the purposes for which the 

lands were acquired.

 Retain administrative jurisdiction 

over all Reclamation lands and land 

interests, water and water interests, 

and facilities, including unrestricted 

access to the same, to accomplish its 

mission and to construct, operate, 

maintain, replace, and protect project 

facilities, purposes, resources, and 

operations.

 Retain Reclamation facilities, lands, 

and land interests, and the ability to 

use same for project purposes until 

such time as Reclamation determines 

such facilities, lands, and land interests 

are no longer necessary for project 

purposes. Then Reclamation may 

dispose of or transfer such lands or 

land interests in a manner best suited 

to a given parcel or facility.

 Provide for public recreation facilities 

to conserve the scenery, the natural, 

historic, and archeologic objects, 

and the wildlife on Reclamation 

lands and to provide for the public 

enjoyment of said lands and water 

areas created by Reclamation projects 

by such means as are consistent 

with the primary purposes of said 

projects. The provision for such 

facilities, conservation, and uses are 

generally made through a management 

agreement with another Federal, State, 

or local agency.

 Manage and operate CRSP dams, 

reservoirs, and power plants to meet 

project purposes, and international, 

national, regional, and local 

needs and requirements for water 

apportionments and management, 

including water quantity and 

hydroelectric power generation.

 To the fullest extent possible, keep 

the administrative jurisdiction 

for recreation and other resource 

management on a contiguous block of 

Reclamation lands with one agency.

 Coordinate the use and management 

of Reclamation lands, land interests, 

water and water interests, facilities, and 

associated resources with its managing 

partners, adjacent land-management 

agencies, and local entities through upto-date management agreements and 

periodic coordination meetings.

 WESTERN AREA POWER

ADMINISTRATION (DEPARTMENT OF

ENERGY) SPECIAL MANDATES

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

One of the stated purposes of the Colorado 

River Storage Project (CRSP), passed by 

Congress on April 11, 1956, was “for the 

generation of hydroelectric power.” The 

Secretary of the Interior was instructed to 

construct, operate, and maintain Colorado 

River storage units (dams, reservoirs, power 

plants, transmission facilities and appurtenant 

works) at Curecanti (subsequently designated 

the Wayne N. Aspinall Storage Unit on 

October 3, 1980), Flaming Gorge, Navajo and 

Glen Canyon.

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION SPECIAL MANDATES
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

16 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

The responsibility for transmission and 

marketing of power was subsequently passed 

to the Secretary of Energy, per Section 

302 of the Department of Energy (DOE) 

Organization Act of 1977. This act transferred 

“all functions of the Secretary of the Interior 

under Section 5 of the Flood Control Act 

of 1944, and all other functions of the 

Secretary of the Interior . . . with respect to 

the power marketing functions of the Bureau 

of Reclamation, including the construction, 

operation, and maintenance of transmission 

lines and attendant facilities.” This section 

of the act goes on to state that the power 

marketing functions shall be exercised by 

the Secretary of Energy acting through a 

separate and distinct administration within the 

department.

Previously, the Flood Control Act of 1944 

authorized the Secretary of the Interior to 

construct or acquire necessary transmission 

lines and related facilities to deliver power 

generated from Corps of Engineers water 

projects. Also, the Reclamation Acts of 1902 

and 1939 serve as further authority for the 

power marketing / transmission role carried 

out by Western Area Power Administration 

(Western).

WESTERN’S MISSION

Western markets and delivers reliable, costbased hydroelectric power and related 

services within a 15-state region of the central 

and western U.S. It is one of four power 

marketing administrations within the U.S. 

Department of Energy, whose role is to market 

and transmit electricity from multi-use water 

projects. Its transmission system carries 

electricity from 57 power plants operated by 

the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers and the International Boundary 

and Water Commission. Together, these plants 

have an installed capacity of 10,395 megawatts.

WESTERN’S GOALS

Western’s mandate is to assure the continuous 

and uninterrupted supply of energy from the 

Curecanti/Aspinall project to its distribution 

partners. It therefore needs to construct, 

operate, and maintain, and have ready 

access to, its existing transmission corridors 

/ facilities. In addition, future demand and 

changing technologies may require the 

establishment of new corridors / rights-of-way 

within the boundaries of Curecanti NRA.

STUDY PROCESS

This study was initiated during the spring 

of 2000 to begin to fulfill the requirements 

of Public Law 106-76. Important steps in 

the study process included data collection 

and analysis; determination of the study 

area; alternatives development, including 

resource conservation and management 

tools and the estimated costs of 

implementing the study recommendations; 

and impact analysis.

 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

The Curecanti NRA Resource Protection 

Study officially began on May 3, 2000, 

when a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare 

an EIS for the RPS appeared in the Federal 

Register. Throughout the study, NPS has 

conducted public and agency scoping 

meetings, produced three newsletters, 

made information available on the NRA’s 

website, and held many meetings and 

workshops with agencies, American Indian 

Tribes, private landowners and other 

stakeholders, elected officials, and the 

general public to address the requirements 

of the legislative mandate to complete the 

Resource Protection Study. Following is a 

brief summary of these activities since the 

project began. A more complete summary 

is included in the Consultation and 

Coordination chapter.

 Public and agency scoping – spring 2000

 Citizens' photo assessment – fall 2000

 Study team and agency work sessions 

– fall 2000 through spring 2001
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 17

 Publication of three newsletters with 

invitations to comment – spring 2001 

through fall 2003

 Recreational Opportunities Workshop 

– winter 2002

 Joint Agency Management Eff ort 

(JAME) – formerly known as Joint 

Agency Management Area (JAMA) – 

spring 2002 to present

 Publication of Toolbox of Incentives 

for Resource Conservation and 

Curecanti: Great Scenery, Outstanding 

Resources and Good Neighbors – 

spring 2003

 Meetings and contacts with 

neighboring landowners – spring 2003 

to present

 Development of preliminary 

alternatives – summer 2003

 Impacts assessed, alternatives 

evaluated, and proposed action 

identifi ed, in consultation with staff 

and neighboring agencies – fall 2003

 Draft RPS/EIS released – summer 

2007.

NPS has met with local, state, tribal, and 

federal agencies and offi cials, including elected 

representatives, to keep them informed of the 

study’s progress and to obtain their input and 

guidance throughout this process.

 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 

A data-gathering and analysis process was 

initiated to “assess the natural, cultural, 

recreational and scenic resource value and 

character of the land within and surrounding 

Curecanti NRA (including open vistas, wildlife 

habitat, and other public benefi ts)” as required 

by Public Law 106-76. A complete description 

of these resources appears in the Aff ected 

Environment chapter.

Data were collected from local, state, and 

federal agencies and groups with land 

stewardship responsibilities on lands 

surrounding Curecanti NRA, or generated by 

staff through computer modeling and public 

workshops. Over 25 categories of data were 

considered during the course of the study:

1. Access Issues

2. Archeological/Historical (Cultural) Sites

3. Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern

4. Boundary/Survey Markers

5. Cottonwood Regeneration/Heron 

Rookery

6. Cultural Landscapes

7. Development within Study Area, but 

Outside the NRA

8. Fisheries, Including Sensitive Species

9. Floodplains/ Wetlands/Riparian/Springs

10. General Development/Existing 

Conditions within the NRA

11. Geology and Geological Hazards

12. Grazing Allotments

13. Hazardous Materials

14. Hunting – Restricted Areas

15. Logging/Woodcutting

16. Minerals/Oil and Gas

17. Ownership/Land Status/Withdrawn 

Lands/Conservation Easements

18. Paleontological Sites

19. Reclamation Facilities

20. Recreational Opportunity Areas

21. Sensitive Species

STUDY PROCESS

“Assess the natural, cultural, 

recreational and scenic resource 

value and character of the land 

within and surrounding Curecanti 

NRA (including open vistas, wildlife 

habitat, and other public benefi ts)”

Public Law 106-76
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

18 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

22. Soils, Including Prime and Unique 

Farmlands, and Lands of Statewide 

Importance

23. Unique Geological Features

24. Vegetation

25. Viewsheds

26. Watersheds and Water Quality

27. Wildlife Habitat.

Natural and Cultural Resources Data

Natural and cultural resources data were readily 

available from local, state, and federal agencies 

and other groups. In addition to descriptions 

of these resources in the Aff ected Environment 

chapter of this document, maps of the resources 

are available at the NRA for inspection.

Recreational Resources Data

Public comments on recreational opportunities 

were solicited via newsletters; and public 

and NRA staff workshops were conducted 

during the course of the study to determine 

what recreational opportunities were available 

locally, which existing and potentially new 

opportunities would be compatible with NRA 

purposes, and where new opportunities could 

be developed. Recreational opportunities 

were categorized into the following 

categories: appropriate, maybe appropriate, 

not appropriate, and other. Determination 

of appropriate recreational activities was 

infl uenced by the NRA’s purpose, signifi cance, 

and mission (identifi ed earlier in this chapter); 

and by chapter 8 in NPS Management Policies 

2006 (see excerpts in Appendix C).

In addition, whatever recreational activities 

are allowed in the NRA, now and in the future, 

must also conform to Reclamation Law, as 

amended and supplemented. 

Comments from newsletters and workshops 

that centered on recreational opportunities 

and locations included the following:

 Preserve the natural, cultural, and scenic 

resources, while providing for recreation

 Provide for longer and more 

connecting trails

 Provide trail access to Curecanti Needle

 Provide for more access to and 

nonmotorized use of Crystal and 

Morrow Point Reservoirs

 Provide more access for backcountry 

camping opportunities in the Soap 

Mesa and Dillon Pinnacles areas

 Provide for more nonmotorized visitor 

use on the south side of Cebolla and 

Iola Basins

 Provide for more motorized access to 

Black Mesa, along with more parking 

along CO 92

 Keep facilities development to 

a minimum

 Provide “seamless” recreational 

opportunities, regardless of which 

agency manages the land

 Respect private property regarding all 

proposed actions, especially for public 

recreational access and use

 The idea of being able to go 

horseback riding regardless of 

boundaries is attractive.

Some examples of areas that appear to have 

strong potential for expanded land-based 

recreational opportunities include:

 Vicinity of Soap Mesa provides unique 

opportunities for future upland 

recreation, including a potential trail to 

scenic overlooks

 Vicinity of Windy Point off ers unique 

scenic and recreation opportunities, 

with overlooks into Blue Creek 

Canyon, Morrow Point Reservoir, the 

Curecanti Needle, and Chipeta Falls; 

trail access to these overlooks would 

provide year-around opportunities for 

hiking and cross-country skiing

 Sapinero Mesa off ers potential 

opportunities for a hiking trail with 

scenic overlooks
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 19

 Vicinity of the south side of Blue Mesa 

Reservoir from Cebolla Creek to Willow 

Creek for hiking and nonmotorized 

biking, fi shing access, and hang gliding 

(Willow Creek area only)

 Vicinity of Curecanti Creek below CO 

92 for fi shing access

 Vicinity between the Lake City Bridge 

and Riverway to provide a future 

hiking and nonmotorized biking trail 

linkage to the City of Gunnison

 In general, opportunities for longer 

and more connecting trails throughout 

the NRA and connections to trails on 

neighboring agency lands.

Management action for implementing ideas 

for expanding recreational opportunities 

in the NRA would be addressed in future 

planning documents (such as a revised general 

management plan, commercial services 

plan, or implementation plan) following 

congressional action, if any, resulting from 

recommendations in this study. A more 

complete discussion of identifi ed recreational, 

interpretive, and educational opportunities 

appears in the Aff ected Environment chapter.

 Scenic Resources Data

A computer-generated viewshed was created 

that shows what can be seen from US Highway 

50 (US 50), CO 92, and CO 149, and from the 

centerline of Blue Mesa Reservoir and its 

arms (see Computer Generated Viewshed 

Map). Viewsheds visible within three miles of 

identifi ed viewpoints were considered most 

critical to the study.

A photo assessment workshop was 

conducted with Gunnison- and Montrosearea residents to determine those scenic 

vistas and other resource attributes that 

are important to them. This workshop 

resulted in nearly 300 photographs taken by 

the workshop participants that illustrated 

examples of development thought to be 

appropriate, as well as inappropriate; and 

natural, cultural, scenic, and recreational 

resources surrounding the NRA that 

should be considered for conservation. 

Photographs were grouped into the 

following categories.

 Category 1: Views considered by 

respondents as most scenic from the 

highways around Curecanti, including 

US 50, CO 92, CO 149, and side roads 

in the vicinity of Blue Mesa Reservoir - 

75 photos (27%)

 Category 2: Areas considered by 

respondents as most appropriate 

and/or least appropriate for future 

development - 35 photos (12%)

 Category 3: Buildings or other 

structures considered by respondents 

as acceptable or unacceptable on 

the basis of visual intrusion or other 

factors - 39 photos (14%)

 Category 4: Critical resources or 

areas considered by respondents 

as important to conserve, such as 

landforms, vegetation, wetlands, or 

wildlife habitat - 44 photos (16%)

 Category 5: Areas considered by 

respondents as important to preserve 

for recreational use - 47 photos (17%)

 Category 6: Photos submitted by 

respondents that they felt best 

represented Gunnison and Montrose 

Counties’ image in the Curecanti area - 

17 photos (6%)

 Category 7: Any other issues, areas, or 

contexts - 24 photos (8%).

Through this photo exercise, citizens 

identifi ed examples of unique geological, 

as well as visually attractive, features, and 

suggested places within and outside the 

present NRA that merit conservation. Such 

sites included the following.

 North side of US 50, between Dry 

Creek and Red Creek, containing West 

Elk Breccia rock formation (ancient 

volcanic mudfl ow)

 Outcroppings of the Morrison 

formation, known elsewhere to 

contain dinosaur fossils

 Soap Creek Cliff s

STUDY PROCESS
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

20 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

the data. Resource data, primarily in the 

form of computerized maps, were collected 

from the following major sources: wildlife 

habitat information from the Colorado 

Division of Wildlife (CDOW); threatened 

and/or imperiled species from the Colorado 

Natural Heritage Program; archeological 

and historic sites from the Colorado State 

Historical Society; and viewsheds from digital 

elevation models. Information on recreation 

opportunities was obtained from the public, 

as described earlier in this section on Data 

Collection and Analysis. 

The important resources are listed 

below, alphabetically, in no particular order 

of importance:

 Archeological and historic sites: Four 

categories of data were collected that 

include both archeological and historic 

sites: (1) individual archeological sites; 

(2) archeological linear features; (3) 

sections that contain archeological 

sites; and (4) archeological site areas 

 Bighorn sheep and pronghorn winteruse areas: pronghorn winter range, 

bighorn sheep overall range

 Elk winter-use areas: severe-winter 

range, winter concentration area, 

production area

 Gunnison Sage-grouse range or use 

areas: leks, nesting areas, brood areas, 

critical winter range; severe-winter range 

 Raptor range or use areas: peregrine 

falcon active nesting sites; golden eagle 

nesting sites; bald eagle roost sites; bald 

eagle winter concentration area

 Sensitive species: Potential conservation 

areas of outstanding signifi cance, very 

high signifi cance, high signifi cance, and 

moderate signifi cance

 Viewsheds: Map generated from 

computer modeling showing land 

visible from major highways and 

centerlines of Blue Mesa Reservoir and 

its arms.

A compilation of this resource information 

is illustrated on the map entitled Important 

 Dillon Pinnacles

 Curecanti Needle

 Curecanti Creek at Hairpin Curve on 

CO 92.

 Study Area Determination

The base map for the study consists of a 

geographical area extending approximately 30 

miles north to south and 40 miles east to west, 

with Curecanti NRA centered on the map. 

The study area, which surrounds the NRA, 

is included within this base map, and was 

determined by analysis of natural, cultural, 

scenic, and recreational data for the region. 

The study area was established by overlaying 

various geographic information system 

(GIS) Mylar data maps onto a base map, 

and including the most important resource 

areas. The study area was introduced to the 

public and governmental agencies in the fi rst 

newsletter for the project, issued in the spring 

of 2001.

The important resources used to establish 

the study area were derived from the more 

extensive data list collected early in the data 

collection process, which is shown earlier in 

this section on Data Collection and Analysis. 

The criteria for determining important 

resources were based on input from public 

scoping meetings, input from Curecanti staff , 

interpretation of the legislative mandates 

authorizing the study, and explanations 

of data categories provided by sources of 

Photo workshop participants took photos in and 

surrounding Curecanti NRA, such as this cabin under the 

Acceptable Development Category (Category 3)

FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 23

Resources Surrounding Curecanti. The 

various shades of blue represent diff erent 

levels of concentrations of one or more 

resources, with weightings assigned to the 

importance of the resources. The darker 

the color, the greater number of resources 

present, and/or the greater the relative 

importance of the resource. The general 

locations of critical resources and recreation 

opportunities are described in the white boxes 

on the map. The method used to determine 

the weighted analysis is described below.

The data analysis for the study was initiated 

using a traditional map, grease pencil, and a 

mylar overlay technique inspired by Ian L. 

McHarg’s book “Design with Nature.” Spatial 

resource data that were selected for analysis 

are identifi ed above. Following production of 

draft mylar maps, and using the computerized 

resource data, a weighted analysis was initiated 

using the GIS as an analytical tool to provide 

a compilation of all the resource data on one 

map, with reduced bias and spatial error. 

“Weights” were assigned by NRA staff to the 

various mapped, resource categories based 

on their relative value, or importance, on a 

scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being most signifi cant. 

As an example, an archeological site that 

has been listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places (NRHP) may receive a 

weighted value of 5, while an archeological 

site that is determined not eligible for listing to 

the NRHP may receive a value of 1. Mapped 

resource categories were then stacked, and 

their weighted values were added together 

with the aid of the GIS.

Results of the analysis showed cumulative 

scores for all of the weighted data. Relatively 

high scores represent areas with multiple 

resource occurrences, and the highest scores 

represent areas with multiple resource 

occurrences that possess relatively greater 

resource signifi cance. It is interesting to note 

that the preponderance of high scores center 

on the Curecanti area. This analysis helped 

to determine where NPS should focus its 

attention on resource conservation outside the 

existing NRA.

 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND 

IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

In response to the second requirement of 

the study’s congressional mandate, the study 

team identifi ed two categories of alternatives 

to protect the resource value and character 

of the land: (1) proposed boundary location; 

and (2) management considerations. The 

environmental consequences, or impacts, of 

the actions associated with each alternative 

were then assessed.

Proposed Boundary Location

Numerous boundary alternatives were 

considered after data collection and analysis 

of the data and resource maps; meetings with 

agency offi cials, landowners, and the public; 

and consideration of NPS Management 

Policies 2006 pertaining to boundary 

adjustments. In addition, the concept of 

a Conservation Opportunity Area (COA) 

was created. This is an area that would be 

designated by Congress within which NPS 

would be authorized to use various landowner 

incentives (comprising a toolbox) to partner 

with neighbors to conserve resources.

For purposes of this study, and found 

throughout the text, primarily with reference 

to Alternative 2 – the Proposed Action, the 

term “proposed lands” refers to 34,420 

acres of land outside the existing NRA 

that is considered important for resource 

conservation, public recreation, and scenic 

values, in keeping with NRA goals and 

objectives. The proposed lands include:

1. Public lands to be transferred from 

other agencies to NPS to be included 

within the proposed NRA boundary 

immediately upon recommended 

passage of legislation that would 

establish the NRA (10,120 acres);

STUDY PROCESS

“Identify practicable alternatives 

that protect the resource value and 

character of the land within and 

surrounding Curecanti NRA” 

Public Law 106-76
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

24 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

2. Private lands that are recommended to 

be included within the COA, outside the 

proposed NRA boundary (24,300 acres).

In addition, there are certain lands within the 

existing NRA that were identifi ed as having 

the potential to be deleted from the NRA. 

They are not included in the “proposed 

lands,” as defi ned for this study. The potential 

deletions include 80 acres of USFS land that 

would immediately be deleted upon passage 

of NRA legislation, to be managed by USFS 

as part of the Gunnison National Forest; 800 

acres that might eventually be transferred to 

BLM; and 363 acres that might be exchanged 

for private lands within the COA, on a willing 

landowner basis. These 1,243 acres of potential 

deletions are identifi ed as “tracts” on the 

Alternative 2 map.

During the process of assessing the 

environmental consequences of the boundary 

alternatives, it was decided to retain only 

two alternatives for in-depth analysis: No 

Action, and the Proposed Action. The other 

alternatives were dismissed from further 

consideration for reasons that are described in 

the Alternatives chapter of this document.

Management Considerations

Diff erent scenarios for NRA management 

were considered. These potential management 

scenarios do not aff ect the boundary 

alternatives. This includes management of 

various sections of the NRA defi ned by the 

three reservoirs; and by various agencies, 

including BLM, Reclamation, NPS, USFS, 

and Colorado State Parks. BLM, USFS, and 

Colorado State Parks have all indicated that 

they are not interested in managing the NRA.

Reclamation manages its facilities, lands, land 

interests, water and water interests in the area 

to meet CRSP and Uncompahgre Project 

purposes, and has contracted with NPS for 

management of recreation and certain other 

resources on Reclamation lands within the 

NRA. NPS desires to continue to manage the 

natural, cultural, and recreational resources 

on all of the lands within the NRA. Most 

of these lands are under the jurisdiction of 

Reclamation; but some are under USFS, and 

some are under NPS.

 TOOLS FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

AND MANAGEMENT

NPS worked with other agencies and with 

Gunnison and Montrose Counties to develop 

a variety of resource conservation tools that 

were considered during development of 

alternatives and integrated into the Proposed 

Action. NPS has developed two documents 

(included as appendixes) relating to these 

suggested methods of resource conservation. 

They are based upon former Secretary of 

the Interior Gale Norton’s philosophy of the 

“four Cs”: Communication, Consultation, and 

Cooperation, all in the service of Conservation.

 Toolbox of Incentives for Resource 

Conservation: A Handbook of Ideas 

for Neighbors in the Curecanti Area.

This toolbox identifi es present and 

potential methods that could be 

made available to Curecanti area 

neighbors—private landowners, local 

communities, and city, county, state, 

and federal agencies—to work in 

partnership to manage their lands for 

more eff ective resource conservation. 

It has been developed to help conserve 

the natural, cultural, recreational, 

and scenic resources within and 

surrounding Curecanti. The choice 

of tools includes acquiring interests 

in land from willing landowners, 

such as fee simple, and conservation 

easements. However, if funding is 

insuffi cient to acquire such interests, 

other tools could be pursued to meet 

resource conservation goals and 

objectives (Appendix A).

“Recommend a variety of 

economically feasible and viable tools 

to achieve resource protection” 

Public Law 106-76

FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 27

 Curecanti: Great Scenery, 

Outstanding Resources, 

and Good Neighbors. 

In cooperation with 

Gunnison and Montrose 

Counties, NPS produced 

an eight-page booklet 

that presents ideas 

on how agencies and 

landowners can work 

together to maintain 

the outstanding natural, 

cultural, recreational, 

and scenic resources 

in the Curecanti area 

(Appendix B).

A resource conservation tool 

created by the study team 

as part of Alternative 2, the 

 Proposed Action, is a concept 

called the Conservation Opportunity Area, or 

COA. The COA would consist of private lands 

outside of and adjacent to the proposed NRA 

boundary, where NPS would be authorized 

by Congress to work in partnership with 

neighbors in applying a wide range of tools 

over time to conserve resources and values 

identifi ed as important to the NRA.

Another partnership tool that arose out of 

data analysis and alternatives development was 

a concept called Joint Agency Management 

Eff ort, or JAME. The idea was to evaluate 

resources on the basis of issues that extend 

beyond the NRA, while recognizing the 

responsibilities of all surrounding landmanagement agencies. The agencies and 

entities with which NPS entered into 

discussions included American Indian Tribes, 

BLM, Reclamation, CDOW, Colorado 

Department of Transportation (CDOT), 

USFS, Western, and Gunnison and Montrose 

Counties. The agencies decided that working 

cooperatively to address topics on a thematic 

basis would make greater sense and would be 

more eff ective to accomplish than to jointly 

administer geographic areas. The JAME is 

similar to cooperative eff orts among agencies 

in other areas of the country that have been 

established to address resource management 

issues of mutual concern. At Curecanti, the 

agencies agreed to deal with invasive plant 

species (i.e., weeds) as the fi rst JAME challenge.

 COST ESTIMATES

The costs of fully implementing the study’s 

recommendations will be spread over many 

years into the future, and will depend primarily 

upon how many private landowners choose to 

work in partnership with NPS, and which tools 

for resource conservation are employed. This 

would occur only after congressional approval 

of this study’s recommendations.

Numerous elements contribute to the 

total cost of implementing the proposed 

action. The greatest costs are expected to be 

incurred during the fi rst ten years following 

congressional approval of this study, when NPS 

hopes to apply resource conservation tools to 

parcels of land considered most important to 

conserve. Many of the cost elements, such as 

COST ESTIMATES

Multiple agencies meet in a partnership eff ort

“Estimate the costs of implementing 

the approaches recommended in 

the study.”

Public Law 106-76
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

28 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

a Land Protection Plan and boundary surveys 

and posting, are fairly predictable. However, 

some elements are quite uncertain, such as 

the direct costs of acquiring interests in land, 

since these will depend on the willingness of 

private landowners to participate in resource 

conservation eff orts, and property values at the 

time. For these estimates, assumptions have 

been made regarding interests that might be 

acquired and future average property values. 

Due to the many uncertainties of acquiring 

interests in land, the estimates are presented as 

a range of costs.

Another factor that would infl uence the 

long-term costs to NPS is the degree of 

conservation partnerships that could develop 

as a result of implementing the Proposed 

Action. Examples include gaining assistance 

through matching grants, the ability to access 

other agency programs and funding, and the 

participation of regional and national land 

trusts and other conservation organizations. 

Such partnership support could help reduce 

costs to NPS.

The estimated costs are shown in the 

Alternatives chapter. Staffi ng requirements 

and an implementation strategy for the 

 Proposed Action are also presented.

 STUDY OPPORTUNITIES, INTERESTS, 

AND ISSUES

Following the initiation of the project through 

the Notice of Intent (NOI), a scoping open 

house was held in Gunnison to educate 

the public about the Resource Protection 

Study, to identify opportunities for resource 

conservation, and to receive comments and 

project-related concerns. Written and verbal 

comments received in response to the scoping 

process highlighted a variety of issues that the 

study should address. This type of information 

sharing continued throughout the study.

Curecanti is important to the local area and 

its economy; and because of this, people need 

to work together to maintain the quality of 

the area around Curecanti. Some people said 

that the greatest danger to Curecanti and 

its environs is sprawl development. Others 

wanted private development rights and 

opportunities preserved and more and better 

facilities on private land or within the NRA.

Many comments were in support of NPS 

eff orts to conserve the viewshed and to 

provide habitat for wildlife, and for suggested 

methods by which resources could be better 

managed and conserved. Some comments 

were critical of NPS for the way in which 

it managed its campgrounds, operated its 

facilities, and managed wildlife.

Some respondents specifi ed recreational uses 

they wanted to be allowed, as well as uses 

they wanted to be prohibited. But it was also 

suggested that the RPS should consider all 

environmental factors, not only recreational 

demand and use, and attempt to balance all 

interests. 

Agencies that commented, especially 

Reclamation, wanted to maintain jurisdiction 

of, and adequate and continuous access 

to, their lands, land interests, and facilities 

(including dams, reservoirs, electric 

transmission facilities, and associated 

structures) to ensure safe, eff ective, and 

reliable operation and maintenance of the 

 Aspinall Unit and the Uncompahgre Project. 

They felt that any recommendations must 

recognize and ensure conservation of the use 

of water, lands, and land interests as legally 

defi ned for those projects, and that existing 

agreements among the various agencies and 

water users must be honored and protected.

IMPACT TOPICS

Impact topics are natural, cultural, economic, 

social, or operational elements of the 

environment that could be aff ected by the 

range of alternative actions. These topics are 

used to focus the aff ected environment and 

the evaluation of the potential environmental 

consequences of the actions of each 

alternative on those topics. Impact topics were 

identifi ed, based on legislative requirements, 

executive orders, topics specifi ed in Director’s 

Order 12 and Handbook (NPS 2001a), NPS 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 29

IMPACT TOPICS

Management Policies 2006, agency and public 

concerns, and resource information specifi c to 

the Curecanti NRA.

 IMPACT TOPICS CONSIDERED

The impact topics considered for evaluation 

are listed in Table 1. This table includes key 

regulations or policies for each impact topic. 

Based on site-specifi c conditions, a number 

of the candidate impact topics were dismissed 

from further consideration. The rationale 

for dismissing each of these impact topics 

is provided in the text following the table. 

Those topics that were retained are described 

in more detail in the Aff ected Environment 

chapter and addressed in the Environmental 

Consequences chapter, where the impacts 

of the alternative actions on those topics are 

assessed in detail.

Four of the elements of the environment that are 

assessed in detail are traditionally done in EISs. 

In addition, they are required to be done by this 

study’s enabling legislation. They are the natural, 

cultural, recreational, and scenic resources.

 IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM 

FURTHER CONSIDERATION

The following impact topics were dismissed 

from further detailed analysis in this study. 

However, they will be revisited in future plans 

that may result from this study, such as a new 

or amended general management plan or 

implementation plan.

Floodplains

Executive Order 11988, “ Floodplain 

Management,” requires all federal agencies 

to avoid construction within the 100-year 

fl oodplain unless no other practicable 

alternative exists. Under NPS Management 

Policies 2006 and Director’s Order 77-2, 

 Floodplain Management, NPS will strive 

to preserve fl oodplain values and minimize 

hazardous fl oodplain conditions. 

Active fl oodplains on federal land within the 

study area are largely within the administrative 

area controlled by Reclamation for reservoir 

operations and managed by the NRA, and on 

other USFS, BLM, Reclamation, or CDOW 

lands. No federally-initiated development is 

proposed on any of these federal or private 

lands that would impact fl oodplains. Proposed 

conservation of one small fl oodplain and 

riparian area along Willow Creek could occur, 

but would result in a negligible to minor benefi t.

 Prime and Unique Farmlands

Prime farmland has the best combination 

of physical and chemical characteristics for 

producing food, feed, forage, fi ber, and oilseed 

crops. Unique farmland is land other than 

prime farmland that is used for production 

of specifi c high-value food and fi ber crops 

such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts. At this 

time, there are no lands classifi ed as prime 

or unique farmlands within the study area 

(NRCS 2004).

 Air Quality

No eff ects to air quality would be expected as 

a result of actions related to this study. The air 

quality designation (Class II) of the area would 

not change as a result of the proposal.

 Ecologically Critical Areas or Other Unique 

 Natural Resources 

The study area does not contain any designated 

ecologically critical areas, wild and scenic 

rivers, or other unique natural resources, 

as referenced in Title 40, Code of Federal 

Regulations, §1508.27. Therefore, there would 

be no impact to ecologically critical areas or 

other unique resources that require evaluation.

 Energy Requirements and 

 Conservation Potential 

The alternatives do not identify actions that 

would result in the use or conservation of 

fuels; therefore, this topic was dismissed.
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

30 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Table 1: Impact Topics Retained or Dismissed 

Impact Topic 

Retain 

or 

Dismiss 

Primary Relevant Laws, Regulations, or Policies 

Natural Resources 

Water quality Retain 

- Clean Water Act 

- Executive Order 12088 

- NPS Management Policies 2006 

Geology and paleontology Retain - NPS Management Policies 2006 

- NPS-77, Natural Resources Management Guidelines. 

Vegetation, including 

wetlands Retain 

- Clean Water Act 

- Rivers and Harbors Act 

- Executive Order 11990 

- Director’s Order 77-1, Wetland Protection 

- NPS Management Policies 2006 

- NPS-77, Natural Resources Management Guidelines 

Wildlife and habitats 

(including fisheries) Retain 

- NPS Organic Act of 1916 as amended (16 USC) 

- NPS Management Policies 2006 

- NPS-77, Natural Resources Management Guidelines 

Special Status Species 

(endangered, threatened, 

species of concern, or other 

protected status) 

Retain 

- Endangered Species Act, and other equivalent state protective 

legislation 

- NPS Management Policies 2006 

- NPS-77, Natural Resources Management Guidelines 

Natural lightscape (night sky) Retain - NPS Management Policies 2006 

Natural soundscape Retain - Director’s Order 47, Sound Preservation and Noise Management 

- NPS Management Policies 2006 

Floodplains Dismiss 

- Rivers and Harbors Act 

- Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management 

- NPS Management Policies 2006 

- Special Directive 93-4, Floodplain Management, Revised 

Guidelines for NPS Floodplain Compliance (1993) 

Prime and unique farmland Dismiss - Council on Environmental Quality (1980) memorandum on prime 

and unique farmlands. 

Air quality Dismiss 

- Clean Air Act 

- NPS Management Policies 2006 

- NPS-77, Natural Resources Management Guidelines. 

Ecologically critical areas or 

other unique natural resources Dismiss 

- Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

- Criteria for national natural landmarks in Title 36, Code of 

Federal Regulations, §62 

- NPS Management Policies 2006 

Energy requirements and 

conservation potential Dismiss - NPS Management Policies 2006 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 31

IMPACT TOPICS

Impact Topic 

Retain 

or 

Dismiss 

Primary Relevant Laws, Regulations, or Policies 

Cultural Resources 

Archeological resources Retain 

- National Historic Preservation Act 

- Archeological and Historic Preservation Act 

- Archeological Resources Protection Act 

- Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

- Antiquities Act of 1906 

- National Environmental Policy Act 

- Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, §800 

- Executive Orders 11593 and 13007 

- Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation 

- Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes 

- Director’s Order 28, Cultural Resources Management 

- NPS Management Policies 2006 

Historic districts and structures Retain 

- National Historic Preservation Act 

- Archeological and Historic Preservation Act 

- Archeological Resources Protection Act 

- National Environmental Policy Act 

- Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, §800 

- Executive Orders 11593 and 13007 

- Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation 

- Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes 

- Director’s Order 28, Cultural Resources Management 

- NPS Management Policies 2006 

Cultural landscapes Dismiss 

- National Historic Preservation Act 

- Archeological and Historic Preservation Act 

- Archeological Resources Protection Act 

- National Environmental Policy Act 

- Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, §800 

- Executive Orders 11593 and 13007 

- Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation 

- Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes 

- Director’s Order 28, Cultural Resources Management 

- NPS Management Policies 2006 

Museum collections Dismiss 

- Historic Sites Act of 1935 

- Management of Museum Properties Act of 1955 (as amended) 

- Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

- Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

- Title 41, Code of Federal Regulations, §101, Federal Property 

Management Regulations 

- Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, §3, Preservation of 

American Antiquities and Protection of Archeological Resources 

- Department Manual 411 DM, Managing Museum Property 

- Director’s Order #28, Cultural Resources Management 

- NPS Management Policies 2006 

Ethnographic resources Dismiss 

- Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments 

- NPS Management Policies 2006 

Indian trust resources Dismiss - Department of the Interior Secretarial Orders 3175 and 3206 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

32 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Impact Topic

Retain 

or 

Dismiss

Primary Relevant Laws, Regulations, or Policies

Visitor Use, Understanding, and Enjoyment 

Recreational opportunities Retain 

-NPS Organic Act 

-National Park System General Authorities Act 

-Reclamation law, as amended and supplemented; in particular, 

Section 8, Colorado River Storage Project Act; and PL 89-72, as 

amended by Title XXVIII of PL 102-575 

-NPS Management Policies 2006 

Interpretation and educational 

opportunities Retain 

-NPS Organic Act 

-National Park System General Authorities Act 

-NPS Management Policies 2006 

Scenic Resources 

Viewsheds Retain -NPS Management Policies 2006 

Regional Economic and Social Characteristics 

Economics Retain 

-Council on Environmental Quality (1978) regulations for 

Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 

-NPS Management Policies 2006 

Private land use within the 

NRA Retain -Director’s Order #25, Land Protection 

-NPS Management Policies 2006 

Neighboring private lands and 

landowners within the 

proposed lands 

Retain -Director’s Order #25, Land Protection 

-NPS Management Policies 2006 

Environmental justice Dismiss -Executive Order 12898 

National Park Service, Reclamation, and Other Neighboring Agency Management and Operations 

NPS management/operations Retain 

-Reclamation law, as amended and supplemented (on Reclamation 

lands), in particular, Section 8, Colorado River Storage Project Act; 

and PL 89-72, as amended by Title XXVIII of PL 102-575 -CFR 43 

Parts 420, 423, 429 

-Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations 

-NPS Organic Act 

-National Park System General Authorities Act 

-NPS Director’s Orders 

-NPS Management Policies 2006 

Reclamation 

management/operations Retain 

-Reclamation law, as amended and supplemented 

-Reclamation Manual, Policies, Directives, and Standards 

-Safety of Dams Program 

-Dam Security Program 

-CFR 43 Parts 420, 423, 429 

Other agency 

management/operations Retain 

-Other agency laws and policies 

-Reclamation law, as amended and supplemented (on Reclamation 

lands), in particular, Section 8, Colorado River Storage Project Act; 

and PL 89-72, as amended by Title XXVIII of PL 102-575 

-CFR 43 Parts 420, 423, 429 

-1983 Reclamation/BLM Interagency Agreement 

Public health and safety Dismiss -NPS Management Policies 2006 

Natural or depletable resource 

requirements and conservation 

potential 

Dismiss -NPS Management Policies 2006 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 33

 Cultural Landscapes

No cultural landscapes have been identifi ed, 

surveyed, or documented within Curecanti 

NRA or the surrounding study area; therefore, 

this topic was not assessed.

 Museum Collections

The scope of collections for Curecanti NRA 

includes archeological objects collected 

from within the NRA; and historic objects 

and archival material related to early 

settlement, to the Denver and Rio Grande 

narrow gauge railroad, and to the Town of 

Cimarron. Data from the 2005 Collections 

Management Report indicate that the total 

number of objects and specimens number 

179,975; with total archival documents of 

27,571. These items are managed as provided 

for in Director’s Order #24: NPS Museum 

Collections Management and the NPS 

Museum Handbook.

The implementation of the Proposed 

Action would not have a direct impact on 

museum collections currently managed by 

NPS. However, if other agency lands are 

transferred into the NRA as a result of the 

 Proposed Action, the agencies involved would 

need to jointly determine how to approach 

ownership and storage of collections related 

to those lands in order to ensure that the 

integrity of each collection remains as intact 

as possible. Entering into an administrative 

agreement would be considered. Collections 

and any associated records that would be 

transferred or exchanged among agreeing 

federal DOI and non-DOI agencies as a result 

of implementation of the Proposed Action 

would follow the guidelines found in the DOI 

Departmental Manual (411) Museum Property 

Handbook, Volume I.

 Ethnographic Resources

Ethnographic resources are defi ned as the 

natural and cultural materials, features, and 

places that are linked by a subject community to 

the traditional practices, values, beliefs, history, 

and/or ethnic identity of that community. In 

2002, the NPS Intermountain Support Offi ce, 

in cooperation with the NRA, sought to 

summarize American Indian tribal affi liation 

within and surrounding the NRA for the study. 

Historical records document Ute affi liation 

with the region from western Colorado and 

into eastern Utah. The Uncompahgre (or 

Taviwach) band also has a historic affi liation 

with this area. Other tribes identifi ed with 

possible cultural affi liation include the 

Cheyenne, Comanche, Hopi, Navajo, Apache, 

White Mesa Ute (comprised of Paiute and Ute), 

Paiute, and the San Juan Southern Paiute (NPS 

2002a). It was concluded that the primary tribes 

with which the study team should confer are 

the Northern Ute, the Southern Ute, and the 

 Ute Mountain Ute.

While ethnographic resources have not yet 

been formally evaluated for their status as 

traditional cultural properties or sacred sites, 

it is possible that potentially eligible resources 

could be either outside the study area or in 

areas already experiencing heavy visitor use 

or other disturbances. However, it is expected 

that impacts to ethnographic resources as 

a result of the proposal would be negligible 

because of protection on federal lands.

 Indian Trust Resources

Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any 

anticipated impacts to Indian trust resources 

from a proposed project or action by 

Department of the Interior agencies be 

explicitly addressed in environmental 

documents. The federal Indian trust 

responsibility is a legally enforceable fi duciary 

obligation on the part of the United States 

to protect tribal lands, assets, resources, and 

treaty rights, and it represents a duty to carry 

out the mandates of federal law with respect to 

 American Indian and Alaska Native tribes.

There are no Indian trust resources at 

Curecanti NRA or within the study area. The 

lands comprising the recreation area or the 

land units are not held in trust by the Secretary 

of the Interior for the benefi t of Indians due to 

their status as Indians. Therefore, the project 

would have negligible eff ects on Indian trust 

resources, and this topic was dismissed as an 

impact topic.

IMPACT TOPICS
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

34 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898: General Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations requires all federal agencies 

to incorporate environmental justice into 

their missions by identifying and addressing 

disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental eff ects of their 

programs and policies on minorities and lowincome populations and communities. The 

conservation of, or acquisition of, lands within 

the study area, adjacent to Curecanti NRA, 

is dependent upon willing and interested 

landowners. The alternatives do not impose 

upon property rights through condemnation 

or any other procedure. In addition, any 

lands acquired and included within the 

NRA would be maintained and interpreted 

by NPS for all peoples regardless of race or 

income level. Therefore, there would be no 

disproportionate health or environmental 

eff ects on minorities or low-income 

populations or communities.

 Public Health and Safety

The conservation and potential acquisition of 

lands adjacent to the NRA would not result 

in public health and safety issues because the 

potential use and disposition of these lands 

is landowner dependent. The alternatives in 

this study do not involve any proposals for 

new access or infrastructure that could impact 

public health and safety.

Natural or Depletable Resource 

Requirements and Conservation Potential

There are no actions proposed in the 

alternatives that would result in a change 

in requirements of natural or depletable 

resources or conservation potential. This topic 

is dismissed from further analysis. 

FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 35

 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING 

THE PROPOSED ACTION 

DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

In response to the second and third 

requirements of the Resource Protection 

Study (RPS) congressional mandate, the study 

team evaluated a range of alternatives, and 

identifi ed a variety of tools for conserving 

the important resources identifi ed within the 

study area that were described under “Data 

Collection and Analysis” in the Purpose of 

and Need for Action chapter. The alternatives 

focus on the following seven elements.

 National Recreation Area Designation 

and Boundary

 Resource Conservation

 National Recreation Area Management

 Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) 

Operations

 Other Agency Operations

 Joint Agency Management Eff ort (JAME)

 Estimated Costs, Staffi ng Requirements, 

and Implementation Strategy.

With regards to the NRA boundary, some 

preliminary background information will 

help to describe how the alternatives were 

developed. Numerous alternatives were 

considered for adjusting the boundary that 

currently surrounds the NRA, to include 

additional lands within the NRA that were 

thought to be necessary and appropriate for 

resource conservation, as well as visitor use 

and enjoyment, in keeping with the mission 

and management goals of the NRA and 

the purposes of this study. In some areas, 

land was considered for exclusion from the 

NRA. Collective knowledge about Curecanti 

NRA, its resources, and its visitors that was 

gained from numerous sources throughout 

the study infl uenced the development of the 

boundary scenarios. Those sources included 

public scoping (information gathering) and 

workshops (including the photo assessment 

project); meetings with other agencies, county 

planners, and local, state, and federal offi cials; 

CHAPTER 2 – DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

Curecanti Needle on Morrow Point Reservoir—The National Recreation Area’s most famous geological landmark
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

36 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

meetings with surrounding private landowners; 

and workshops with the NRA staff .

The preliminary boundary scenarios were 

based on criteria that focused on important 

resources within the study area that were 

identifi ed during the data collection and 

analysis phase of the study. The criteria also 

included enhanced visitor understanding of 

signifi cant resources, expanded land-based 

recreational opportunities, and administrative 

or managerial effi ciencies that could be 

realized through the transfer of lands among 

the agencies. The criteria included the 

following items.

 Administrative Effi ciency

 Archeological/Historical Sites

 Bighorn Sheep – Overall Range

 Elk – Severe Winter Range

 Gunnison Sage-grouse (all categories)

 Heron Rookery

 Historic Railroad Feature

 Lynx, Potential Habitat

 Management Issues/Logical Boundary

 Mule Deer – Severe Winter Range

 Paleontology/ Geology

 Prairie Dog – Overall Range

 Pronghorn – Winter Range

 Raptor Range

 Rare and/or Imperiled Species

 Recreation Opportunities

 Scenic Qualities from Primary 

Overlook, or within 3-Mile Viewshed

 Understanding of Signifi cant Resources

 Water Quality.

The various boundary scenarios were 

assessed at an “Impacts” workshop. The 

impacts of some of the scenarios were so 

similar to each other, that the scenarios 

were not considered further. Some of the 

scenarios were considered impractical 

and/or unfeasible to implement, and were 

not considered further. In addition, the 

study team strongly considered one of 

the concerns that had been expressed 

throughout the project — that NPS should 

not propose anything in the study that 

would be forced upon private landowners 

against their will or desires, or that would 

intrude upon their property rights. 

Furthermore, some landowners opposed 

any boundary being drawn around their 

property to include them within a future 

NRA, even though they would be able to 

retain their property rights. These concerns 

strongly influenced the selection of the 

 Proposed Action, and the dismissal from 

detailed consideration of some alternatives 

that had initially been considered.

Ultimately, the study team came to the 

conclusion that besides the No-Action 

alternative (Continuation of Existing 

Conditions), one other boundary scenario was 

considered to be reasonable, and, therefore, 

is fully assessed in the Environmental 

For both alternatives in the Resource Protection Study, the Bureau of Reclamation and 

Western Area Power Administration would continue their administrative jurisdiction 

and responsibilities within and adjacent to the national recreation area, including 

construction, operation, maintenance, replacements, and additions; and they and their 

assigns would continue to have unrestricted access to their lands and land interests, water 

and water interests, and facilities; consistent with Reclamation law and other applicable 

laws and regulations. Formal establishment of the area as an NRA under Alternative 2 

would not amend or supplement existing Reclamation law applicable to the Aspinall Unit 

or the Uncompahgre Project. Reclamation, Western, and the National Park Service would 

consult with each other as necessary and appropriate. Thus, there would be no adverse 

impacts to Reclamation and Western responsibilities under either alternative.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 37

Consequences chapter. That scenario is 

presented as Alternative 2 (the Proposed 

Action). The other boundary scenarios 

are described, along with the reasons for 

elimination, near the end of this chapter under 

the “Alternatives Considered but Eliminated 

from Detailed Assessment” section.

For purposes of analysis during the 

development of alternatives, the public 

and private lands outside the existing NRA 

that were considered most important for 

conservation for NRA purposes, were 

grouped into eight “land units” according to 

geographical location, similarity of resource 

values, reasonably foreseeable activities, 

and land ownership. The land units are 

identified by the letters A through H, are 

shown on the map for Alternative 2, and are 

referenced throughout the RPS/EIS. They 

consist of two types of land: (1) privately 

owned land within the Conservation 

Opportunity Area (COA) – Land Units A, 

C, D, E, and G; and (2) non-NPS agency 

lands that are included within the proposed 

NRA boundary shown in Alternative 2 – 

 Land Units B, F, and H. Briefly defined, 

the COA consists of identified private land 

surrounding the NRA, in which the National 

Park Service would be authorized by 

Congress to work with willing landowners 

to conserve resources, including acquiring 

agreed-upon interests in land. The COA 

is described in more detail later in the 

discussion of Alternative 2, under the 

subheading of “Resource Conservation.”

The land units are defi ned below:

 Land Unit A (CO 92 COA): private 

lands north and south of Colorado 

State Highway 92 (CO 92) and Morrow 

Point Reservoir, including Black 

Mesa, Soap Mesa, Soap Creek, and 

Fitzpatrick Mesa

 Land Unit B ( Blue Mesa Reservoir 

Agency): agency lands from Soap 

Creek east to Beaver Creek, including 

Dillon Pinnacles, Blue Mesa north 

and south shores, and Gunnison 

River Canyon

 Land Unit C (Gunnison River 

COA): private lands in the vicinity of 

Neversink and Riverway

 Land Unit D (Iola Basin COA): 

private lands in Iola Basin, and South 

Gunnison River Canyon

 Land Unit E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa 

COA): private lands in the vicinity of 

Sapinero Mesa, and Windy Point to 

Hunters Point

 Land Unit F (Gateview Agency): 

agency lands in the vicinity of 

Gateview Campground

 Land Unit G (West-End COA): private 

lands west of Fitzpatrick Mesa on the 

south side of Crystal Reservoir, and the 

area around Spring Gulch on the north 

side of Crystal Reservoir

 Land Unit H (West-End Agency): 

agency lands north and south of 

Crystal and Morrow Point Reservoirs.

Collectively, all the land units comprise the 

“proposed lands” for Alternative 2, consisting 

of public lands recommended for addition 

to the NRA (the agency lands); and the lands 

recommended for inclusion in a COA (the 

private lands).

The criteria that were used to determine what 

land surrounding the existing NRA warranted 

conservation for NRA purposes are shown 

in Table 2 for each land unit. If a resource or 

other criterion occurs within a given land 

unit, it is identifi ed by a dot in the matrix. If 

the dot is highlighted in yellow, the associated 

criterion is considered to be a primary 

reason for the inclusion of the land unit 

within the proposed NRA boundary or the 

COA. More detailed descriptions of specifi c 

resources, including their signifi cance in the 

Curecanti region, are provided in the Aff ected 

Environment chapter.

The appropriateness of including additional 

public and private lands within an expanded 

NRA was evaluated according to NPS

Management Policies 2006: Section 3.5 

– Boundary Adjustments, including criteria 

for boundary adjustments. These criteria 

DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

38 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

TABLE 2: FACTORS CONSIDERED IN ESTABLISHING LAND UNITS

Land Unit 

A B C D E F G H 

Criteria 

 CO 92 COA  Blue Mesa Reservoir Agency  Gunnison River COA  Iola Basin COA  Sapinero /Blue Mesa COA  Gateview Agency  West-End COA  West-End Agency 

Administrative Efficiency z z z z z z z

Archeological/Historical Sites z z z z z z z z

Bighorn Sheep – Overall Range z z z z z z

Elk – Severe Winter Range z z z z z z z z

Gunnison Sage-grouse (all categories) z z z z z 

Heron Rookery z 

Historic Railroad Feature z z z

Lynx – Potential Habitat z z z z z

Management Issues / Logical Boundary z z z z z z

Mule Deer – Severe Winter Range z z z z z z z

Paleontology/Geology z z z z

Prairie Dog – Overall Range z z z

Pronghorn – Winter Range z z 

Raptor Range z z z z z z z z

Rare and/or Imperiled Species z z z z z z z z

Recreation Opportunities z z z z z z 

Scenic Qualities from Primary Overlook or within 

3-mile Viewshed z z z z z z z z

Understanding of Significant Resources z z z z z z z

Water Quality z z z z z z z

Notes: 

A dot indicates the criterion is present within the land unit. 

The addition of yellow highlighting indicates that not only is the criterion present, but it is of such significance, in 

combination with the other criteria present, to recommend that the land unit be included within the COA or proposed 

NRA boundary in Alternative 2.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 39

identify when boundary adjustments may 

be recommended in order to carry out the 

purposes of the NRA. Boundary adjustments 

may be recommended to:

 Protect signifi cant resources and values, 

or to enhance opportunities for public 

enjoyment related to NRA purposes

 Address operational and management 

issues, such as the need for access or 

the need for boundaries to correspond 

to logical boundary delineations 

such as topographic or other natural 

features or roads

 Otherwise protect NRA resources 

that are important to fulfilling 

NRA purposes.

Further, if the acquisition would be made 

using appropriated funds, and is not merely 

a technical boundary revision, the criteria set 

forth by Congress at 16 USC 460l-9(c)(2) must 

be met. All recommendations for boundary 

changes must meet the following two criteria:

 The added lands would be feasible 

to administer, considering their 

size, confi guration, and ownership; 

costs; the views of and impacts on 

local communities and surrounding 

jurisdictions; and other factors such as 

the presence of hazardous substances 

or exotic species

 Other alternatives for management and 

resource protection are not adequate.

The extent to which Alternative 2 (the 

 Proposed Action) satisfi es the boundary 

adjustment criteria, and an evaluation of 

the eff ectiveness of Alternatives 1 and 2 in 

meeting the objectives of the RPS and the 

NRA mission, can be found near the end of 

this chapter. The complete texts for Section 3.5 

of NPS Management Policies 2006, and 16 USC 

4601-9(c)(2) are shown in Appendix C.

 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION

(CONTINUATION OF EXISTING

CONDITIONS)

 OVERALL CONCEPT

Under Alternative 1, the National Park 

Service would continue to operate with an 

emphasis on conserving the natural, cultural, 

recreational, and scenic resources within the 

existing NRA (see the map for Alternative 

1). Bureau of Reclamation operations would 

continue unaff ected. NPS would continue to 

cooperate with Colorado Division of Wildlife 

to address wildlife and habitat issues, and 

in managing fi shing and hunting within the 

NRA. NPS would continue to work with 

neighboring land management agencies to 

resolve resource issues of mutual concern, as 

staff time and funding permit. Opportunities 

to partner with neighboring landowners in 

the service of resource conservation would 

be limited, and would be based largely on 

the involvement of other agencies, and 

based upon their funding and priorities. 

NPS participation would primarily consist 

of providing limited technical assistance and 

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION

Development adjacent to Curecanti NRA
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

40 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

advice. As a result, if recent development 

trends on private lands surrounding the NRA 

continue or increase, then the resources that 

know no boundary between the NRA and 

private land, especially scenic resources, 

would become increasingly vulnerable to 

adverse impacts, and NPS would have limited 

tools at its disposal to mitigate the impacts.

 NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

DESIGNATION AND BOUNDARY

Curecanti has yet to be legislatively 

established; however, it is regularly listed 

as a unit of the national park system in The 

National Parks Index, and it has been referred 

to in appropriations and other congressional 

bills as Curecanti National Recreation Area. 

The area currently consists of 41,790 acres of 

land and waters, which belong to the following 

federal agencies:

 Reclamation (managed by NPS, per 

agreement with Reclamation) = 

40,360 acres

 NPS (managed by NPS) = 1,105 acres

 U.S. Forest Service (managed by NPS, 

per agreement with USFS) = 325 acres.

Any boundary attributed to this area is 

unlegislated, administrative, and subject to 

change, based on agreements among and 

between the land management agencies 

involved, and rarely on legislative action. 

Under Alternative 1, the above situation would 

be unchanged. Curecanti would remain an 

unlegislated unit of the national park system, 

with only an administrative boundary.

Since 1965, when NPS began administering 

the NRA under a Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) with Reclamation, from time to time 

managers made modifi cations to the land 

being administered. These administrative 

“adjustments” were mutually agreed 

upon between local agency managers, in 

consultation with Reclamation. However, 

these changes were not always refl ected 

in the offi cial NPS records. To rectify this 

situation, the RPS study team decided, as a 

starting point, to utilize a map that both NPS 

and Reclamation had previously agreed to 

in writing. The title of that map is Curecanti 

Unit, Upper Colorado River Storage Project, 

Colorado, Exhibit A, Version F (SA-CUR/7101-

F), dated July, 1965, and commonly known as 

“Map F.” The study team then used this map 

to determine the acres agreed to, with some 

additional adjustments based on agreements 

that have been verifi ed.

The sum total of the area being administered 

by NPS, as determined through this process, 

is 41,790 acres. This acreage diff ers from the 

total of 41,972 acres listed in the offi cial index 

of the National Park Service, entitled The 

National Parks: Index 2005 - 2007, published in 

2005 by the Government Printing Offi ce. If, by 

passage of legislation, Congress approves the 

recommendations in the Proposed Action, an 

offi cial legal description and map would then 

be prepared, and an offi cial acreage would thus 

be generated, updating the acreage listed in the 

Index. However, if the proposed action is not 

implemented, and the area within the NRA 

remains essentially as it is now, Map F would be 

updated to refl ect what NPS and Reclamation 

currently agree is the correct acreage, and the 

NPS index would be changed accordingly.

 RESOURCE CONSERVATION

The National Park Service would have no 

legislated authority or available sources 

of funds to work with willing landowners 

outside the NRA to use a range of resource 

conservation tools, including, but not 

limited to, technical assistance, conservation 

easements, and, to some extent, fee simple 

acquisition. If a landowner were to be 

interested in conserving resource values on 

his or her property, NPS could provide only 

limited technical assistance. A landowner 

would be encouraged to contact other 

government agencies or land trusts for possible 

assistance or potential funding. NPS would 

continue cooperative eff orts to maximize the 

success of partnerships wherever possible. 

Examples of land trusts include:

FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 43

 Local land trusts, such as Gunnison 

Ranchland Conservation Legacy or 

Black Canyon Land Trust

 State or regional land trusts, such as 

Colorado Open Lands

 National land trusts, such as The 

Conservation Fund, The Nature 

Conservancy, or the Trust for 

Public Lands.

NPS would continue to communicate and 

cooperate with those who hold private 

mineral/mining rights within the NRA, in 

order to provide appropriate measures 

to minimize impacts of development and 

operations that now exist, or might exist 

in the future. Rights would be purchased 

only if the owner would be willing to sell. 

However, since funds might not be available 

to purchase those rights, even if an owner 

wanted to sell, other resource conservation 

tools would be employed, such as identifi ed 

in the Toolbox of Incentives for Resource 

Conservation in Appendix A. 

 NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

MANAGEMENT

The National Park Service would 

continue to manage the natural, cultural, 

and recreational resources of the NRA 

and its associated facilities, pursuant to 

Reclamation law, NPS law, the 1965 MOA 

between NPS and Reclamation, and other 

applicable laws and regulations. However, 

under this alternative, the permanence 

of NPS as the manager of said resources 

would not be assured. Operational and 

maintenance agreements with Reclamation 

and other agencies would continue and be 

revised or updated, as necessary. 

 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

OPERATIONS

The Bureau of Reclamation would continue 

to operate and maintain the three dams, 

reservoirs (Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, and 

Crystal), power plants, access roads, and 

other related facilities, to meet the purposes 

of the Colorado River Storage Project 

(CRSP), and the East Portal area to meet 

the purposes of the Uncompahgre Project; 

pursuant to Reclamation law, the 1965 MOA, 

and other applicable laws and regulations. 

Reclamation and its managing entities, 

and Western Area Power Administration 

(Western), and their assigns, would continue 

to have unrestricted access to their lands and 

land interests, water and water interests, and 

facilities. They would continue to operate, 

maintain, replace, and expand said facilities 

pursuant to their authorities to accomplish 

their missions.

Reclamation lands that are currently outside 

of the NRA would be managed in accordance 

with applicable Reclamation law, as amended 

or supplemented, and other applicable federal 

laws and regulations. Reclamation would 

work with appropriate agreed-upon managing 

agencies to ensure that its lands and their 

associated uses and resources are managed in 

a manner consistent with applicable laws and 

regulations, and in accordance with agreements 

between Reclamation and the other agencies.

 OTHER AGENCY OPERATIONS

The National Park Service would continue to 

manage certain lands under an agreement with 

the U.S. Forest Service, including Ponderosa 

Campground. This agreement would, from 

time-to-time, be updated and revised. NPS 

would also continue to coordinate eff orts 

and issues with BLM, CDOW, and USFS on 

adjacent agency lands; however, no additional 

transfer of lands would be anticipated.

 JOINT AGENCY MANAGEMENT 

EFFORT (JAME)

As an on-going result of this RPS, the 

National Park Service has invited land 

management agencies with lands surrounding 

the NRA, and other federal and local 

government agencies, to work in partnership 

to address resource management issues that 

extend outside the NRA. These agencies 

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

44 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

include the BLM, Reclamation, Colorado 

Department of Transportation (CDOT), 

CDOW, Colorado State Forest Service 

(CSFS), USFS, Western, and Gunnison and 

Montrose Counties. Under Alternative 1, 

this group would continue to meet to tackle 

resource issues on a thematic basis that 

are common to each agency. The agencies 

mutually agreed to work on issues pertaining 

to invasive plant species (i.e., weeds) as the 

fi rst challenge of the JAME.

NPS would work with county planners and 

planning commissions to identify issues 

that affect, or potentially affect, the NRA. 

Whenever possible, solutions would be 

sought to mitigate impacts to resources.

 ESTIMATED COSTS, STAFFING 

REQUIREMENTS, AND 

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Estimated Costs

To implement Alternative 1, there would 

be no additional costs beyond what is 

currently incurred, and what is expected 

to be incurred, by the government, because 

existing conditions would continue. 

Curecanti NRA and adjacent Black Canyon 

of the Gunnison National Park are jointly 

managed by the same superintendent and 

managers. The amount authorized for 2006 

NPS operations (also known as ONPS) at 

Curecanti NRA is $3,036,800. It is expected 

that this budget would be adjusted annually 

to cover cost-of-living increases and may be 

subject to other adjustments (for example, 

additional funding due to increased 

homeland security threats, or special 

assessments). As is currently the case, the 

ONPS budget may be supplemented with 

fee receipts and special project funds. Other 

annual sources of funding, that vary from 

year to year, include “soft” money, such as 

Repair/Rehab, and Cyclic Maintenance. 

For direct comparison to the estimated 

costs of Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, 

the estimated cost to implement actions 

related to this study for Alternative 1 is 

$500,000. This money would need to be 

spent on missing and corrective surveys, 

posting, and some fencing along the existing 

administrative NRA boundary, even if the 

 Proposed Action is not implemented. Under 

Alternative 1, there would be no additional 

recurring annual costs.

In the past, there have been instances where 

land has been acquired at fair market value to 

add to the NRA. Requests for congressional 

funding were made in those instances. This 

may continue to occur in the future, but 

to a signifi cantly lesser extent than under 

Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action). Due to 

the uncertainty of those occurrences, and 

relatively low costs involved, no estimates are 

given for that potentiality.

Staffing Requirements

Currently, Curecanti NRA is operated by a staff 

of 53 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees. 

Staffi ng requirements would not change under 

Alternative 1, because existing conditions of 

NRA operations would continue.

Implementation Strategy

The strategy to implement Alternative 1 is 

for NPS to continue operating as it does 

now. The NRA would continue to work as 

much as existing funding and staffi ng permits 

in partnership with neighboring private 

landowners, land management agencies, 

county planners, land trusts, and others, 

to implement tools and to meet the goals 

and objectives of resource conservation in 

the Curecanti area. However, this would be 

to a signifi cantly lesser extent than under 

Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action).
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 45

 ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION

 OVERALL CONCEPT

Under Alternative 2, it is recommended that 

Congress legislatively establish Curecanti 

NRA with a new boundary, and that the 1965 

MOA between the Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) and the National Park Service 

(NPS) be revised accordingly. Reclamation 

operations would remain essentially the 

same as under Alternative 1; and NPS would 

manage lands within the NRA that it currently 

administers, as well as lands proposed for 

inclusion in the NRA from neighboring 

agencies. In addition, NPS would expand 

its eff orts to conserve the natural, cultural, 

recreational, and scenic resources on certain 

lands surrounding the NRA, in partnership 

with willing landowners (see the map for 

Alternative 2). This would be accomplished by 

the following primary actions:

 Recommend that Congress establish 

a National Recreation Area, with a 

legislated boundary that includes 

agreed-upon additional lands now 

managed by adjacent federal and 

state agencies.

NPS would cooperate with and assist private landowners to conserve resources surrounding Curecanti NRA

 Revise the 1965 MOA between NPS 

and Reclamation, and continue to 

work closely with Reclamation in the 

management of the NRA to ensure 

that Reclamation and its managing 

entities and the Western Area Power 

Administration (Western), continue to 

accomplish their missions.

 Designate a Conservation Opportunity 

Area, consisting of identifi ed private 

land surrounding the NRA, in which 

the National Park Service would 

be authorized by Congress to work 

with willing landowners to conserve 

resources, including acquiring agreedupon interests in land.

 Work cooperatively with private 

landowners to implement a variety of 

tools for resource conservation, which 

would include but not be limited 

to providing technical assistance, 

encouraging and/or acquiring 

conservation easements, and to some 

extent, acquiring land in fee simple.

 Manage the NRA such that the natural, 

cultural, and scenic resources are 

conserved; and that water-based and 

land-based opportunities for recreation 

are made available to the public.

ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

46 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

 Continue to work cooperatively 

with neighboring agencies in a Joint 

Agency Management Eff ort to resolve 

resource and visitor-use management 

issues of mutual concern. NPS would 

continue to cooperate with CDOW 

to address wildlife and habitat issues, 

and in managing fi shing and hunting 

within the NRA.

One of the greatest diff erences between 

Alternatives 1 and 2 lies in the relationship 

between the National Park Service and 

surrounding private landowners. In 

recognition of the benefi ts of partnerships, 

and the potential impacts on natural, cultural, 

recreational, and scenic resources likely 

resulting from development of adjacent lands, 

under Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action), 

NPS would make a more concerted longterm eff ort to establish partnerships with 

neighboring landowners and others in the 

service of resource conservation.

If the recommendations in Alternative 2 are 

enacted, NPS would be given authority by 

Congress to formally work with landowners 

within a newly created COA, consisting 

of certain private lands, with the purpose 

of encouraging conservation of resources 

important to the NRA. Numerous incentives 

and tools for resource conservation would be 

made more readily available to landowners. 

With congressional authorization and subject 

to competing demands from other NPS units, 

there would be more opportunity for funds 

to be made available for acquisition of fee 

title or conservation easements from willing 

landowners in the COA; and additional 

funding would be provided for NPS to assist 

landowners in taking advantage of other 

incentives and tools.

Any arrangement made between NPS and a 

landowner would be on a cooperative basis. 

Potential long-term benefi ts would include 

enhanced resource conservation throughout 

the Curecanti area; property enhancement 

and fi nancial and tax benefi ts for landowners; 

enhanced enjoyment, understanding, and 

appreciation for visitors to the NRA; an 

enriched local economy; and a sustained high 

quality of life for local residents and all who 

visit the Curecanti area.

Alternative 2 embraces the philosophy of the 

Department of the Interior’s former Secretary 

– the Four Cs: Communication, Consultation, 

and Cooperation, all in the service of 

Conservation. In addition, it supports one 

of the overarching goals of the current 

NPS Director, Mary Bomar, to increase the 

capacity of the system of national parks. It also 

embraces the guidance of NPS Management 

Policies 2006, a summary of which follows (the 

full citations are available in Appendix C).

1.6 Cooperative Conservation Beyond 

Park1

 Boundaries 

Cooperative conservation beyond park 

boundaries is necessary as the National 

Park Service strives to fulfi ll its mandate to 

preserve the natural and cultural resources 

of parks unimpaired for future generations. 

. . . Cooperative conservation activities are a 

vital element in establishing relationships that 

will benefi t the parks and in fostering decisions 

that are sustainable. . . The Service will also 

seek to advance opportunities for conservation 

partnerships. 

4.1.4 Partnerships 

The Service will pursue opportunities to 

improve natural resource management within 

parks and across administrative boundaries 

by pursuing cooperative conservation (with 

1 In this context, the word “park” is a generic term for any unit 

of the national park system, be it a national park, a national 

monument, national historic site, national battlefi eld, national 

parkway, national seashore, national recreation area, or some 

other designation. 

Reaching out to the public, a fi rst step in creating partnerships

FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 49

agencies and landowners). . . The Service 

recognizes that cooperation . . . can accomplish 

ecosystem stability and other resource 

management objectives when the best eff orts 

of a single manager might fail. In addition, the 

Service will seek the cooperation of others in 

minimizing the impacts of infl uences originating 

outside parks by controlling noise and 

artifi cial lighting, maintaining water quality 

and quantity, eliminating toxic substances, 

preserving scenic views, improving air quality, 

preserving wetlands, protecting threatened or 

endangered species, eliminating exotic species, 

managing the use of pesticides, protecting 

shoreline processes, managing fi res, managing 

boundary infl uences, and using other means of 

preserving and protecting natural resources.

 NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

DESIGNATION AND BOUNDARY

The “ Proposed Lands” — Land to be Added 

to the Existing NRA, and the Conservation 

Opportunity Area

Under Alternative 2, it is recommended that 

Congress offi cially establish Curecanti as 

a National Recreation Area (NRA), with a 

legislated boundary. The new NRA would 

initially include 51,830 acres within its 

boundary. Outside and surrounding the NRA, 

24,300 acres of private property would be 

designated as a Conservation Opportunity 

Area. Following the initial establishment of the 

new NRA boundary, as agreements are reached 

with neighboring land owners and agencies, 

the total acreage within the NRA would change 

over time by adding newly acquired land from 

willing landowners, by exchanging NRA land 

for private COA land, or by transferring agreedupon land between NPS and other agencies. 

The COA and the proposed NRA boundary, 

including involved agency lands, are shown on 

the Alternative 2 map.

Upon passage of NRA legislation, the new 

boundary would immediately encompass 

the lands and waters within the existing 

NRA (41,790 acres), plus 10,040 net acres 

of mutually agreed-upon public lands that 

would be added to the NRA, but which 

would be administered by the National Park 

Service. The additional land would include 

Reclamation lands (1,500 acres), BLM lands 

(5,840 acres), and USFS lands (2,560 net acres, 

consisting of 2,640 acres added, and 80 acres 

deleted). In addition, authority would be 

provided to include approximately 140 acres 

of CDOW land that would be managed by 

CDOW until such time that NPS can acquire 

it through an exchange for federal lands. Such 

exchanges would be subject to a commitment 

to continue to manage the land thus acquired 

for wildlife, if the land was originally acquired 

for wildlife mitigation purposes.

For purposes of this study, and found 

throughout the text, primarily with reference 

to Alternative 2 – the Proposed Action, the 

term “proposed lands” refers to 34,420 

acres of land outside the existing NRA 

that are considered important for resource 

conservation, public recreation, and scenic 

values, in keeping with NRA and NPS goals 

and objectives. The proposed lands include 

the following lands that were just described 

(less the 80 acres of USFS lands that would be 

deleted from the NRA), specifi cally:

 Public lands recommended to be 

transferred from other agencies to NPS 

to be included within the proposed 

NRA boundary immediately upon 

recommended passage of legislation that 

would establish the NRA (10,120 acres);

 Private lands that are recommended to 

be included within the Conservation 

Opportunity Area, outside and 

adjacent to the proposed NRA 

boundary (24,300 acres).

All Reclamation lands, land interests, water 

and water interests, and facilities, whether 

within or outside of the NRA, would be 

retained under Reclamation jurisdiction for 

the operation, maintenance, and replacement 

of and additions to its projects. Management 

of various uses, as well as resources by other 

agencies, on Reclamation lands would be in 

accordance with Reclamation law, as amended 

and supplemented, and agreements with other 

agencies. Reclamation would have the ability 

at all times to construct, operate, maintain, and 

replace its facilities, including additions thereto. 

ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

50 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

be deleted from the NRA to be managed by 

USFS as part of the Gunnison National Forest, 

potential, eventual deletions would include 

800 acres to BLM, and 363 acres that might be 

exchanged for private COA lands, on a willing 

landowner basis. These BLM- and COArelated deletions are Reclamation lands, and 

would be subject to a fi nding by Reclamation 

that such lands are no longer needed for 

Reclamation projects.

The locations of the tracts that might be 

exchanged for COA lands, and perhaps some 

additional tracts (subject to Reclamation 

concurrence), and the number of acres 

exchanged, would be identifi ed in a land 

protection plan (LPP) that would be produced 

as one of the requirements of implementation 

of the Proposed Action. However, as 

mentioned, at least 363 acres of NRA land on 

the north side of CO 92, between Curecanti 

Creek and Blue Mesa Dam, have already been 

identifi ed as being appropriate to exchange for 

private COA lands. These are shown as Tracts 

4 through 7 on the Alternative 2 map.

Until such time that Reclamation relinquishes 

its withdrawals on lands to be transferred out 

of the NRA to BLM, and BLM has revoked 

those withdrawals, NPS would consider 

entering into an agreement with BLM to 

manage those tracts. However, the 80 acres of 

land being recommended for deletion to be 

managed by USFS is not Reclamation land, 

and that deletion could occur as soon as NRA 

legislation is passed and agreements between 

NPS and USFS are revised.

New NRA legislation should allow some 

fl exibility for NPS managers to accomplish 

land exchanges with the identifi ed tracts and 

with such tracts that might be identifi ed in the 

future. If these potential exchanges were to 

occur, it would reduce the cost of acquiring 

interests in land that are shown later in the 

cost estimates for this alternative.

The ten tracts of land that are currently being 

considered for potential deletion from the 

existing NRA are described below. The reasons 

for the recommended deletions are identifi ed 

within parentheses ( ).

This ability includes access to all its lands and 

land interests, water and water interests, and 

facilities.

NPS would be given the authority to remedy 

inadvertent encroachment issues. Such 

remedies could include lease arrangements, 

buying and selling real property at fair market 

value, or exchange. If such actions aff ect 

Reclamation land, NPS and Reclamation 

would coordinate eff orts to resolve 

encroachment issues.

Lands To Be Deleted from the Existing NRA

During the process of assessing the resource 

value and character of the land within 

and surrounding Curecanti NRA, certain 

tracts of land were identifi ed for potential 

exclusion from the NRA boundary. These 

lands, which total 1,243 acres, are shown as 

ten diff erent “Tracts” on the Alternative 2 

map. As this study defi nes proposed lands, 

for clarity of discussion, especially in the 

Aff ected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences chapters, these deletions are 

not included in the term “proposed lands.”

NPS identifi ed two primary reasons for the 

exclusion of the tracts. The fi rst is that the 

proposed deletions would provide net overall 

management effi ciencies by transferring 

various tracts to two adjacent federal land 

management agencies. Tracts 1 and 10 

would be transferred to the Bureau of Land 

Management. Tracts 2, 3, 8, and 9 would be 

transferred to the U.S. Forest Service.

The second is that the proposed deletions 

would provide a more logical NRA boundary 

in certain locations along the north side of 

Colorado Highway 92 (Tracts 4, 5, 6, and 7), 

and along the west side of Soap Creek Road 

(Tracts 8 and 9). In these locations, the road 

winds in and out of the existing administrative 

boundary, causing unnecessary confusion for 

visitors who are unsure of whether they are 

in or out of the NRA. The proposed changes 

would make the edge of the road right-ofway the NRA boundary, thus eliminating this 

confusion.

In addition to the previously mentioned 80 

acres of USFS land that would immediately 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 51

Tract 1: 680 acres to BLM, subject to 

revocation of Reclamation’s withdrawal 

(management effi ciencies)

Tract 2: 42 acres to USFS, upon passage of 

NRA legislation (management effi ciencies)

Tract 3: 21 acres to USFS, upon passage of 

NRA legislation (management effi ciencies)

Tract 4: 162 acres to private interest, 

in exchange for COA land, subject to 

revocation of Reclamation’s withdrawal, 

and negotiation with landowner (logical 

boundary)

Tract 5: 11 acres to private interest, in 

exchange for COA land, subject to 

revocation of Reclamation’s withdrawal, 

and negotiation with landowner (logical 

boundary)

Tract 6: 159 acres to private interest, 

in exchange for COA land, subject to 

revocation of Reclamation’s withdrawal, 

and negotiation with landowner (logical 

boundary)

Tract 7: 31 acres to private interest, in 

exchange for COA land, subject to 

revocation of Reclamation’s withdrawal, 

and negotiation with landowner (logical 

boundary)

Tract 8: 3 acres to USFS, upon passage of 

NRA legislation (management effi ciencies 

and logical boundary)

Tract 9: 14 acres to USFS, upon passage of 

NRA legislation (management effi ciencies 

and logical boundary)

Tract 10: 120 acres to BLM, subject to 

revocation of Reclamation’s withdrawal 

(management effi ciencies).

Prior to any exchange using Tracts 4, 5, 6 and 

7 for private lands, or any other parcels that 

may be identifi ed in the future to be used in 

such an exchange, the lands proposed for 

exchange would be evaluated under Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act [36 CFR §800.4(d)(1)] to determine if 

they contain any site or sites considered to 

be eligible for listing on the National Register 

of Historic Places. If such a determination 

is made, exchange of such lands would be 

considered an adverse eff ect, and a protective 

action such as the following would need to 

be taken prior to any such conveyance: (1) the 

conveyance would be conditioned upon a 

preservation easement to assure the continued 

protection of the resource; or (2) the parcel 

would be subdivided in such a way that any 

tracts containing eligible cultural resources 

would remain with NPS, and tracts without 

such resources could be used in exchange. 

Otherwise, the eff ort to exchange such a 

parcel would be terminated.

 RESOURCE CONSERVATION

 Conservation Opportunity Area

A COA would be created outside, and adjacent 

to, the proposed NRA boundary. It would be 

comprised of 24,300 acres of private land where 

the National Park Service would be authorized 

by Congress to use resource conservation tools 

to partner with neighbors to conserve resources 

and values identifi ed as important to the NRA. 

A variety of conservation tools, ranging from 

technical assistance to conservation easements 

to fee simple acquisition, would be available to 

implement on these private lands subject to the 

willingness of the landowner to participate. It 

is currently envisioned that 2,400 acres would 

be necessary to acquire in fee simple; and 8,100 

acres would be placed under conservation 

easement. However, it would be necessary to 

produce a land protection plan to establish land 

priorities, to determine which conservation tools 

are likely to be applied and where, and to make 

recommendations about what lands and/or land 

interests should be acquired from willing sellers.

The National Park Service would be 

authorized by Congress to negotiate with 

landowners and to seek necessary funding to 

implement these tools on properties within 

the COA. Some of the conservation tools 

may be implemented through NRA-based 

funding; some may be achieved through 

special project funds; and some may be 

accomplished through partner matches and 

ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

52 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

other agency or foundation grants. Land 

and conservation-easement acquisitions 

would be funded through the NPS Land 

Acquisition Ranking System (LARS), in 

competition with the demands of other NPS 

units. No such authority would exist for 

lands outside the COA (with the exception of 

some technical assistance, if funding and staff 

were available). The National Park Service 

would be authorized by Congress to amend 

the proposed NRA boundary to include 

properties within the COA that are acquired in 

fee simple.

As an alternative to NPS ownership of 

conservation easements, land trusts and other 

conservation partners may be willing to acquire 

conservation easements, either by purchase 

or donation, as well as hold and monitor such 

easements. NPS would be willing to facilitate 

third-party acquisitions of conservation 

easements, which would serve to achieve 

resource conservation goals within the COA.

Resource Conservation Tools

A Land Protection Plan would be developed 

to identify priorities and methods, or tools, 

for resource conservation within the COA. 

The LPP would meet the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to 

evaluate potential environmental and social 

impacts, and to provide opportunity for public 

review and comment prior to implementation.

Resource conservation tools that would 

be available for implementation under this 

alternative are summarized below. These tools 

are described more comprehensively in an 

NPS booklet titled Toolbox of Incentives for 

Resource Conservation: A Handbook of Ideas 

for Neighbors in the Curecanti Area, which 

is included in Appendix A. This toolbox 

identifi es present and potential methods that 

can be employed to encourage Curecanti 

area neighbors to work in partnership to 

manage their lands for more eff ective resource 

conservation. Some of the incentives in this 

toolbox would require further analysis by NPS 

offi cials and, in some cases, would require 

congressional or legislative authorization and 

appropriation of funds.

Technical Assistance — NPS is currently able 

to provide a limited amount of environmental 

education and technical assistance to 

landowners. Under Alternative 2, NPS 

would be able to provide a broader range of 

assistance, such as:

 Off er, to a greater extent, advice regarding 

resource management and conservation 

measures, or directing individuals to 

appropriate sources of information

 Off er, to a greater extent, advice on 

siting and design considerations for 

aesthetically and environmentally 

sensitive development

 Off er, to a greater extent, jurisdictional 

advice, such as referring property 

owners to the appropriate government 

or organizational entity

 Off er, to a greater extent, advice on 

the location of wetlands, the need 

for permits, and ways to enhance 

wetlands habitat

 Provide information about various 

resource conservation practices, 

including those involving conservation 

easements and land trusts

 Provide assistance to obtain funding 

for worthwhile projects through 

government grants, such as U.S. 

Department of Agriculture costshare grants to install animal wastetreatment units to promote cleaner 

surface water and groundwater, and 

state and federal funding to conserve 

habitat for endangered species.

General Agreements — General agreements 

and memorandums of understanding set 

the stage for short-term and long-term 

commitments in cooperative assistance, 

usually benefi ting all parties involved. 

Agreements would be consistent with NPS 

and Reclamation law, regulations, and policies, 

and must be consistent and compatible with 

the purposes of the Reclamation projects.

 Examples include cost-sharing on 

projects that mutually benefi t the 

parties, or understandings on how 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 53

property taxes, there may be signifi cant income 

tax and estate tax benefi ts to the landowner.

Purchase and Retained Use and 

Occupancy — In this scenario, NPS would 

buy the property from a willing seller at 

fair-market value, and the owner would be 

allowed to remain on the property until death 

(life estate), or some other agreed-upon time 

period, such as 25 years. Life estates impact 

valuation, and appraisals are lowered using 

an actuary table on life expectancy. Since the 

owner would no longer be paying property 

taxes, the federal government may provide 

payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILT) to the county.

Fee Simple Acquisition — NPS acquires all 

rights or interests in the land on a willingseller basis. Since the owner would no 

longer be paying property taxes, the federal 

government may provide PILT to the county. 

Acquisition could occur through a variety of 

methods, including:

 The landowner could be paid a fairmarket-value price from sources 

of funding that might include 

congressional appropriations, such 

as the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund (LWCF); donated monies; or 

third party grants.

 Land could be exchanged between 

the property owner and a federal or 

state agency. For example, the LPP 

certain activities or operations can 

occur. One party might agree to certain 

restrictions in return for other benefi ts, 

including technical assistance, labor, 

and/or materials needed to accomplish 

a project that would be of benefi t to 

the property owner and NPS. Projects 

could include those that conserve 

wildlife and habitat, or those that 

reduce impacts to viewsheds.

 Agreements are especially useful 

if a conservation easement or fee 

simple acquisition is agreed upon, 

but funds are not yet available to 

implement. General agreements and 

memorandums of understanding 

clarify policies or procedures and 

can serve as the basis for cooperation 

among two or more parties. They 

are most likely to be useful for land 

owned by state or local governments, 

private nonprofi t organizations, 

and other federal agencies, and by 

individuals or corporations who are 

supportive of NRA purposes, as well 

as resource-conservation initiatives. 

They may be terminated whenever 

any of the parties to the agreement 

wish, with proper notice.

Incentive Payments – Payments are made 

to property owners and other entities that 

enter into contracts to conserve or enhance 

recreational, cultural, and natural resources 

through a variety of grant programs, including 

those of NPS, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 

CDOW, and others.

Acquisition of Conservation Easements 

or Other Property Rights – In this program, 

NPS, another agency, or a land trust, acquires 

an interest in the property on a willing-seller 

basis, for conservation purposes. The types of 

tools used include acquisition of conservation 

easements or deed restrictions, mineral rights, 

and/or rights-of-way. Activities that are not 

in confl ict with the purposes of the easement 

or deed are generally allowed, while specifi c 

restrictions ensure that uses of the property 

remain compatible with the conservation 

purposes spelled out in the easement or deed. 

Although the landowner continues to pay 

ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION

Using conservation easements to conserve land adjacent to 

the NRA is an important tool of Alternative 2
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

54 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

might identify lands to be exchanged in 

return for lands to be acquired.

 The landowner could donate land to 

the National Park Service, or sell land 

at a discount, and, in turn, receive 

certain tax advantages.

This study recognizes that the availability 

of federal funds for acquiring interests in 

land may be limited. However, some of the 

goals and objectives of Alternative 2 would 

still be achievable through the application 

of other tools that could be used to provide 

incentives to willing landowners for 

conserving resources.

Water rights would be specifi cally addressed 

as a condition of each sale, exchange, and/

or donation. In general, water rights are 

appurtenant to the land, unless specifi cally 

stated otherwise. Land exchanges between 

Bureaus of the United States simply 

aff ect how a particular parcel of land is 

administered, and all existing water rights 

remain the property of the United States. 

Water rights associated with land exchanges 

or purchases with the State of Colorado, as 

well as private landowners, would become 

the property of the United States, unless 

language in the sale or exchange states 

otherwise. As an example, a landowner may 

choose to work with his or her attorney and/

or local water district to ensure that the water 

will continue to be used for agricultural 

purposes. Note that in Colorado, Instream 

Flow Rights, whether on federal, state, 

or private land, can only be held by the 

Colorado Water Conservation Board.

Private Land Use within the NRA

As in Alternative 1, NPS would continue 

to communicate and cooperate with those 

who hold private interests (such as rights-ofway, water rights, access rights, and oil/ gas/

mineral rights) within the NRA in order to 

provide appropriate measures to minimize 

impacts of development and operations that 

now exist, or might exist, in the future. This 

would also be done with those who might 

hold such rights in the COA. Although the 

NPS would be managing a congressionally 

designated NRA under Alternative 2, there 

may still be insuffi cient funds available to 

purchase those rights if the owner were 

willing to sell. However, more emphasis and 

funding would be available to implement 

other resource conservation tools, such as 

those identifi ed above and in the Toolbox 

of Incentives for Resource Conservation in 

Appendix A.

 NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

MANAGEMENT

Under this alternative, it is recommended 

that Congress legislatively establish Curecanti 

as a National Recreation Area with a new 

legislated 

boundary, and 

that the 1965 

MOA between 

NPS and 

Reclamation 

be revised 

accordingly 

(revised 

MOA). The 

legislation would designate the National 

Park Service to be responsible for managing 

the natural, cultural, and recreational 

resources, visitor use and education, and 

associated facilities. Such management 

would be pursuant to Reclamation law, NPS 

law, including the new NRA legislation, the 

revised MOA, and other applicable laws and 

regulations. The new MOA would further 

defi ne the administrative jurisdiction, roles, 

and responsibilities of Reclamation and 

its managing entities, NPS, and Western 

within the NRA. Under this alternative, 

the permanence of NPS as the manager 

of these resources would be assured. NPS 

would, as necessary, revise any operation 

and maintenance agreements between it and 

other agencies, including Reclamation, BLM, 

and USFS, to refl ect management changes 

resulting from legislative establishment of the 

NRA.

In order to successfully implement the 

proposals in Alternative 2, it would be 

necessary to hire an FTE employee to oversee 

 Morrow Point Reservoir boat tour
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 55

the associated operations into the future. 

The duties and required skills of such a 

“partnership liaison” are described later in 

Alternative 2 under “Staffi ng Requirements.” 

In addition, as interests are acquired in 

private property, an additional FTE would be 

required to monitor and manage those lands.

 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

OPERATIONS

The Bureau of Reclamation would operate 

and maintain the three dams, reservoirs, 

(Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, and Crystal), 

power plants, access roads, and other related 

facilities, to meet the purposes of the CRSP; 

and the East Portal area, to meet the purposes 

of the Uncompahgre Project; pursuant to 

Reclamation law, the revised MOA, and 

other applicable laws and regulations. 

Reclamation, and its managing entities, and 

Western, and their assigns, would continue 

to have unrestricted access to their lands and 

land interests, water and water interests, and 

facilities. They would continue to operate, 

maintain, replace, and expand said facilities 

pursuant to their authorities to accomplish 

their missions.

Reclamation lands currently outside of, but 

contiguous with, the current NRA, would 

be added to the NRA until such time as 

Reclamation determines that the lands are 

no longer necessary for project purposes. 

Pending such a determination, those lands 

would be administered by Reclamation 

and NPS for their respective purposes 

in accordance with Reclamation law, as 

amended and supplemented, other applicable 

federal laws and regulations, and an MOA 

between Reclamation and NPS. Upon such 

a determination that the lands are no longer 

necessary for Reclamation project purposes, 

the lands may be retained within the NRA 

under NPS management, or deleted from the 

NRA and transferred to another agency, or 

otherwise be disposed of, as allowed by law.

 OTHER AGENCY OPERATIONS

NPS would coordinate with BLM, USFS, and 

CDOW to evaluate operations pursuant to the 

transfer of lands identifi ed under Alternative 

2. NPS may enter into new, or revised, 

agreements with any or all of these agencies 

to defi ne responsibilities and cooperative 

eff orts arising out of legislative establishment 

of the NRA. NPS would also continue to 

coordinate eff orts and issues with BLM, USFS, 

and CDOW on adjacent agency lands, such 

as might occur through participation in the 

JAME, described below. 

NPS would work with CDOW and BLM to 

explore the potential land exchange for stateowned land identifi ed in Alternative 2. In the 

event that such an exchange is implemented, 

it may be possible to extinguish one or more 

agreements between NPS and CDOW.

In the event that NPS acquires private land 

within the COA in the vicinity of Mesa 

Creek (the NE1⁄4 of Section 33, and the N1⁄2 of 

Section 34, and the NW1⁄4 of Section 35, all in 

Township 49 North, Range 6 West, NMPM), 

it is recommended that land south of CO 

92 (about 260 acres) be included within the 

NRA, and the land north of CO 92 (about 300 

acres) be transferred to the administration of 

the USFS for inclusion within the Gunnison 

National Forest. At that time, NPS would 

request that a small parcel of land (about 26 

acres) south of CO 92 on Mesa Creek, now 

within the Gunnison National Forest, be 

transferred to the NRA (said parcel is located 

in the SW1⁄4 SW1⁄4 of Section 26, and the SE1⁄4 

SE1⁄4 of Section 27, all in Township 49 North, 

Range 6 West, NMPM). It is recommended 

that the south right-of-way line of CO 92 in 

this area be the NRA boundary, but only if, 

and when, the land within the COA in this 

location is acquired from a willing seller. 

The recommendation is made for the future 

(and not shown on the Alternative 2 map for 

immediate implementation), because until 

such time as the COA land might be acquired 

in this area, it would be more effi cient for this 

26-acre parcel to be continued to be managed 

as a contiguous tract of the National Forest, 

instead of as a detached tract of the NRA.

ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

56 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

 JOINT AGENCY MANAGEMENT EFFORT 

(JAME)

As described in Alternative 1, NPS and other 

federal, state, and local agencies would 

continue the JAME to address resource issues, 

such as noxious weeds, that are common to 

each agency. 

NPS would be more proactive in working 

with County Planners and Planning 

Commissions. NPS would encourage 

 Gunnison County to evaluate a potential 

Special Geographic Area to complement 

the eff orts of partnership within the COA. 

NPS would also encourage Montrose 

County, upon revision of their Master Plan, 

to establish a conservation overlay zone 

that includes the NRA and COA. Such a 

zone could be used to guide development 

decisions in that area.

 ESTIMATED COSTS, STAFFING 

REQUIREMENTS, AND 

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Estimated Costs

The total cost of implementing Alternative 

2 would occur over many years into the 

future, and it would depend primarily on the 

willingness and the degree of participation of 

private landowners in the eff ort, and the types 

of tools employed to conserve resources. 

Many factors contribute to the 

total cost of implementation. 

Perhaps the greatest, single, cost 

element would be acquiring 

interests in land, such as fee simple 

acquisition and conservation 

easements. Those costs are very 

uncertain because of numerous 

unpredictable and variable factors, 

such as:

 The number of landowners 

willing to participate

 Determination by a land 

protection plan (LPP) of 

priorities of land to conserve, and 

appropriate conservation tools

 Change in fair market value of property

 Availability of funds for acquisition of 

interests in land

 The time between property appraisals 

and availability of funds

 The interest and assistance from 

other parties, such as land trusts and 

conservation organizations

 Future changes in federal and 

state tax and estate laws that might 

aff ect landowners’ decisions to sell 

or donate land or conservation 

easements.

The relatively high anticipated cost of 

acquiring interests in land is a major reason 

that other tools are being considered to work 

in partnership with landowners to conserve 

resources, so that goals and objectives can 

be realistically achieved. Therefore, it would 

be necessary to develop an LPP early in the 

process to set priorities on which parcels of 

land are most important to conserve, and 

which tools would be adequate in each case. 

At that time, requests for funds for those 

parcels of land for which monies are required 

would be considered through the NPS land 

acquisition ranking system (LARS) in light 

of competing demands from other NPS 

units. Potential sources of funding are listed 

in the “Implementation Strategy” section of 

this chapter, below. However, to the greatest 

Agency cooperation and COA tools will help conserve agrarian values 

in the future
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 57

extent possible, NPS would pursue tools of a 

partnership nature with willing landowners, 

conservation organizations, land trusts, and 

other agencies, including matching grants and 

similar cost-sharing eff orts, that could result in 

lower direct costs to NPS, while still satisfying 

resource conservation goals and objectives, as 

well as landowner goals and objectives.

In order to arrive at an estimate of the 

direct costs for acquiring interests in land, 

assumptions have been made on the number 

of acres that might be identified in a future 

LPP for conservation easements and fee 

simple acquisition, all of which would be 

consummated only if land owners were 

willing to participate. The most likely 

scenario is that a relatively small percentage 

of the 24,300 acres of private land in the 

COA would be so managed. Current 

thinking is that approximately one tenth 

(2,400 acres) would eventually be acquired 

in fee simple, and approximately one third 

(8,100 acres) would eventually be placed 

under conservation easements. There 

is a potential for some NRA lands to be 

exchanged for private COA lands, subject to 

landowner agreement. This would reduce 

the cost of acquiring interests in land, 

shown on the following pages (see also the 

discussion of potential deletions from the 

NRA in the section on National Recreation 

Area Designation and Boundary, earlier in 

this chapter).

Because of the uncertainty in predicting 

future property values, the estimated costs 

per acre of land used in the calculations 

are based on current market values (see a 

discussion of Property Values in the Aff ected 

Environment chapter, under Neighboring 

Private Lands and Landowners within the 

 Proposed Lands). Future market values 

could be greater or less than those used in 

the calculations. For fee simple acquisition 

of land within Gunnison County, a median 

value of $2,750 per acre was used; and within 

 Montrose County, $1,000 per acre.

For conservation easements, or CEs, a factor 

of 60% of the fee simple value was used to 

come up with $1,650 per acre in Gunnison 

County, and $600 per acre in Montrose 

County. However, with increased interest 

and activity from regional and national land 

trusts and other conservation organizations, 

the costs of acquiring CEs could be reduced 

because of additional matching funds, 

increased emphasis on discounted sales of 

CEs, and increased emphasis on donations 

of CEs. In such cases, third parties would 

likely be the holders and monitors of 

CEs, and federal acquisitions would be 

combinations of donations, tax incentives, 

and bargain sales. Because of these factors, 

it is estimated that acquisition of the CEs in 

the COA would be 50% of face value of the 

CEs; or $825 per acre in Gunnison County 

and $300 per acre in Montrose County.

Because of the many unknowns that 

infl uence the cost of acquiring interests in 

land, including donations and third party 

involvement, and what interests would 

eventually be acquired, the estimated costs 

to the government are presented as a range. 

Since most of the land in which NPS might 

be acquiring an interest would probably 

be located in Gunnison County, the land 

values for Gunnison County were used in 

the calculations. Thus, $2,750 per acre was 

used to calculate the high range for fee simple 

acquisition, and $825 per acre was used to 

calculate the high range for CEs. The low 

range was determined by assuming that up 

to 2,500 acres of the most important land 

in the COA in which NPS feels it should 

acquire an interest would at least come under 

conservation easements at approximately 

$825 per acre.

In addition to the direct costs of acquiring 

interests in land, there are a number of other 

cost items that would be incurred with the 

implementation of Alternative 2 that are more 

predictable. These include a land protection 

plan; land appraisals tied to acquisition 

of land and conservation easements; 

environmental assessments to determine, 

among other things, the presence of 

hazardous materials; associated closing costs, 

such as title commitments and recording fees; 

surveys for the proposed NRA boundary; 

marking, or “posting” the entire boundary; 

ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

58 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

fencing about one-fourth of the boundary in 

selected areas; and specifi c implementation 

plans to determine necessary and appropriate 

resource management, interpretation, 

and visitor use and understanding on 

newly acquired lands. These are one-time 

expenditures that are expected to occur 

during implementation of Alternative 2.

Other costs that would occur on an annual 

basis are for staffi ng that would be required 

to implement Alternative 2. One dedicated 

position would be needed to serve as a 

“partnership liaison” between the NRA 

and its neighbors to implement the study’s 

recommendations over the long term. 

The anticipated duties of that position are 

described later in this chapter under Staffi ng 

Requirements. In addition, as new lands are 

added to the NRA, work would be required 

associated with the management of those lands, 

and new facilities that might be constructed on 

them for visitor use and resource conservation. 

This work would be spread over all divisions 

of the NRA. Personnel required to fi ll the 

dedicated position and to perform the 

additional work associated with managing new 

lands are estimated to be the equivalent of two 

full-time employees.

Estimated Costs of Implementing the 

 Proposed Action: The estimated costs of 

implementing the Proposed Action are shown 

below. The fi gures include the direct costs of 

acquiring interests in land, and the expected 

costs of establishing the initial proposed NRA 

boundary, as well as incorporating changes to 

the boundary that might reasonably occur.

 One-Time Costs:

 Acquiring interests in land from 

willing private landowners 

within the COA = $2,000,000 to 

$13,283,000

 Fee Simple Acquisition (High 

Range): 2,400 acres @ $2,750/

acre = $6,600,000

 Acquisition of Conservation 

Easements (High Range): 8,100 

acres @ $825/acre = $6,683,000

 Land Protection Plan = $150,000

 Land Appraisals, Environmental 

Assessments, and Closing Costs = 

$300,000

 Boundary Surveys and Posting = 

$800,000

 Boundary Fencing = $240,000

 Specifi c Implementation Plans for 

New Lands = $200,000

One-Time Costs = $3,690,000 to 

$14,973,000

 Recurring Annual Costs: In addition 

to the One-Time Costs shown above, 

as the Proposed Action becomes fully 

implemented, there will be an annual cost 

of $160,000 for the equivalent of two fulltime employees, as shown below.

 Upon initiation of implementation 

— an additional full-time NRA staff 

“partnership liaison” position, at 

$80,000 per year

 Upon acquisition of suffi cient 

interests in land — the equivalent 

of one additional full-time 

employee for resource and visitor 

management and protection, 

interpretation, construction and 

maintenance, and administration 

associated with the management of 

newly acquired interests in land, at 

$80,000 per year

This study recognizes that the 

availability of federal funds for 

acquiring interests in land may 

be limited. However, some of the 

goals and objectives of Alternative 

2 would still be achievable through 

the application of other tools 

that could be used to provide 

incentives to willing landowners for 

conserving resources.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 59

Staffing Requirements

Partnership Liaison — A new “partnership 

liaison” position would be added to the NRA 

staff to implement the Proposed Action, and 

to oversee and sustain its operation into the 

future. That person would need to have a 

wide range of knowledge, skills, and abilities 

in order to perform a broad variety of duties 

associated with the position. The duties and 

qualifi cations associated with the position 

would include the following.

 Perform as the NRA liaison with private 

landowners, adjacent land-management 

agencies, regional and national land 

trusts, conservation organizations, 

county planners and offi cials, and other 

neighbors and stakeholders

 Write and implement a land 

protection plan

 Work with private landowners to 

implement the tools of resource 

conservation, including negotiations 

leading to acquiring interests in land

 Coordinate appraisals and 

environmental assessments

 Implement boundary surveys, marking 

and posting, and fencing

 Write grant proposals

 Monitor conservation easements

 Provide and/or coordinate technical 

assistance to neighboring private 

landowners in the areas of natural, 

historical, and archeological resource 

conservation and enhancement, 

especially preserving and improving 

natural habitat, and conserving water 

quality; planning, siting, and design 

considerations for development; and 

protecting life and property from wildfi re

 Coordinate the JAME

 Coordinate the development 

and implementation of specifi c 

implementation plans for new lands.

NRA Operations — As more interests in land 

are acquired over time from other government 

agencies and from willing private landowners, 

there would be an increasing requirement for 

NRA staff in the following areas of operations:

 To monitor and conserve the natural 

and cultural resources on those lands

 To coordinate the administration of 

grazing permits that exist on lands 

transferred to the NRA

 To provide for additional recreational 

and interpretive opportunities, and the 

safety of NRA visitors

 To construct and maintain the 

necessary and appropriate facilities for 

resource conservation and visitor use, 

such as fencing and trails

 To provide administrative support for 

technical assistance to neighbors.

Eventually, this work would require the 

equivalent of one additional FTE, shared 

among all fi ve operating divisions at the 

NRA: Resource Stewardship and Science; 

Interpretation, Education, and Technology; 

Visitor Protection and Fee Collection; Facility 

Management; and Administration.

Implementation Strategy

Alternative 2 would be implemented over a 

period of many years. NRA staff is currently 

making some eff orts in partnering with other 

land management agencies, county planners, 

land trusts, and, to a lesser extent, private 

landowners, to identify and achieve goals related 

to resource conservation in the Curecanti area. 

However, the real benefi ts of Alternative 2 would 

not occur until the study’s recommendations 

have been approved, legislation is enacted, 

additional staff is hired, required funding is 

appropriated, and the proposed actions and 

appropriate tools of resource conservation 

are implemented. The greatest amount of 

implementation is expected to occur within the 

fi rst ten years of congressional approval of this 

study’s recommendations.

The following actions would be required to 

fully implement Alternative 2.

ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

60 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

 Congress would need to approve the 

recommendations in this study and 

establish the following:

 Legislative designation of 

Curecanti National Recreation 

Area, with a new legislated 

boundary

 Legislative designation of 

the National Park Service to 

manage the natural, cultural, and 

recreational resources, visitor use 

and education, and associated 

facilities

 Approval of the COA concept

 Authorization for NPS to work 

with willing landowners to employ 

tools of resource conservation in 

the COA, including acquisition of 

interests in private property

 Approval of NPS to adjust 

the proposed NRA boundary 

accordingly, when appropriate 

interests in land are acquired.

 There are three levels of specifi city 

of management direction and 

legislative language associated with 

the recommendations of this RPS: 

(1) the RPS and associated Report to 

Congress, or Report; (2) proposed 

legislation; and (3) a revised MOA 

between NPS and Reclamation.

1. This RPS document presents the 

intent of the proposed legislation 

that would create the NRA. The 

 Report to Congress, which will be 

written jointly by Reclamation and 

NPS, will identify issues that need 

to be addressed in the legislation. 

Although these issues are discussed 

to a certain extent in the RPS, they 

will be addressed in more detail in 

the body of the Report to Congress.

2. The legislation would specify the 

management responsibilities of 

Reclamation and NPS within the 

new NRA. The legislation should 

show the same level of specifi city 

as the Report. Because legislation 

would aff ect both Reclamation 

and NPS, both agencies would be 

cooperatively involved in its drafting 

to ensure there is consensus and 

that the interests of both agencies 

are incorporated. 

3. A new MOA between NPS and 

Reclamation, and coauthored 

by both agencies, would be 

written to describe, in detail, the 

responsibilities of the two agencies 

regarding the administration and 

management of the NRA. The 

preparation of a new MOA would 

be mandated by the legislation. 

It is expected to be similar to the 

existing 1965 MOA between the 

two agencies, wherein the following 

responsibilities would continue:

a. NPS would manage the natural, 

cultural, and recreational 

resources, visitor use and 

education, and associated 

facilities.

b. Reclamation would manage 

all facilities associated with 

Reclamation projects.

c. In areas where management 

responsibility overlaps, the 

two agencies would work 

together, when necessary, to 

resolve confl icting uses with 

consideration for the legislative 

mandate for each agency, in 

a manner that is consistent 

with the primary purposes of 

Reclamation’s Aspinall and 

Uncompahgre projects.

 The NRA must assign someone on staff 

to serve as a “partnership liaison”. This 

may require hiring one FTE, and would 

require an increase in ONPS funding.

 Consultation and coordination in 

the service of resource conservation 

must be increased between the NRA 

and its neighbors.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 61

 An LPP must be developed to identify 

land conservation priorities and 

to defi ne the “tools” of resource 

conservation appropriate for each 

parcel of land.

 Land appraisals and environmental 

assessments must be completed for 

lands that might be acquired.

 Agreed-upon interests in land must 

be acquired. In some cases, private 

landowners may agree to donate or 

exchange land or interests in land. 

Where that is not the case, and 

purchase is required, sources of 

funding might include the following:

 The Land and Water 

Conservation Fund

 Line-item appropriations

 Federal and State grants

 NPS cost-share program

 Nonprofi t organizations and 

friends of the NRA

 Private sector donations

 Third-party entities, such as land 

trusts and conservation organizations.

 Boundary surveys must be completed, 

and the new boundary marked, posted, 

and fenced, where necessary.

 Additional staff must be hired to 

manage additional lands in which 

interests are acquired.

 Resource data for newly acquired 

lands must be obtained and analyzed 

in preparation for a new GMP or 

implementation plan.

 A new general management plan 

or implementation plan must be 

written for the NRA to determine 

how newly acquired lands would 

be managed, where new resourcebased recreational and interpretive 

opportunities would be provided, 

and what developments would be 

necessary and appropriate to provide 

for those opportunities.

 FINDINGS AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

REGARDING THE STUDY’S

RECOMMENDATIONS

In the course of conducting the study, 

numerous fi ndings and guiding principles 

were identifi ed that need to be emphasized 

and carefully considered when implementing 

the study’s recommendations, especially 

regarding new NRA legislation that might 

be enacted, and revised or new agreements 

among Reclamation, NPS, and/or other 

agencies. Many of those fi ndings and 

principles relate to laws, policies, regulations, 

and the missions of the two agencies, by which 

Reclamation and NPS must operate. Some of 

these apply equally to Reclamation and NPS, 

as Federal agencies within the DOI. However, 

some of these are unique to each agency, since 

they have diff erent missions. These important 

fi ndings and principles are summarized below.

 The Uncompahgre Project and the 

 Aspinall Unit of the CRSP, their 

associated facilities, lands, water, and 

other resources, and their use by the 

public, are signifi cant public benefi ts 

within, and adjacent to, the NRA.

 The majority of the lands currently 

within the NRA, and some currently 

outside of it, were withdrawn or 

acquired for Reclamation purposes, 

including the Uncompahgre Project 

and the Aspinall Unit of the CRSP. 

 The current presence of NPS within, 

and administration of, most of the NRA 

for recreation and other purposes is 

pursuant to and subject to Reclamation 

law, as amended and supplemented, 

which generally requires that such 

administration be consistent or 

compatible with the primary purposes 

of all Reclamation projects. Thus, 

Reclamation has existing legal rights 

within and adjacent to the NRA that 

predate and take precedence over 

NPS’s rights or uses.

 Reclamation operations along the 

three reservoirs under the CRSP 

Act continue to provide recreational 

FINDINGS AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES REGARDING THE STUDY’S RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

62 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

and scenic values that support 

legislative designation of the area as 

the Curecanti NRA. Any legislation 

for the NRA should allow that 

situation to continue, without any 

additional limitations on Reclamation’s 

operational capabilities.

 The prior intent of the DOI was that 

contiguous Reclamation lands along the 

Gunnison River upstream of the Black 

Canyon of the Gunnison National 

Park (BLCA) were to be administered 

by NPS for recreational and other 

purposes pursuant to Reclamation 

law. The 1965 MOA between 

Reclamation and NPS provided for 

such management on Aspinall Unit 

lands pursuant to Section 8 of CRSPA, 

and allowed for the future inclusion of 

additional acquired or withdrawn lands. 

For example, in 1978, Uncompahgre 

Project lands in the East Portal area 

were added to the MOA and the NRA. 

However, the 1965 MOA did not 

address future deletion of lands from 

the NRA, nor were there appropriate 

supplemental agreements to address 

the management of deleted lands by 

another federal agency. A revised MOA 

should address both the addition and 

deletion of lands to and from the NRA, 

as well as the management of deleted 

lands by another federal agency, or 

disposition thereof to private, state, or 

other ownership.

 Both Reclamation and NPS have 

differing missions and management 

directives within, and adjacent to, 

the NRA. The current management 

agreement between Reclamation and 

NPS should be updated to better 

reflect the roles and responsibilities 

of the respective agencies.

 There are numerous and varied 

existing legal rights on lands within the 

study area that may aff ect management 

of the NRA. These rights either need 

to be recognized and honored, or 

they need to be acquired through 

appropriate means. Either way, these 

rights will aff ect management of the 

NRA. These rights include, but are 

not limited to, reserved mineral rights 

(such as the Dickerson decomposed 

granite pit), transmission rights-of-way 

(Western, Gunnison County Electric 

Association, Qwest Communications, 

and others), and access rights (Lake 

Fork Cove and Blue Mesa Village 

subdivisions, Sapinero, and others). 

 IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS

REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS

TO CONGRESS

This study’s Proposed Action recommends 

that Congress enact legislation regarding 

the offi cial designation of Curecanti NRA. 

The study team has identifi ed the following 

considerations to be of paramount importance 

in drafting any such legislation.

 Congress should designate the area 

identifi ed in the proposed action as the 

“Curecanti National Recreation Area.”

 Any such NRA designation and 

associated legislation should protect 

Reclamation’s ability to meet its 

mission, including project operation, 

maintenance, replacement, and land 

addition or expansion, if and when 

necessary, on all of its lands and 

waters within and adjacent to the 

NRA. Reclamation’s ability to meet its 

mission and to conduct project-related 

operations on any of its lands and 

waters should not be diminished or 

hindered as a result of the designation 

of the area as an NRA. Likewise, 

any such NRA designation and 

associated legislation should provide 

NPS reasonable and appropriate 

authority to meet its mission within 

and adjacent to the NRA, provided 

that Reclamation’s prior authority to 

meet its mission on the same lands and 

waters is not diminished or hindered 

in any way.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 63

 Any such NRA designation and 

associated legislation should allow for 

future adjustments to the proposed 

NRA boundary that are mutually 

acceptable to Reclamation, NPS, 

and other aff ected Federal and State 

agencies.

 Any legislation establishing the NRA 

should provide for coordinated 

management through an agreement 

between Reclamation and NPS that 

identifi es their respective roles and 

responsibilities. This legislation should 

be relatively broad and not overly 

specifi c on how the NRA is to be 

managed. Other documents would 

go into more detail describing how 

the NRA should be managed. These 

documents would include a new MOA 

between Reclamation and NPS, and a 

revised NPS GMP or implementation 

plan for the NRA. 

 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT

ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED

ASSESSMENT

 NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

BOUNDARY

Boundary Alternative A 

This alternative was not presented in the Fall 

2003 newsletter, but was considered early 

in the alternatives development process. 

Alternative A would have created a legislative 

boundary of 51,830 acres, including the 

existing NRA lands (41,790 acres) and 

agency land transfers (10,040 acres net), as 

described in Alternative 2 (the Proposed 

Action). However, unlike Alternative 2, a COA 

comprised of private land is not identifi ed. 

Thus, there would be no congressionally 

approved authority for NPS to work 

cooperatively with landowners to apply 

conservation tools within a designated area.

This alternative was dismissed from further 

consideration, because it did not adequately 

address the mandate from Congress to 

“identify practicable alternatives that protect 

the resource value and character of the 

land within and surrounding the Curecanti 

National Recreation Area.”

Boundary Alternative B 

This alternative was introduced as Alternative 

3 in the Fall 2003 newsletter. It would have 

created a legislated boundary of 59,380 acres.1

In addition to land transferred from other 

agencies, as described in Alternative 2 (the 

 Proposed Action), a COA would have been 

designated that includes 7,550 acres of private 

land within the legislated NRA boundary, 

and 16,750 acres of private land outside the 

NRA boundary. Lands within the legislated 

boundary would have included:

 41,790 acres of existing NRA lands

 10,040 net acres from other agencies

 7,550 acres of private land.

This alternative was dismissed from further 

consideration, because the range of possible 

future actions and potential impacts under 

this alternative are not substantially diff erent 

from those of Alternative 2 (the Proposed 

Action). Because the lands transferred among 

the agencies and the extent of the COA are 

the same, the location of the boundary is the 

only major diff erence. The only diff erences 

in impacts associated with the boundary 

location appeared to be varying landowner 

perceptions of government control among the 

alternatives, whereas, in eff ect, landowners 

would have the same control over what 

happens to their property in all alternatives. 

Furthermore, comments received in response 

to the Fall 2003 newsletter indicated that there 

is a perception that this alternative would have 

greater adverse impacts on private landowners 

than Alternatives 1 or 2.

1 The acreages shown here and for Boundary Alternative C 

diff er from those in the Fall 2003 newsletter. As a result of input 

received from the newsletter and further analysis by the study 

team, the acreages have been adjusted to be consistent with the 

current recommendations.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ASSESSMENT
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

64 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Boundary Alternative C 

Identifi ed as Alternative 4 in the Fall 2003 

newsletter, Boundary Alternative C would 

have created a legislative boundary of 76,130 

acres. It would have included lands transferred 

from other agencies (same as in Alternative 2) 

and the entire COA of 24,300 acres of private 

land. Lands within the legislated boundary 

would have included:

 41,790 acres of existing NRA

 10,040 acres of land from other agencies

 24,300 acres of private land.

As described in Boundary Alternative B, 

this alternative was dismissed from further 

consideration because the range of possible 

future actions and potential impacts are 

not substantially diff erent from those 

of Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action). 

Furthermore, as in Boundary Alternative 

B, comments received in response to the 

Fall 2003 newsletter indicated that there is a 

perception that this alternative would have 

greater adverse impacts on private landowners 

than Alternatives 1 and 2.

Boundary Alternative D 

This alternative was not presented in the 

Fall 2003 newsletter. It would have created a 

legislative boundary of 76,130 acres, including 

land transferred from other agencies and 

the 24,300 acres of private land identifi ed 

as important to the NRA for resource 

conservation. However, in this alternative, 

the 24,300 acres of private land would not 

be identifi ed as a Conservation Opportunity 

Area. Rather, it would be designated for 

fee simple acquisition by NPS on a willinglandowner basis.

This alternative was dismissed from further 

consideration, because it is expected to be 

prohibitively expensive. In addition, based 

on comments received on alternatives that 

were included in the Fall 2003 newsletter, 

it is expected that Boundary Alternative D 

would be perceived as having the greatest 

adverse impact on private landowners of 

all alternatives. Thus, it is not a practicable 

alternative as required by legislation 

authorizing the study.

 NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

MANAGEMENT

Diff erent scenarios for management of the 

NRA have been considered throughout the 

planning process, none of which would aff ect 

the boundary alternatives. These scenarios 

include management of various sections 

of the NRA by various agencies other than 

NPS, including BLM, Reclamation, USFS, 

and Colorado State Parks. These alternative 

management scenarios were dismissed from 

further consideration for the following reasons:

 BLM, Colorado State Parks, and 

the USFS provided input during 

consultation and stated that they are not 

interested in directly managing the NRA.

 Reclamation manages its lands and 

land interests, water and water 

interests, and facilities to meet CRSP 

and Uncompahgre Project purposes, 

and it has contracted with NPS for 

management of recreation and certain 

other resources on Reclamation lands 

within the NRA. NPS, under a current 

agreement with Reclamation, already 

manages the natural, cultural, and 

recreational resources of the NRA and 

is interested in continuing to do so.

 THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED

ALTERNATIVE

Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action) is also the 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative. The 

reasons are stated below.

The Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

is defi ned by the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) as the alternative that best 

meets the following criteria or objectives, 

as set out in Section 101 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act: (1) fulfi ll the 

responsibilities of each generation as trustee of 

the environment for succeeding generations; 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 65

(2) ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, 

productive, and aesthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings; (3) attain the widest 

range of benefi cial uses of the environment 

without degradation, risk of health or 

safety, or other undesirable and unintended 

consequences; (4) preserve important natural, 

cultural, and historic aspects of our national 

heritage, and maintain, whenever possible, 

an environment that supports diversity and 

a variety of individual choice; (5) achieve a 

balance between population and resource 

use that would permit high standards of living 

and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and (6) 

enhance the quality of renewable resources 

and approach the maximum attainable 

recycling of depletable resources.

According to the “Forty Most Asked Questions 

Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental 

Policy Act Regulations” (40 CFR 1500-1508), 

Federal Register Vol. 46, No. 55, 18026-18038, 

March 23, 1981: Question 6a), “Generally 

this means the alternative that causes the 

least damage to the biological and physical 

environment. It also means the alternative that 

best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, 

cultural, and natural resources.”

This discussion also summarizes the extent 

to which each alternative meets Section 102(1) 

of the National Environmental Policy Act, 

which asks that agencies administer their own 

plans, regulations, and laws so that they are 

consistent, to the fullest extent possible, with 

the policies outlined above.

Alternative 1 would satisfy to some extent 

the majority of the six requirements detailed 

above. However, Alternative 1 would not 

give NPS the authority or funding to acquire 

interests in land, or to implement other 

resource conservation tools with willing 

landowners. Some private lands surrounding 

the NRA would likely be developed within 

the next 5 to 10 years, potentially resulting 

in impacts to multiple resources or scenic 

vistas, depending upon the location of the 

property. Thus, Alternative 1 would not 

ensure aesthetically pleasing surroundings, 

prevent degradation of the environment, or 

achieve a balance between population and 

resource use that permits a wide sharing of 

amenities. Alternative 1 would not be the 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative because 

of the potential impacts of development 

on visitor enjoyment, natural , cultural, and 

historic resources, and other opportunities in 

the NRA. For this reason, Alternative 1 is not 

preferred from an environmental perspective.

Alternative 2 would more completely satisfy 

the six requirements through establishment 

of the COA. Under this alternative, NPS 

would be authorized to support landowners 

in voluntary implementation of resource 

conservation tools; to seek partnerships 

with landowners; or to fund acquisitions 

and additions to the NRA. NPS would work 

closely with local counties, neighboring 

land management agencies, and other 

organizations, to reach the common goals of 

resource conservation and public recreation. 

These eff orts, in combination with the COA, 

would help sustain the economic benefi ts 

of the NRA, while helping to ensure the 

preservation of important natural, cultural, 

and historic aspects of our national heritage, 

including preservation of a renewable energy 

resource, and to maintain an environment 

that supports diversity and a variety of 

individual choices.

Based on the analysis associated with the RPS 

at Curecanti NRA, Alternative 2 is considered 

the Environmentally Preferred Alternative by 

best fulfi lling NPS responsibilities as trustee 

of sensitive habitat; by ensuring safe, healthful, 

productive, and aesthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings; and by achieving a 

balance between population and resource use 

that would permit high standards of living and 

a wide sharing of life’s amenities.

THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

66 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

 EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED

ACTION MEETS BOUNDARY

ADJUSTMENT CRITERIA

 NEED AND OPPORTUNITY

As stated in the opening section of this 

chapter, NPS Management Policies 2006 lists 

fi ve conditions or reasons for when NPS 

may recommend boundary revisions. The 

fi rst three criteria focus on the need and 

opportunity for boundary adjustment, based 

on the quality and character of the resources 

adjacent to the current NRA on lands that 

may be transferred or acquired. Boundary 

adjustments may be appropriate for any one 

or more of these three criteria listed. The 

remaining two criteria focus on the suitability 

and feasibility of NPS undertaking the 

boundary adjustment.

Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action) provides 

the opportunity for Federal lands to be 

transferred among agencies and for the 

acquisition of private land, if a landowner 

is interested. All the land units within the 

proposed lands have signifi cant resources 

or opportunities for recreation, as well as 

for visitor understanding. Land Units B 

( Blue Mesa Reservoir Agency), F (Gateview 

Agency), and H (west of Fitzpatrick and Black 

Mesas) contain other agency lands that are 

proposed for transfer to address operational 

or management issues. The following are 

examples of land units within the COA 

that contain resources worthy of seeking 

partnerships between NPS and landowners to 

more eff ectively conserve each unit.

 Land Unit A (CO 92 COA): Contains 

scenic qualities and severe winter 

range for elk and mule deer.

 Land Unit C (Gunnison River COA): 

Contains scenic qualities, heron 

rookery, and portions of historic the 

narrow gauge, railroad corridor along 

the Gunnison River between Riverway 

and Neversink.

 Land Unit E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa 

COA): Contains scenic qualities, 

off ers opportunities to enhance and 

protect Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat 

on Sapinero Mesa, and provides 

opportunity to acquire access 

to currently undeveloped scenic 

overlooks on Sapinero Mesa and 

Windy Point.

 SUITABILITY AND FEASIBILITY

The feasibility of managing federal and private 

lands, considering their size, confi guration, 

ownership, acquisition costs, mineral and 

grazing rights, leases, potential hazardous 

wastes, and other factors, are addressed 

generally, because private lands would 

only be acquired if a land owner is willing 

to transfer their lands. Acquisition is only 

needed if other methods of conservation 

are not adequate. As resource conservation 

tools, particularly conservation easements 

and fee simple acquisition, are considered 

for implementation on private parcels, the 

feasibility of managing these properties would 

be considered in more detail by the National 

Park Service. 

Size: All land units are of signifi cant size. 

Within each land unit, NPS is most interested 

in conserving resources on those parcels that 

are larger in size.

Confi guration: All land units are now 

contiguous to the NRA; however, some 

noncontiguous parcels could be added to the 

NRA if NPS should acquire property that 

was located away from the proposed NRA 

boundary, even though it would be within 

the COA. In most cases, agency land transfers 

would occur in locations where other agency 

land is adjacent to the existing NRA, where the 

transfer would help clarify the proposed NRA 

boundary, and where the acquiring agency 

could more easily administer the lands.

Ownership: Land units within the COA are 

comprised of private lands. Private lands 

would not be acquired unless a landowner is 

willing. Other land units within the proposed 

NRA boundary are owned by state or other 

federal agencies. Agreement in principle 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 67

among all agencies involved has been 

established for transfer of these lands.

Cost: Costs would be determined by fair 

market values and negotiations between 

NPS and private landowners for potential 

agreements, acquisition of conservation 

easements, and acquisition in fee simple. They 

would be based on opportunity, priorities 

set by an LPP, availability of funding, and the 

willingness of private landowners.

Access: The need for access to acquired private 

properties within each land unit would be 

determined at the time of acquisition, and 

would be met on a case-by-case basis.

Potential hazardous waste and other factors: 

Due diligence would be performed on all 

private parcels before easements or fee simple 

acquisition occur. Leases, grazing rights, 

mineral rights, hazardous waste issues, and 

other factors would be evaluated at that point 

in time to determine the suitability of the 

property for inclusion within the NRA.

Grazing: Leases would be dealt with on a 

case-by-case basis. If a conservation easement 

were to be acquired on a piece of property 

contiguous with USFS land on which a grazing 

lease exists, use would most likely be allowed 

to continue if compatible with the terms and 

conditions of the conservation easement. If 

such lands were to be acquired in fee simple, 

then the grazing lease might be terminated. 

Decisions would be made on a case-by-case, 

willing-landowner basis. NPS would likely 

enter into agreements with other agencies 

where a portion of an allotment falls within 

the NRA boundary, so that the agency would 

continue to have authority to manage the 

allotment, subject to consultation with NPS. 

Where an allotment exists on agency land to 

be included within the NRA boundary under 

Alternative 2, NPS would likely enter into 

an agreement with the transferring agency 

to allow grazing to continue as long as such 

grazing was compatible with other uses.

 EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVES IN

MEETING STUDY OBJECTIVES AND

NRA MISSION

In addition to assessing impacts of the 

alternatives on the environment, the 

study team analyzed the eff ectiveness of 

the alternatives in meeting the goals and 

objectives of the RPS, and in providing the 

tools necessary for management to meet the 

NRA’s mission. A summary of that analysis 

is shown in Table 3. This analysis was an 

important consideration in the study team’s 

recommendation of Alternative 2 as the 

 Proposed Action. 

 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 4 provides a summary of alternatives.

 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES

Table 5 provides a summary of environmental 

consequences. NOTE: Because there would 

be no major adverse impacts to a resource 

or value contained within the NRA, whose 

conservation is: (1) necessary to fulfi ll specifi c 

purposes identifi ed in the establishing 

legislation for Curecanti NRA; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the NRA or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the NRA; or 

(3) identifi ed as a goal in the NRA’s GMP or 

other relevant NPS planning documents, as a 

result of activities undertaken by NPS, visitors, 

or concessioners, contractors, or others 

operating within the NRA, there would be no 

impairment of the NRA’s resources or values 

as a result of implementing either Alternative 1 

or Alternative 2.

EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVES IN MEETING STUDY OBJECTIVES AND NRA MISSION
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

68 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

TABLE 3: EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVES IN MEETING STUDY OBJECTIVES AND NRA MISSION

Study Objectives 

and NRA Mission 

Alternative 1: No Action 

(Continuation of 

Existing Conditions) 

Alternative 2: 

Proposed Action 

(1) Assess the natural, cultural, 

recreational, and scenic 

resource value and character of 

the land within and surrounding 

Curecanti NRA (including open 

vistas, wildlife habitat, and 

other public benefits). 

Objective met by completion 

of RPS 

Objective met by completion of 

RPS 

(2) Identify practicable 

alternatives that conserve the 

resource value and character of 

the land. 

Does not meet objective. 

Only resources within the 

NRA and on other federal 

lands would be conserved 

and managed for resource 

values. Limited incentives to 

conserve resource values 

would be available to private 

landowners. 

Meets objective. 

Tools, funding, and NPS staff 

would be available to encourage 

and assist landowners to conserve 

resources and character of the 

land surrounding Curecanti. 

(3) Recommend a variety of 

economically feasible and viable 

tools to achieve the above. 

Partially meets objective. 

NPS would have no authority 

or sources of funding to seek 

partnerships or assist 

landowners in conservation 

efforts. 

Fully meets objective. 

NPS would have authority and 

funding, if appropriated, to work 

with willing landowners to 

conserve resources through 

implementation of resource 

conservation tools, including 

acquiring additional land to 

incorporate within an expanded 

NRA. 

(4) Estimate the costs of 

implementing the approaches 

recommended by the study. 

Meets objective. 

NPS estimates one-time costs 

to be $500,000; with no 

additional recurring annual 

costs.

Meets objective. 

NPS estimates one-time costs to be 

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

including acquiring interests in 

land from willing landowners; plus 

recurring annual costs of $160,000 

per year for additional staff and 

related expenditures. 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 69

EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVES IN MEETING STUDY OBJECTIVES AND NRA MISION

Study Objectives 

and NRA Mission 

Alternative 1: No Action 

(Continuation of 

Existing Conditions) 

Alternative 2: 

Proposed Action 

(5) Find ways acceptable to 

Congress that would allow NPS 

to work in partnership with 

landowners and others to 

conserve the natural, cultural, 

recreational, and scenic 

resources and character of the 

land. 

Partially meets objective. 

Authorization to partner and 

provide funding for efforts 

such as conservation 

easements and land 

acquisition would have to be 

continuously requested from 

Congress on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Fully meets objective. 

Authorization and expected 

funding would be present for NPS 

and landowners to utilize the 

Toolbox of Incentives for Resource 

Conservation to conserve the 

natural, cultural, recreational, and 

scenic resources and character of 

the land. 

(6) Formally establish Curecanti 

NRA for permanence of 

resource conservation and 

public recreation. 

Does not meet objective. 

Curecanti would not be 

legislatively established by 

Congress as an NRA, and in 

all probability would continue 

to be without a legislated 

boundary. 

Meets objective. 

The new NRA would include 

51,830 acres, with an additional 

24,300 acres in the COA, some of 

which could ultimately be added 

to the NRA through negotiations 

with willing landowners. 

NRA MISSION: Conserve, 

protect, and interpret the 

nationally significant and diverse 

natural, cultural, and scenic 

resources of Curecanti, 

balanced with the provision of 

outstanding recreational 

opportunities, and consistent 

with the purposes of the CRSP 

Act and other applicable laws; 

and manage the area as a part 

of the greater riverine 

ecosystem, coordinating with 

other land management 

agencies. 

Lacks the authority and tools 

to fully meet NRA Mission. 

Provides the authority and tools to 

fully meet NRA Mission. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

70 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Note: Under Alternative 1, NPS would manage other agency lands under agreement with each agency. 

Under Alternative 2, NPS would manage Reclamation land under agreement with Reclamation; however, 

lands that Reclamation deems are no longer necessary for the project would be transferred to NPS, unless 

otherwise identified by this study. Also, other agency lands would be transferred to NPS to administer and 

manage. 

Action Topics 

Alternative 1: No Action 

(Continuation of Existing 

Conditions) 

Alternative 2: Proposed 

Action 

Area designation Commonly identified as a National 

Recreation Area, but with no 

enabling legislation or legislated 

boundary. 

Designated by Congress as a National 

Recreation Area, with enabling 

legislation and a legislated boundary. 

NRA management NPS would continue to manage the 

natural, cultural, and recreational 

resources of the NRA, and 

associated facilities, pursuant to 

Reclamation law, NPS law, the 1965 

MOA between NPS and 

Reclamation, and other applicable 

laws and regulations. However, the 

permanence of NPS as the manager 

of said resources would not be 

assured. 

The new NRA legislation would 

designate the National Park Service to 

be responsible for managing the 

natural, cultural, and recreational 

resources, visitor use and education, 

and associated facilities. Such 

management would be pursuant to 

Reclamation law; NPS law, including 

new legislation establishing the NRA; 

a revised MOA, which would further 

define the administrative jurisdiction, 

roles, and responsibilities of 

Reclamation and its managing 

entities, NPS, and Western within the 

NRA; and other applicable laws and 

regulations. The permanence of NPS 

as the manager of these resources 

would be assured. 

Reclamation projects 

management 

Reclamation and its managing 

entities, and Western, would continue 

to construct, operate, maintain, 

replace, and expand their facilities; 

and they and their assigns would have 

unrestricted access to their lands and 

land interests, water and water 

interests, and facilities, pursuant to 

Reclamation law, the 1965 MOA, and 

other applicable laws and regulations. 

Reclamation and its managing 

entities, and Western, would 

construct, operate, maintain, replace, 

and expand their facilities; and they 

and their assigns would have 

unrestricted access to their lands and 

land interests, water and water 

interests, and facilities, pursuant to 

Reclamation law, the revised MOA, 

and other applicable laws and 

regulations. 

Acres of land within 

NRA by agency source 

Reclamation (NPS managed per 

agreement with Reclamation) – 

40,360 acres 

NPS – 1,105 acres 

BLM – None 

USFS (NPS managed) – 325 acres 

CDOW – None 

Reclamation (NPS managed per 

agreement with Reclamation) – 

41,860 acres 

NPS – 1,105 acres 

BLM (NPS managed) – 5,840 acres 

USFS (NPS managed) – 2,885 acres 

CDOW (NPS managed, if acquired by 

exchange) – 140 acres 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 71

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Action Topics 

Alternative 1: No Action 

(Continuation of Existing 

Conditions) 

Alternative 2: Proposed 

Action 

Total initial acres 

within NRA 

 41,790 acres 51,830 acres (Increase of 10,040 

acres) 

Land managed under 

agreement to be 

deleted from NRA 

 None USFS – 80 acres 

The 80 acres of USFS land managed 

under agreement with USFS are not 

Reclamation withdrawn; therefore, 

upon passage of legislation, NPS 

would return these lands to USFS to 

manage. 

Possible future 

deletion of 

Reclamation land from 

NRA, subject to 

Reclamation’s 

approval and 

revocation of 

Reclamation’s 

withdrawal, for 

potential purposes 

stated 

None To be managed by BLM (NPS interim 

management) – 800 acres There is a 

potential for some NRA lands to be 

exchanged for private COA lands, 

subject to landowner agreement. 

Although the location of those NRA 

lands, and the number of acres would 

be confirmed by a future LPP, 363 

acres on the north side of CO 92 have 

already been identified as appropriate 

NRA lands to be exchanged for COA 

lands. 

Conservation 

Opportunity Area 

None Private – 24,300 acres A COA would 

be established adjacent to the 

proposed NRA boundary. NPS would 

be authorized by Congress to use 

resource conservation tools to partner 

with neighbors to conserve resources 

and values identified as important to 

the NRA. 

Legislated authority to 

implement resource 

conservation tools 

NPS could provide only limited 

technical assistance. Landowners 

would have to work with other 

agencies and organizations to utilize 

tools such as conservation funding 

and establishment of conservation 

easements. 

An LPP would be written and 

implemented. NPS would be 

authorized to implement tools for 

resource conservation and to secure 

funding to assist willing landowners 

within the COA. 

Resource conservation 

tools 

NPS could provide only limited 

technical assistance to adjacent 

landowners regarding resource 

conservation issues. 

NPS would implement tools outlined 

in the Toolbox of Incentives for 

Resource Conservation. These include 

technical assistance, general 

agreements, incentive payments, 

acquisition of conservation easements 

or other property rights, purchase and 

retained use and occupancy, and fee 

simple acquisition. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

72 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Action Topics 

Alternative 1: No Action 

(Continuation of Existing 

Conditions) 

Alternative 2: Proposed Action 

Joint Agency 

Management Effort 

(JAME) 

NPS, and other land management 

agencies with lands adjacent to the 

NRA, would continue to meet to 

address resource issues that are 

common to each agency. NPS 

would continue to cooperate with 

CDOW to address wildlife and 

habitat issues, and in managing 

fishing and hunting within the NRA. 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Estimated costs of 

implementation 

$500,000 for one-time costs; with 

no additional recurring annual costs. $3,690,000 to $14,973,000 for onetime costs, including acquiring 

interests in land from willing 

landowners; plus recurring annual 

costs of $160,000 per year for 

additional staff and related 

expenditures. 

This study recognizes that the 

availability of federal funds for 

acquiring interests in land may be 

limited. However, some of the goals 

and objectives of Alternative 2 would 

still be achievable through the 

application of other tools that could 

be used to provide incentives to 

willing landowners for conserving 

resources. 

Staffing requirements No change in existing staff. Initially, one additional FTE staff 

position to implement the Proposed 

Action during the first ten years, and 

to oversee its operation into the 

future. As implementation nears 

completion, the need for a full time 

employee may decrease, but many of 

the functions of the “partnership 

liaison” position would remain 

indefinitely. 

As interests in land are acquired, one 

additional FTE, shared among all five 

operating divisions at the NRA, for 

operations associated with acquisition 

of new lands from other government 

agencies and from willing private 

landowners. 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 73

TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Impact 

Topics 

Alternative 1: No Action 

(Continuation of 

Existing Conditions)

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Natural Resources1

In general, increased recreational use that occurs as a result of implementation of Alternative 2: Proposed Action 

may present more impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife communities, special status species and other natural 

resources, than would result under Alternative 1: No Action. This is especially true on some lands within the 

Conservation Opportunity Area (COA) should they ever be acquired in fee simple, or an interest thereof acquired, 

that would allow for public use. 

Potential recreational development, and related uses such as described in the list of existing and potential 

recreational opportunities under Visitor Activities in the VISITOR USE, UNDERSTANDING, AND ENJOYMENT section of 

the Affected Environment chapter, could present localized impacts to wildlife, vegetation, soils, water quality, and 

other resources. However, before any such recreational development occurs, or uses allowed, NPS would evaluate 

the proposal(s) using the NEPA process. The evaluation could occur for a single development or activity, or as a 

comprehensive study (e.g., a general management plan or implementation plan). At that time, impacts on the 

environment would be fully assessed, and mitigation measures identified. 

All recreational developments and/or activities within the future NRA boundary would be in accordance with the NPS 

mission of preserving unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the NRA for the enjoyment, 

education, and inspiration of this and future generations. For any recreational uses and/or associated amenities 

authorized on COA lands, NPS would work with landowners to minimize impacts so that the goals of resource 

conservation are met.

Water Quality The continuation of or increase in current 

land use practices within the proposed 

lands, particularly development, could cause 

long-term moderate to short-term localized 

major impacts from increased sedimentation 

or contaminant loading into waters within 

the proposed lands. 

The increased likelihood that landowners 

would use resource conservation tools to 

conserve resources on their property would 

result in long-term minor to major 

beneficial impacts on water quality. 

Geology and 

Paleontology 

Private lands in the vicinity of Sapinero 

Mesa and the area southeast of Morrow 

Point Reservoir would be vulnerable to longterm minor to moderate adverse impacts 

from development and other land uses that 

could result in disturbance and degradation 

to geological and paleontological resources. 

Resources in other locations with lower 

development potential would likely be 

conserved into the foreseeable future. 

Minor to moderate long-term beneficial 

impacts would occur as a result of increased 

conservation of geological and 

paleontological resources through resource 

conservation activities. 

Vegetation, 

Including 

Wetlands; and 

Wildlife, 

Including 

Raptors and 

Fisheries 

The displacement of native vegetation 

communities by noxious weeds that spread 

from lands adjacent to the NRA would result 

in long-term minor to moderate adverse 

impacts to NRA lands. These impacts would 

be minimized where joint agency 

management efforts are underway. Where 

private lands within the proposed lands lack 

weed management efforts or occur in land 

units susceptible to development (such as D, 

E, and G), long-term moderate to major 

adverse impacts would result from the 

spread of noxious weeds or alteration and 

loss of native vegetation communities. 

Riparian and wetland communities in Land 

Units C (Gunnison River COA) and D (Iola 

Beneficial impacts to vegetation and wildlife 

resources would result from landowners’ 

application of resource conservation tools 

and participation in partnerships. Benefits 

would be greatest in those areas of highest 

development potential, such as Land Units 

D (Iola Basin COA), E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa 

COA), and G (West-End COA). With 

participation partnerships and the 

application of resource conservation tools, 

long-term benefits to native vegetation, 

riparian and wetland communities, big 

game, and raptor habitat within NRA and 

COA lands would range from minor to 

major, and those to fisheries resources 

would range from negligible to minor. 

1 Public Law 106- 76 specifically requested that NPS evaluate natural, cultural, recreational, and scenic 

resources within and surrounding the NRA. 

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

74 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Impact 

Topics 

Alternative 1: No Action 

(Continuation of 

Existing Conditions)

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Basin COA) would be susceptible to 

moderate to major long-term adverse 

impacts through land use practices, invasion 

of noxious weeds, or development. Riparian 

and wetlands within the NRA would largely 

be protected, but those communities 

adjacent to private lands with weed issues 

would be susceptible to long-term moderate 

to major adverse impacts. 

Long-term minor to moderate adverse 

impacts to big game habitat and raptor use 

of the NRA would result from exotic species 

invasion and continuing habitat 

fragmentation on adjacent lands, 

particularly Land Units D (Iola Basin COA), E 

(Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), and G (WestEnd COA). Loss of habitat due to noxious or 

exotic plant species invasion, land 

development, or other land uses would 

result in long-term moderate to major 

adverse impacts on elk and mule deer severe 

winter range and bighorn sheep overall 

range. Raptor habitat and activities would 

be similarly affected.

Fisheries within the NRA would not be 

directly impacted, though water quality 

impacts from activities outside the NRA 

could result in indirect short- to long-term 

negligible to minor effects to fisheries inside 

and outside the NRA. 

Intensity of impacts would be dependent on 

location, level of landowner participation, 

and types of tools implemented. However, 

if development occurs on private lands 

within the COA with no concern for 

resource conservation, adverse impacts to 

vegetation and wildlife resources would be 

similar to those described under 

Alternative 1. 

Special Status 

Species 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would not 

cause direct effects to any special status 

species or associated habitats within the 

NRA. However, loss and fragmentation of 

habitats would continue and possibly 

increase in private land units outside the 

NRA, impacting species and habitats within 

the proposed lands. Federal species that 

may be affected and would likely be 

adversely affected include the bald eagle. 

Likewise, state listed species including the 

American peregrine falcon, greater sandhill 

crane, Gunnison Sage-grouse, and Colorado 

River cutthroat trout would experience 

minor to moderate impacts to individuals or 

habitat within the proposed lands, while 

impacts to long-billed curlew would be 

minor. The great blue heron and Gunnison’s 

prairie dog, both sensitive species, would 

also be affected by indirect impacts from 

habitat alteration or disturbance. Impacts to 

heron would be moderate to major, while 

Implementation of Alternative 2 would 

benefit special status wildlife species and 

therefore would have no effect on the bald 

eagle, Gunnison Sage-grouse, Colorado 

River cutthroat trout, American peregrine 

falcon, greater sandhill crane, long-billed 

curlew, great blue heron, or other sensitive 

species. Special status plant species would 

also experience beneficial impacts. Through 

decreased potential for development and 

other land use activities that are detrimental 

to habitats, all special status species within 

the proposed lands would have 

opportunities for increased conservation 

and potential for populations to expand. 

Benefits would be greatest on Land Units D 

(Iola Basin COA), E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa 

COA), and G (West-End COA), where 

development potential is currently the 

highest. However, resources on other 

private lands within the COA would benefit 

as well. In addition, there are no immediate 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 75

Impact 

Topics 

Alternative 1: No Action 

(Continuation of 

Existing Conditions)

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

those to prairie dogs would be minor to 

moderate. Sensitive plant individuals or 

populations may be affected and could be 

lost due to activities outside the NRA, 

potentially resulting in minor to moderate 

adverse impacts to skiff milkvetch, Gunnison 

milkvetch, Black Canyon gilia, Colorado 

desert parsley, Rocky Mountain thistle, or 

hanging garden Sullivantia. 

plans for developments or new recreational 

facilities that would affect these species. 

Future proposals would be evaluated using 

the NEPA process prior to project approval. 

Natural 

Lightscape 

(Night Sky) 

Except for Reclamation’s primary jurisdiction 

areas around the dams, night sky values 

within the NRA and on other adjacent 

federal and state lands would continue to 

be conserved through federal and state land 

management activities. 

Private portions of the proposed lands that 

remain in their current undeveloped 

condition would also continue to contribute 

to the existing high quality natural 

lightscape in the area. However, private 

portions of the proposed lands surrounding 

the NRA would continue to be increasingly 

subject to future development and other 

land uses in Alternative1 that could interfere 

with night sky values within the NRA. This 

could result in long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts to the natural 

lightscape/night sky resource. 

As in Alternative 1, except for Reclamation’s 

primary jurisdiction areas around the dams, 

night sky values within the NRA and on 

other adjacent federal and state lands 

would continue to be conserved through 

federal and state land management 

activities. 

Within the COA, some of the areas most 

prone to development are located on 

private property in Land Units A (CO 92 

COA), C (Gunnison River COA), D (Iola 

Basin COA), E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), 

and G (West- End COA). In Alternative 2, 

there would be greater availability of 

resource conservation tools to private 

landowners, and congressionally authorized 

increased efforts on the part of NPS to work 

in partnership with private landowners to 

conserve natural lightscapes within the 

COA. Increased awareness and cooperation 

in these areas would be beneficial to both 

local and NRA-wide lightscapes for visitors 

and residents alike. This would help 

maintain existing night sky quality, and 

result in long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts to this resource. 

Natural 

Soundscape 

Except where motorized recreational 

vehicles and boats are authorized, and 

except for Reclamation’s primary 

jurisdiction areas around the dams, the 

soundscapes within the NRA, and on other 

adjacent federal and state lands would 

continue to be conserved through federal 

and state land management activities. 

Private portions of the proposed lands that 

remain in their current undeveloped 

condition would also continue to 

contribute to the existing high quality of 

the natural soundscape in the area. 

However, private portions of the proposed 

lands surrounding the NRA would continue 

to be increasingly subject to future 

development and other land uses in 

Alternative 1 that could interfere with 

As in Alternative 1, except where motorized 

recreational vehicles and boats are 

authorized, and except for Reclamation’s 

primary jurisdiction areas around the dams, 

the soundscapes within the NRA, and on 

other adjacent federal and state lands 

would continue to be conserved through 

federal and state land management 

activities. 

Within the COA, some of the more 

vulnerable areas to development are 

located on private property in Land Units A 

(CO 92 COA), C (Gunnison River COA), D 

(Iola Basin COA), E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa 

COA), and G (West-End COA). Under 

Alternative 2, there would be greater 

availability of resource conservation tools 

for private landowners, and congressionally 

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

76 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Impact 

Topics 

Alternative 1: No Action 

(Continuation of 

Existing Conditions)

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

soundscape values within the NRA. This 

could result in long-term, minor to 

moderate adverse impacts to this resource. 

authorized increased efforts on the part of 

NPS to work in partnership with private 

landowners to conserve natural 

soundscapes within the COA. Increased 

awareness and cooperation in these areas 

would be beneficial to both local and NRAwide soundscapes for visitors and residents 

alike. This would help maintain existing 

soundscape quality, and result in long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts to 

this resource. 

Cultural Resources1

Archeological 

Resources, and 

Historic Districts 

and Structures 

Federal actions within the NRA would result 

in short and long-term direct minor 

beneficial impacts on cultural resources. 

Potential development on Land Units C 

(Gunnison River COA) and G (West-End 

COA) could, when coupled with other 

federal activities, result in indirect minor to 

moderate adverse cumulative impacts on 

cultural resources within the NRA, through 

excavations, and by altering the scene or 

context of the resource. 

The direct short- and long-term minor 

beneficial impact resulting from federal 

management practices within the NRA 

coupled with the beneficial impacts 

associated with potential conservation 

easements and/or additions to the NRA 

would result in direct short- and long-term 

minor beneficial impacts on cultural 

resources inside and outside the proposed 

NRA boundary. However, in the case for 

future land exchanges with private parties, 

any parcel proposed for exchange would be 

evaluated under Section 106 for potential 

adverse effect to cultural resources, and any 

such effect would be mitigated prior to the 

conveyance of any property. 

Visitor Use, Understanding, and Enjoyment

Recreational 

Opportunities1

Unmet potential for certain types of 

landbased recreation in the proposed lands 

surrounding the NRA would result in 

longterm minor to moderate adverse 

impacts to the NRA visitor’s recreational 

experience and enjoyment. Long-term minor 

to moderate adverse impacts on the natural 

resources on non-NRA lands would be 

possible from the unrestricted motorized 

access by some visitors, and resultant 

change to sensitive habitat areas. Land Units 

A (CO 92 COA) and C (Gunnison River COA) 

would be susceptible to longterm minor to 

moderate adverse impacts as a result of 

trespass by visitors, including illegal landing 

of hang gliders on NRA lands. Historic 

grazing would continue in Long GulchBeartrap, and crossing of the Crystal trail by 

cattle could result in longterm negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on the visitor 

experience due to grazing use. 

Long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impacts to recreational opportunities and 

visitor enjoyment would result from 

landowners’ willing participation in 

partnerships with NPS, and the use of tools 

for resource conservation. Intensity of 

impacts would be dependent on location, 

level of landowner participation, and types 

of tools implemented. Benefits would be 

greatest in those areas within the COA with 

the greatest potential for enhancement of 

trail connections, trail access to new scenic 

overlooks and backpacking camping areas, 

cross-county skiing, access to climbing 

areas, connectivity for mountain biking, and 

access to legal hang gliding landing areas. 

These areas include Land Units A (CO 92 

COA), C (Gunnison River COA), D (Iola 

Basin COA), and E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa 

COA). 

As in Alternative 1, there is a potential in 

Alternative 2 for long-term major adverse 

1

 Public Law 106- 76 specifically requested that NPS evaluate natural, cultural, recreational, and scenic 

resources within and surrounding the NRA. 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 77

Impact 

Topics 

Alternative 1: No Action 

(Continuation of 

Existing Conditions)

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

The potential for future development and 

other types of land use, such as highdensity 

housing, high-rise buildings, large parking 

areas, utility towers, and mining operations 

on private lands surrounding the NRA could 

have a long-term major adverse impact on 

the scenic resources in the area. The scenic 

resource is considered to be a key resource 

for enjoyment of the NRA. Therefore, there 

could also be a long-term major adverse 

impact on visitor enjoyment and 

appreciation of an otherwise nationally 

significant and spectacular geological and 

natural landscape setting. 

impacts on scenic resources, and the 

resultant long-term major adverse impact 

on visitor enjoyment and appreciation of 

the NRA and its surroundings due to 

incompatible development and land use, 

such as high-density housing, high-rise 

buildings, large parking areas, utility towers, 

and mining operations, within the COA. 

This is because the actions proposed in this 

alternative would be on a volunteer, or 

willing basis on the part of the private 

sector. However, if the actions proposed in 

Alternative 2 are implemented, and the 

tools and concepts of partnership, 

cooperation, and conservation are truly 

enacted, then there would be long-term 

major and beneficial impacts on the scenic 

resources. This would result in a long-term 

major beneficial impact on visitor 

enjoyment, experience, and appreciation of 

the NRA and its surroundings. 

Interpretation 

and Educational 

Opportunities 

Within the NRA, interpretive services and 

educational programs would continue as 

currently managed. Moderate to high 

development potential on land adjacent to 

the NRA (Land Units C [Gunnison River 

COA] and E [Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA]) 

could have long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on future opportunities for 

expanded interpretive services and 

educational programs. 

Beneficial impacts to interpretive and 

educational opportunities would result from 

COA landowners’ participation in partnerships with NPS, and implementation 

of resource conservation tools. Benefits 

would be greatest in those areas with the 

potential for trail access to new interpretive 

and scenic overlooks, including Land Units 

A (CO 92 COA) and E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa 

COA). This would also provide the opportunity for facilitated access to overlooks of 

unique geologic formations such as the 

Curecanti Needle, resulting in long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts. Land 

Units B (Blue Mesa Reservoir) and C 

(Gunnison River COA) would provide interpretive opportunities associated with a 

long distance trail connection to Riverway 

and Gunnison, and opportunities for access 

for the mobility impaired, school programs, 

and night sky viewing, resulting in longterm 

moderate beneficial impacts. 

Land Unit E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA) 

would provide opportunity for a jointagency

managed visitor center facility with direct 

access for visitors from US 50, resulting in a 

long-term moderate to major benefit. 

(Provision of such a visitor center, as well as 

other recreational and interpretive opportunities suggested in Alternative 2, would 

depend on a new General Management 

Plan or Implementation Plan for the NRA.) 

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

78 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Impact 

Topics 

Alternative 1: No Action 

(Continuation of 

Existing Conditions)

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Scenic Resources1

Viewsheds Scenic resources within the NRA and on 

other adjacent federal and state lands 

would continue to be conserved through 

federal and state land management 

activities. Important scenic features such as 

the Dillon Pinnacles and Curecanti Needle 

would be protected, resulting in long-term 

major beneficial impacts on scenic 

resources. Private lands within the COA 

that remain in their current undeveloped 

condition would also continue to contribute 

to the existing high quality natural 

landscape in the area. 

However, private lands in the COA 

(surrounding the NRA) proposed for 

Alternative 2 would continue to be 

increasingly subject to future development 

and other land uses in Alternative 1 that 

might be incompatible with NRA goals and 

objectives. This could result in long-term 

major adverse impacts to the scenic 

resource, depending upon factors such as 

decisions by landowners, county land use 

regulations, and population growth. The 

degree of impact would depend upon type 

of development and land use; whether 

development remains localized within a few 

areas, or becomes increasingly widespread 

over time; and whether it would occur in 

the foreground, middle ground, and/or 

background of the viewer. 

Future development and other types of land 

use, such as high-density housing, high-rise 

buildings, large parking areas, utility towers, 

and mining operations on private lands in 

the COA could result in a long-term major 

adverse impact on the spectacular 

geological and natural landscape setting, 

which can be seen from within the NRA, 

and which is considered to be a key 

resource for visitor enjoyment of the NRA. 

Some of the more important scenic areas, 

and those more vulnerable to development, 

are located on private property in Land Units 

A (CO 92 COA), C (Gunnison River COA), D 

(Iola Basin COA), E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa 

COA), and G (West-End COA). 

Conservation of scenic views associated with 

these areas would be beneficial to both local 

and NRA-wide viewsheds and individual 

scenic features, for visitors and residents 

alike. The availability of resource 

conservation tools to private landowners, 

and congressionally authorized increased 

efforts on the part of NPS to work in 

partnership with private landowners to 

conserve viewsheds and scenic resources 

within the COA, would help maintain the 

existing scenic resource. The degree to 

which viewsheds and individual scenic 

features on private lands within the COA 

would be conserved is highly dependent 

upon the willingness and cooperation of 

landowners. Should landowners implement 

tools such as conservation easements or fee 

simple acquisition, long-term major 

beneficial impacts to the scenic resources 

would occur. 

As in Alternative 1, there is a potential in 

Alternative 2 for adverse impacts on scenic 

resources, due to certain types of 

development and land use, such as 

highdensity housing, high-rise buildings, 

large parking areas, utility towers, and 

mining operations within the COA 

surrounding the NRA. This would occur if 

private landowners choose not to take 

advantage of the tools for resource 

conservation that are available, and if they 

choose to develop, or otherwise use their 

lands for purposes that are incompatible 

with NRA goals and objectives. This is 

because the actions proposed in Alternative 

2 would be on a volunteer, or willing, basis 

on the part of the private sector. However, if 

the actions proposed in Alternative 2 are 

implemented, and the tools and concepts of 

partnership, cooperation, and conservation 

are truly enacted on behalf of both NPS and 

private landowners, then there would be no 

long-term adverse impacts to the scenic 

resource, the conservation of which is 

essential to the enjoyment of the NRA by 

visitors and residents alike. 

1

 Public Law 106- 76 specifically requested that NPS evaluate natural, cultural, recreational, and scenic 

resources within and surrounding the NRA. 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 79

Impact 

Topics 

Alternative 1: No Action 

(Continuation of 

Existing Conditions)

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Regional Economic and Social Characteristics

Economics Economic conditions within the county 

would remain unchanged assuming private 

lands within the proposed lands remained 

in existing conditions and all other factors 

such as NRA visitation, visitor expenditures, 

and payments-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILT) 

remained at current levels. 

If private lands were developed, 

expenditures and employment associated 

with construction-related activity and new 

residents could result in short-term minor 

to long-term negligible beneficial impacts 

within the local economy. Increased 

development would also result in long-term 

negligible to minor beneficial impacts to 

county revenues through increased 

property taxes, although associated 

infrastructure costs could offset some of 

this benefit. 

Conversely, development that eroded 

scenic or other key resource values could 

create long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts to visitation in the NRA 

and to the quality of life currently enjoyed 

by area residents. Overall, the long-term 

beneficial impacts associated with localized 

development could be offset or exceeded 

by the adverse impacts that could result 

from increased development in sensitive 

resource areas. 

The implementation of resource 

conservation tools would most likely 

maintain or improve regional economic 

health by encouraging growth in the retail 

and service industries, in non-labor total 

personal income, and in visitor spending 

resulting in long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts. If land is acquired, or 

comes under conservation easements, longterm negligible to moderate adverse impacts 

to county revenues could occur, depending 

upon the land conservation method and the 

land classification of the property. Any 

losses in tax revenue could be offset by 

payments in lieu of taxes, and decreased 

provision of infrastructure associated with 

preserved open space. 

Private Land Use 

Within the NRA 

Currently, there are numerous and varied 

existing rights on lands within the NRA (such 

as rights-of-way, water rights, access rights, 

and oil/gas/mineral rights). Under this 

alternative, NPS would continue to work 

cooperatively with owners of such rights 

through a permitting process to allow the 

owner to exercise those rights, subject to 

deed restrictions, with the goal of 

minimizing adverse impacts on NRA 

resources or visitor enjoyment. Therefore, 

this alternative would have no impact on 

privately held rights. 

Currently, there are numerous and varied 

existing rights on lands within the NRA (such 

as rights-of-way, water rights, access rights, 

and oil/gas/mineral rights). As in Alternative 

1, NPS would continue to work 

cooperatively with owners of such rights 

through a permitting process to allow the 

owner to exercise those rights, subject to 

deed restrictions, with the goal of 

minimizing adverse impacts on NRA 

resources or visitor enjoyment. However, 

under Alternative 2, there would be more 

programmatic funding and authorization to 

pursue greater incentives for resource 

conservation that might provide a greater 

opportunity for financial benefit to the 

owner of the rights, while more closely 

meeting NPS resource conservation goals 

and objectives. Thus, this alternative could 

provide a minor to moderate long term 

beneficial impact for the owner of the 

rights. 

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

80 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Impact 

Topics 

Alternative 1: No Action 

(Continuation of 

Existing Conditions)

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Neighboring 

Private Lands 

and Landowners 

Within the 

Proposed Lands

Because landowners would continue to 

have the freedom to manage their 

properties within the limits of county land 

use regulations, there would be no adverse 

impacts to the control they have over their 

property due to actions by NPS. However, 

the NRA’s ability to assist landowners to 

preserve important resources would be 

limited, since funding would be unavailable 

to purchase conservation easements or to 

pursue fee simple acquisition without 

Congressional appropriation. This would 

result in moderate to major adverse impacts 

to landowners who are interested in 

working in partnership with NPS towards 

enhanced resource conservation. Changes 

in land use and property values would most 

likely occur, but would range from adverse 

to beneficial depending upon landowner 

preferences.

Landowners would be under no obligation 

to negotiate with the National Park Service, 

nor would NPS have any condemnation or 

other authority to take private lands within 

the COA without full consent of and 

compensation to the landowner. Because 

landowners would continue to have full 

private property rights within the limits of 

county land use regulations, there would be 

no adverse impacts to the control they have 

over their property. With congressional 

authorization, and subject to competing 

demands from other NPS units, there would 

be more opportunity for funds to be made 

available for acquisition of fee title or 

conservation easements from willing 

landowners in the COA. This could be a 

major beneficial impact to interested 

landowners. 

The availability of a full range of resource 

conservation opportunities and tax benefits 

could result in long-term minor to major 

benefits to interested landowners. Changes 

in land use and property values would most 

likely occur, but would range from adverse 

to beneficial depending upon landowner 

preferences.

National Park Service, Reclamation, and Other Neighboring Agency Management and Operations

National Park 

Service 

Administrative 

Management, 

and Operations 

The ongoing requests for information 

related to resource conservation on 

adjacent private lands, and potential 

resource and visitor use impacts associated 

with potential development of private lands 

adjacent to the NRA would result in 

longterm minor adverse impacts to NPS 

operations. 

There would be a minor beneficial impact 

on NPS ability to meet its mission through 

the Joint Agency Management Effort, 

which has been initiated as part of this RPS. 

However, under Alternative 1, progress is 

limited due to lack of staff time to fully 

realize the potential opportunities. Under 

Alternative 2, there would be more staff 

time available to pursue this effort. 

If funding is not provided to hire the 

necessary staff that would be needed to 

perform the additional office and field 

duties that would be required to implement 

Alternative 2, there would be a long-term 

major adverse impact on NPS operations. If 

additional staff is available to perform these 

duties, there is expected to be a long-term 

moderate beneficial impact to NPS 

operations, due to enhanced cooperation 

from landowners and other neighbors in the

realm of resource conservation. It is for 

these reasons that this study recommends 

an increase in the NRA’s base funding to 

hire two additional full-time-equivalent (FTE) 

employees to accomplish these tasks, and to

make Alternative 2 become a reality. 

There would be a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impact on NPS ability to 

meet its mission, due to appropriately 

worded legislation for the NRA, improved 

wording in a new MOA with Reclamation, 

and increased consultation and cooperation 

between NPS and other agencies, including 

Reclamation. This improvement in 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 81

Impact 

Topics 

Alternative 1: No Action 

(Continuation of 

Existing Conditions)

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

 consultation and cooperation among the 

agencies is already happening, through the 

Joint Agency Management Effort, which is 

integral to the RPS. 

Land transfers between NPS and other 

agencies would simplify existing boundaries 

between agencies and improve NPS 

operations in site-specific areas, resulting in 

long-term negligible to minor beneficial 

impacts to NPS.

Reclamation’s 

Primary 

Operations 

The Bureau of Reclamation and Western 

Area Power Administration would continue 

their responsibilities within and adjacent to 

the national recreation area, including 

construction, operation, maintenance, 

replacements and additions; and they and 

their assigns would continue to have 

unrestricted access to their lands and land 

interests, water and water interests, and 

facilities; consistent with Reclamation law, 

and other applicable laws and regulations. 

Reclamation, Western, and the National 

Park Service would consult with each other 

as necessary and appropriate. Thus, there 

would be no adverse impacts to 

Reclamation and Western responsibilities 

under Alternative1. 

As with Alternative 1, the Bureau of 

Reclamation and Western Area Power 

Administration would continue their 

responsibilities within and adjacent to the 

national recreation area, including 

construction, operation, maintenance, 

replacements and additions; and they and 

their assigns would continue to have 

unrestricted access to their lands and land 

interests, water and water interests, and 

facilities; consistent with Reclamation law, 

and other applicable laws and regulations. 

Formal establishment of the NRA under 

Alternative 2 would not amend or 

supplement existing Reclamation law 

applicable to the Aspinall Unit or the 

Uncompahgre Project. Reclamation, 

Western, and the National Park Service 

would consult with each other as necessary 

and appropriate. Thus, there would be no 

adverse impacts to Reclamation and 

Western responsibilities under Alternative 2. 

Reclamation and 

Other 

Neighboring 

Agency 

Administrative 

Management, 

and Operations 

The existing condition requires Reclamation 

to develop, negotiate, implement, and 

maintain local agreements with at least two 

land management agencies (NPS and BLM) 

for its lands within and adjacent to the NRA. 

This activity and the associated personnel 

and costs for coordinating management on 

these lands create a minor long-term 

expense for all three agencies. 

New NRA legislation, a revised agreement 

between Reclamation and NPS, and 

streamlining or potential elimination of 

other agreements among various agencies, 

would provide a long-term minor beneficial 

impact to Reclamation operations, by 

reducing associated personnel costs for 

managing the lands and agreements. 

Other agencies, such as USFS, BLM, and 

CDOW would experience negligible to 

moderate beneficial impacts to operations, 

depending upon the location and change in 

agency responsibility associated with the 

land transfers. In some locations, long-term 

negligible adverse impacts could occur to 

existing maintenance schedules, where an 

agency would assume new responsibilities. 

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

82 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 83

 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

 INTRODUCTION

 PRIMARY ELEMENTS OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED 

BY ACTIONS

The purpose of the Aff ected Environment 

chapter is to describe the primary elements of 

the environment that would be aff ected by the 

actions proposed in either or both Alternative 

1 and Alternative 2. These elements are called 

“impact topics”, and are summarized in the 

Purpose and Need chapter under “Impact 

Topics Considered.” As shown in the table 

of Impact Topics Retained or Dismissed in 

that chapter, some of the topics that the study 

team initially thought might be aff ected were 

ultimately dismissed from detailed assessment. 

Those topics that were retained are described 

in further detail in this Aff ected Environment 

chapter, and addressed in the Environmental 

Consequences chapter, where the impacts 

of the alternative actions on those topics are 

assessed in detail.

Four of the elements of the environment 

that are assessed in detail are traditionally 

done so in environmental impact statements. 

In addition, they are required to be done 

so by this study’s enabling legislation. They 

are the natural, cultural, recreational, and 

scenic resources.

 LAND UNITS

Throughout this chapter, reference is made to 

“land units,” which were defi ned earlier in the 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

chapter, under “Development of Alternatives.” 

They were created for purposes of analysis 

during the development of alternatives. 

They consist of the public and private lands 

outside the National Recreation Area (NRA), 

but within the larger study area, that were 

considered most critical for conservation. 

A total of eight land units were identifi ed, 

according to geographical location, similarity 

of resource values, reasonably foreseeable 

activities that occur within them, and land 

ownership. The land units, identifi ed by 

the letters A through H, are shown on 

the Alternative 2 map; and are referenced 

throughout the Resource Protection Study/ 

Environmental Impact Statement (RPS/

EIS). They consist of two types of land: (1) 

privately-owned land within the Conservation 

Opportunity Area (COA) of Alternative 2, 

defi ned as Land Units A, C, D, E, and G; and 

(2) non-NPS agency lands that are included 

within the proposed NRA boundary shown in 

Alternative 2, defi ned as Land Units B, F, and 

H. For ease of reference, the land units are 

again listed here:

Land Unit A (CO 92 COA): private 

lands north and south of Colorado State 

Highway 92 (CO 92) and Morrow Point 

Soap Mesa – a portion of Land Unit A

CHAPTER 3 – INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

84 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Reservoir, including Black Mesa, Soap 

Mesa, Soap Creek, and Fitzpatrick Mesa

Land Unit B ( Blue Mesa Reservoir 

Agency): agency lands from Soap Creek 

east to Beaver Creek, including Dillon 

Pinnacles, Blue Mesa north and south 

shores, and Gunnison River Canyon

Land Unit C (Gunnison River COA): 

private lands in the vicinity of Neversink 

and Riverway

Land Unit D (Iola Basin COA): private 

lands in Iola Basin and South Gunnison 

River Canyon

Land Unit E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA): 

private lands in the vicinity of Sapinero 

Mesa and Windy Point to Hunters Point

Land Unit F (Gateview Agency): 

agency lands in the vicinity of Gateview 

Campground

Land Unit G (West-End COA): private 

lands west of Fitzpatrick Mesa on the 

south side of Crystal Reservoir and the 

area around Spring Gulch on the north 

side of Crystal Reservoir

Land Unit H (West-End Agency): agency 

lands north and south of Crystal and 

Morrow Point Reservoirs.

Collectively, all the land units comprise the 

“proposed lands” for Alternative 2, consisting 

of public lands recommended for addition 

to the NRA (the agency lands); and lands 

recommended for inclusion in a COA (the 

private lands).

The criteria that were used to establish each 

land unit are shown in Table 2. This table fi rst 

appeared in the Alternatives, including the 

 Proposed Action chapter under “Development 

of Alternatives,” and appears again below for 

ease of reference. If a resource or other criterion 

occurs within a given land unit, it is identifi ed 

by a dot in the matrix. If the dot is highlighted in 

yellow, the associated criterion is considered to 

be a primary reason for the inclusion of the land 

unit within the proposed NRA boundary or the 

COA in Alternative 2. More detailed descriptions 

of specifi c resources, including their signifi cance 

in the Curecanti region, are provided later in 

this chapter.

 NATURAL RESOURCES

 TOPOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE

The climate of the Curecanti region is 

infl uenced by the surrounding topography. 

Extremely cold winters are common, due to 

cold mountain air settling in the basin. The 

January record low is -44.86° F. Average low 

and high temperatures vary from -10° to 30° 

F in winter and 36° to 80° F in summer. Air in 

this region is also very dry, and precipitation 

averages only 11 to 12 inches per year. These 

characteristics contribute to the unique 

composition of plant communities at Curecanti 

NRA and the surrounding area, including 

sagebrush dominated vegetation at elevations 

where pinyon-juniper forests would otherwise 

be expected to dominate (Emslie 2003). 

 WATER RESOURCES

Within the boundaries of Curecanti NRA, the 

Gunnison River is dammed at three locations 

to form Blue Mesa Reservoir, Morrow Point 

Reservoir, and Crystal Reservoir. These 

reservoirs and infrastructure make up the 

 Wayne N. Aspinall Storage Unit, one of four 

storage units in the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

(Reclamation) Colorado River Storage 

Project (CRSP). The Aspinall Unit produces 

electricity, regulates the fl ow of the Gunnison 

River, and controls fl oods, in addition 

to providing water storage for the Upper 

Colorado River Basin (NPS 2003). Also, within 

the NRA downstream of Crystal Dam are 

a diversion dam and tunnel and associated 

facilities that are part of Reclamation’s 

 Uncompahgre Project. The diversion dam 

and tunnel transport irrigation water to the 

Uncompahgre Valley.

Above the reservoirs, the Gunnison River 

fl ows freely through a fl oodplain of mature 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 85

TABLE 2: FACTORS CONSIDERED IN ESTABLISHING LAND UNITS

Land Unit 

A B C D E F G H 

Criteria 

 CO 92 COA  Blue Mesa Reservoir Agency  Gunnison River COA  Iola Basin COA  Sapinero /Blue Mesa COA  Gateview Agency  West-End COA  West-End Agency 

Administrative Efficiency z z z z z z z

Archeological/Historical Sites z z z z z z z z

Bighorn Sheep – Overall Range z z z z z z

Elk – Severe Winter Range z z z z z z z z

Gunnison Sage-grouse (all categories) z z z z z 

Heron Rookery z 

Historic Railroad Feature z z z

Lynx – Potential Habitat z z z z z

Management Issues / Logical Boundary z z z z z z

Mule Deer – Severe Winter Range z z z z z z z

Paleontology/Geology z z z z

Prairie Dog – Overall Range z z z

Pronghorn – Winter Range z z 

Raptor Range z z z z z z z z

Rare and/or Imperiled Species z z z z z z z z

Recreation Opportunities z z z z z z 

Scenic Qualities from Primary Overlook or within 

3-mile Viewshed z z z z z z z z

Understanding of Significant Resources z z z z z z z

Water Quality z z z z z z z

Notes: 

A dot indicates the criterion is present within the land unit. 

The addition of yellow highlighting indicates that not only is the criterion present, but it is of such significance, in 

combination with the other criteria present, to recommend that the land unit be included within the COA or proposed 

NRA boundary in Alternative 2.

 NATURAL RESOURCES
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

86 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

narrowleaf cottonwoods and then into a 

narrow canyon before entering Blue Mesa 

Reservoir. Blue Mesa is the largest of the 

three impoundments, and is the largest body 

of water in Colorado, consisting of 96 miles 

of shoreline, and extending over 20 miles in 

length. The purposes of Blue Mesa Reservoir 

include, among others, water storage and 

hydropower production (NPS 2003). 

Morrow Point Dam, located 12 miles below 

Blue Mesa Dam, creates a deep, narrow 

reservoir between the steep walls of the 

Black Canyon. The primary function of 

Morrow Point Dam is the production of 

hydroelectricity. With two generators, its 

power capacity is almost twice the power 

capacity of Blue Mesa’s power plant.

Crystal Dam is located 6 miles below Morrow 

Point Dam. Crystal Dam stabilizes the fl ow 

of water in the Gunnison River and produces 

hydroelectricity (NPS 2003). Together, the 

three dams produce enough electricity to 

support a community of 240,000 persons. 

Downstream of Crystal Dam near the 

eastern boundary of Black Canyon of the 

Gunnison National Park (BLCA) is the 

Gunnison Diversion Dam and East Portal of 

the Gunnison Tunnel; both features of the 

 Uncompahgre Project. The diversion dam and 

tunnel divert water from the Gunnison River 

to the Uncompahgre Valley for irrigation. 

Below the diversion dam the Gunnison River 

once again runs free through the national 

park towards Grand Junction and its eventual 

confl uence with the Colorado River.

Major tributaries to the reservoir system 

include Cebolla Creek, Lake Fork of the 

Gunnison River, and the Cimarron River. 

At least 17 smaller tributaries fl ow into the 

NRA from the north and south. Threats to 

future water quality include urban housing 

and resort development in canyons and along 

drainages, and other associated changes from 

historic land-use practices. Because the NRA 

has a relatively long history of water quality 

and quantity monitoring (ca. 1980), NRA 

personnel have been able to clearly identify 

present water resource issues.

The NRA is currently monitoring 21 reservoir 

and adjacent tributary sites in an eff ort to 

assess current and minimize future impacts 

to water quality from internal and external 

sources. This eff ort is combined with similar 

eff orts at BLCA and is focused on complying 

with National Park Service Policy and the 

Government Performance and Review Act 

(GPRA), as well as following the Clean Water 

Act and applicable State regulations. Credible 

water quality data is required to accurately 

characterize the water quality within the 

NRA. Most of the sites demonstrate water 

quality that is considerably better than State 

standards, and NPS policy encourages the 

preservation of this high quality.

Colorado Water Quality Standards — 

Classification of Waters

Water quality standards for the Gunnison 

River Basin have been established as 

part of Regulation No. 35 drafted by the 

Colorado Department of Public Health and 

Environment’s (CDPHE) Water Quality 

Control Commission (CDPHE 2002). Under 

these regulations, water bodies are designated 

for specifi c uses. Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, 

and Crystal Reservoirs are designated to be 

suitable for class 1, Cold Water Aquatic Life; 

class 1a, Recreation (Primary Contact); Water 

Supply; and Agriculture, as defi ned below: 

 Waters designated as class 1, Cold 

Water Aquatic Life, are defi ned as 

waters capable of sustaining a widevariety of cold-water biota, including 

sensitive species. Waters with this 

designation are considered capable of 

sustaining such biota where physical 

habitat, water fl ows or levels, and 

water quality conditions result in 

no substantial impairment of the 

abundance and diversity of species. 

 Waters designated as class 1a, 

Recreation (Existing Primary Contact), 

are defi ned as waters that are suitable 

for recreational activities in or on the 

water when the ingestion of small 

quantities of water is likely to occur. 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 87

 The Water Supply designation applies 

to surface waters that are suitable for 

potable water supplies. After receiving 

standard treatment these waters 

would meet Colorado drinking water 

regulations.

 The Agriculture designation applies to 

surface waters suitable for irrigation 

of crops usually grown in Colorado, 

and that are not hazardous as drinking 

water for livestock, and can be 

classifi ed for agricultural use.

Resource Significance

In an otherwise arid habitat, the reservoirs 

and stream systems of the area are important 

resources. These systems support riparian 

communities and wildlife and fi sheries 

habitat and provide water for human 

development activities. Streams and 

reservoirs within the proposed lands also 

provide recreational opportunities.

 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY

The landforms and scenery of the Curecanti 

area are formed by the underlying geology, 

which has been sculpted by over 2 million 

years of erosive activity by the Gunnison River. 

Precambrian-aged granitic and metamorphic 

basement rocks, some greater than 1.7 billion 

years old, form much of the landscape in the 

eastern portion of the national recreation 

area. Sedimentary rocks such as sandstone, 

limestones, and shales laid down by ancient 

water bodies are also found in the hills 

surrounding the Blue Mesa Reservoir. Red 

and green colored shales along the lakeshore 

are part of the fossil-rich Jurassic-age 

Morrison Formation. In some places, these 

rocks are overlain by sandstones of the Dakota 

Formation, which in turn is overlain by the 

Mancos Formation, both of Cretaceous age.

The older rocks are capped by Tertiary 

volcanic rocks, the result of past volcanic 

activity from the West Elk Mountains. An 

impressive example of eroded volcanic 

material in the area is the Dillon Pinnacles, 

northeast of Blue Mesa Dam. This assortment 

of strangely shaped spires and towers is 

formed from rock known as West Elk Breccia. 

It consists of cemented lava, rock, and mud 

spewed from the West Elks about 30 million 

years ago. Ash erupted from the San Juan 

Mountains a few million years later and 

rimmed the breccia with zones of tuff (ash 

fl ow). The tuff caps the mesas that surround 

Curecanti NRA. When the tuff weathers 

away, formations like the Dillon Pinnacles are 

created by erosion. 

The volcanic activity and resulting landforms 

also dictated the course of the Gunnison River 

and its eventual carving of Black Canyon 

through the Gunnison Uplift and underlying 

rocks over a billion years old. Black Canyon 

extends for nearly 50 miles, beginning just 

below Blue Mesa Dam and continuing to the 

confl uence with the North Fork. The canyon 

is dramatically steep, formed of gneisses, 

schists, and granites, as can be seen on the 

walls enclosing Morrow Point and Crystal 

Reservoirs and at the downstream end of the 

NRA at East Portal. 

The Dillon Pinnacles

 NATURAL RESOURCES
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

88 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

The region’s geologic trademark is the 

Curecanti Needle, a quartz monzonite 

formation that rises 700 feet from the waters 

of Morrow Point Reservoir. It is visible from 

the reservoir surface or from the overlook at 

Pioneer Point along CO 92. Back in the heyday 

of railroad travel, the Denver and Rio Grande 

 Railroad highlighted the unique pyramidal shape 

of the Curecanti Needle by featuring it on their 

logo for the “Scenic Line of the World.” 

During the Jurassic Period, there was an 

abundance of life in the area surrounding 

Curecanti NRA. Rocks deposited during this 

time, such as the Morrison Formation, can be 

rich in fossils, including those of dinosaurs. 

During a study of the Morrison ecosystem that 

transects North America from Canada into New 

Mexico, an apatosaur dinosaur was discovered 

along the shoreline of Blue Mesa Reservoir. The 

discovery was unique for the area, and yielded 

the southernmost specimen of the 140 millionyear-old Allosaurus (Fiorillo et al. 1996; Landis 

2000). In addition, the fi nd revealed a previously 

unknown resource of signifi cance. Detailed 

study of the Morrison Formation in Curecanti 

NRA and the surrounding area has and would 

likely continue to yield insights into the rock unit 

(Fiorillo et al. 1996). More fossils are likely to be 

imbedded in the rock formations surrounding 

Curecanti NRA, especially in the famous 

Morrison Formation.

Land units A (CO 92 COA), B ( Blue Mesa 

Reservoir Agency), E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa 

COA), and H (West-End Agency) are known 

to include fossil resources and/or to have a 

high potential for future discoveries. These 

include the areas north and south of CO 92 

and Morrow Point Reservoir, north of Blue 

Mesa Reservoir, Sapinero Mesa, Blue Mesa, 

and areas west of Fitzpatrick Mesa.

Resource Significance

The fossil-rich formations of the NRA off er 

the potential for preservation and/or future 

discovery and study of fossils of various species. 

The formations also provide an opportunity for 

interpretation, to provide visitors with a better 

understanding of the resources.

 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE

 Vegetation, Including Wetlands

The majority of the Curecanti landscape 

is best classifi ed as semiarid shrubland. In 

most areas within the NRA, the upland plant 

community is dominated by three subspecies 

of big sagebrush, black sagebrush, and 

native grasses. Slight diff erences in elevation, 

moisture, or soil structure can result in 

visible diff erences in vegetation community 

composition. The immediate area is often 

characterized by narrow canyons with steep 

rocky walls that support little vegetation. Tall 

cottonwood trees and lush undergrowth are 

associated with riparian areas found mostly 

at the eastern end of the NRA near the 

Gunnison River and the many side drainages 

that feed into the reservoirs. In these areas, the 

narrowleaf cottonwood with its deep roots 

helps stabilize the riverbank while retaining 

nutrients and moisture for understory plant 

growth. Intermittent drainages support 

juniper, Gamble oak, and shrubs including 

serviceberry and wild rose. Higher elevation 

and shady, cooler areas are characterized by 

scattered stands of ponderosa pine, Douglas 

fi r, and spruce trees. The landscape east of 

the NRA has been altered by humans and is 

characterized by pastureland used primarily 

for cattle grazing and hay production.

Important vegetation resources in the 

Curecanti region include riparian and wetland 

communities associated with the Gunnison 

River and tributaries. Specifi c land units with 

valuable riparian communities include units C 

(Gunnison River COA), D (Iola Basin COA), 

and E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA). Some 

specifi c wetland areas have been mapped, and 

many others are likely to be found scattered 

throughout the same locations as riparian 

communities ( Gunnison County Wetland 

Survey, CNHP 2002; and National Wetlands 

Inventory, USFWS). These maps are available 

through NPS, Gunnison County, and the 

USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Program.

Some of these wetland communities, including 

those associated with the Gunnison River 

and tributaries, are under jurisdiction of the 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 89

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps). 

Filling of these ‘jurisdictional’ wetlands is 

regulated by the Corps under Section 404 

of the Clean Water Act. These wetlands are 

also protected by County regulations. Nonjurisdictional wetlands are often isolated 

from perennial drainage systems and are 

not protected by federal, state, or local laws. 

However, federal land agencies such as NPS, 

USFS, and BLM have policies that address 

management of both jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional wetlands that occur on their 

lands as mandated by Executive Order 11990. 

In addition, the Colorado Division of Wildlife 

recognizes wetlands as areas of high habitat 

value for wildlife, and manages these resources 

accordingly. There are no offi cial regulations 

for non-jurisdictional wetlands on private 

lands. Future cooperative conservation actions 

with private landowners would include more 

detailed assessment of impacts to wetlands on 

such lands.

Exotic or noxious plant species present a threat 

to native vegetation communities. The NRA 

and other federal lands are often managed for 

control of noxious weed invasion. However, 

federal funding is not always available for 

such eff orts, and privately-owned lands in 

the proposed lands might not have organized 

weed control eff orts in place. Noxious 

weed management is one of the tasks being 

undertaken by the Joint Agency Management 

Eff ort (JAME), a program to facilitate 

cooperation in dealing with resource issues that 

cross agency and private land boundaries.

 Wildlife

Mammalian inventories were conducted in 

2001 and 2002 at select National Park Service 

areas in the Northern Colorado Plateau 

Network, including Curecanti NRA. Of 60 

species that researchers thought were likely to 

occur within the NRA, 36 species in 2001 and 

48 species in 2002 were observed. Common 

mammals observed during inventories 

include mule deer, coyote, mountain lion, 

bobcat, raccoon, least chipmunk, various bats, 

Colorado chipmunk, deer mouse, bushytailed woodrat, several voles, and the western 

jumping mouse (USGS 2003). 

BIG GAME—Important habitat for big game 

species is located in portions of Curecanti 

NRA and surrounding areas. Severe winter 

range for American elk and mule deer, winter 

range for pronghorn, and overall range for 

bighorn sheep exist in the area as shown in 

Table 6 and discussed below.

 NATURAL RESOURCES

TABLE 6:BIG GAME HABITAT IN PROPOSED LANDS

Species Habitat Type Acres within 

NRA 

Acres by Land 

Unit 

American Elk Severe Winter Range 18,000 

A = 

B = 

D = 

E = 

G = 

Total = 

4,800 

150 

130 

2,720 

240 

8,040 

Mule Deer Severe Winter Range 16,000 

A = 

B = 

D = 

E = 

G = 

Total = 

7,300 

150 

130 

890 

100 

8,570 

Bighorn Sheep Overall Range 14,600 B = 2,000 

Pronghorn Winter Range 260 

B = 

D = 

Total = 

80 

1,125 

1,205 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

90 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Habitat for American elk consists of semiopen forests or forest edges adjacent to 

meadows and alpine tundra. Elk are both 

grazers and browsers with a diet that consists 

of shrubs, forbs, and grasses (Fitzgerald et 

al. 1994). In the Rocky Mountain region, elk 

typically migrate between high elevation areas 

in spring and summer to lower, warmer areas 

in the fall and winter. In the Upper Gunnison 

Basin region, summer range for elk is 

widespread and includes Curecanti NRA and 

the surrounding area. Summer concentration 

areas are located at higher elevations north 

of the NRA. Winter concentration areas and 

severe winter range is located within and 

adjacent Curecanti NRA. Within the NRA, 

approximately 18,000 acres of severe winter 

elk range are protected. Outside of the NRA, 

the proposed lands encompass approximately 

8,000 acres of severe winter range for elk, 

found in Land Units A (CO 92 COA), B ( Blue 

Mesa Reservoir Agency), D (Iola Basin COA), 

E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), and G (WestEnd COA) (Table 6). This habitat is extremely 

important during unusually harsh winters 

when survival of elk can be threatened by lack 

of accessible food supply. 

Mule deer occupy all ecosystems in Colorado 

from grasslands to alpine tundra. They reach 

their greatest densities in shrublands on 

rough, broken terrain, with abundant browse 

and cover. Winter diets of mule deer consist 

of browse from a variety of trees and shrubs 

(74%) and forbs (15%). Summer diets are 

50% browse, and forb consumption increases 

to 46% (NDIS). As with elk, winter habitats 

are often at lower elevations, and winter 

concentration and severe winter range are 

located within and adjacent to Curecanti 

NRA. Within the NRA, approximately 16,000 

acres of severe winter mule deer range is 

protected, while Land Units A (CO 92 COA), 

B ( Blue Mesa Reservoir Agency), D (Iola Basin 

COA), E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), and G 

(West-End COA) include a total of 8,600 acres 

of such habitat.

Suitable habitat (overall range) for bighorn 

sheep is widespread in the area, including 

14,600 acres within Curecanti NRA and 

2,000 acres in Land Unit B ( Blue Mesa 

Reservoir Agency). Historically, bighorn 

sheep ranged throughout the canyons of 

the Gunnison River and the surrounding 

mountainous regions. However, populations 

declined throughout the 1900s due to habitat 

conversion, competition, and disease. 

Beginning in the 1970s, and as recent as 1995, 

CDOW reestablished a bighorn population 

in the area through transplanting animals. 

Sheep have been transplanted into various 

areas including Dillon Mesa, Lake Fork, and 

the Gunnison Gorge. Area herds did well until 

a particularly severe winter in 1978 resulted 

in high mortality. Since 1978, the total local 

population count has fl uctuated between 25 

and 35 animals (CPCESU 2002). 

Pronghorn habitat consists of grasslands 

and semi-desert shrublands in areas with 

topography that supports good visibility. They 

are most abundant in shortgrass or midgrass 

prairies and least common in xeric habitats, 

such as those surrounding Curecanti NRA. 

Pronghorn diet consists of a variety of forbs 

and grasses, and they sometimes consume and 

tolerate species that are hazardous to livestock. 

Winter range for pronghorn exists primarily in 

the Kezar Basin, which is south of Iola Basin 

of Blue Mesa Reservoir. It occurs on 260 acres 

of NRA land; on 80 acres of land unit B ( Blue 

Mesa Reservoir Agency), which is currently 

managed by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM); and on 1,125 acres of private land in 

land unit D (Iola Basin COA). 

BI1RDS—There are approximately 225 species 

of birds documented in the area of Curecanti 

NRA (Hyde and Cook 1980). Common 

birds include the horned lark, black-capped 

chickadee, white-breasted nuthatch, dipper, 

American robin, mountain bluebird, hermit 

thrush, warbling vireo, western meadowlark, 

red-winged blackbird, pine siskin, blackbilled magpie, common raven, and various 

jays, warblers, juncos, sparrows, fi nches, 

woodpeckers, and towhees.

Many species of waterfowl and shorebirds 

migrate through the Gunnison Basin region 

or remain as summer residents. Common 

water and shorebirds found at Curecanti NRA 

include the spotted sandpiper, ring-billed 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 91

FISHERIES—Construction of the dams along 

the Gunnison River has altered the fi sheries of 

the area through inundation of riparian areas, 

alteration of fl ows and water temperatures, 

and alteration of spawning habitat. However, 

Curecanti NRA provides one of the best 

cold-water fi shing opportunities in the nation 

partly due to the spawning run of kokanee 

salmon in the Gunnison River above Blue 

Mesa Reservoir. Other game fi sh common to 

Curecanti NRA include lake trout (Mackinaw 

trout), brook trout, rainbow trout, and 

brown trout. The Colorado Division of 

 Wildlife (CDOW) maintains populations 

of game species through stocking. Due to 

seasonal water fl uctuations, there is a lack of 

development of aquatic plant or invertebrate 

communities to provide concentrated 

shoreline feeding areas for fi sh (CDOW 

2002b). Instead, zooplankton in interior 

surface waters is the main food source for 

sport fi sh in Blue Mesa Reservoir.

AMPHIBIANS AND SNAKES—Snakes common 

to Curecanti NRA include the smooth green 

snake, Great Basin gopher snake, garter 

snake, and striped whipsnake. A variety of 

lizards and salamanders are also found here. 

Breeding areas for lizards are generally in 

upland areas away from the shoreline, while 

primary habitat for amphibians would be in 

the narrow portions of reservoir arms and 

along the shoreline.

Resource Significance

The lack of development and the uniquely 

pristine nature of the wildlife habitat within 

and surrounding the NRA contribute to the 

signifi cance of the wildlife resources and 

their importance to regional populations. 

This is especially true for big game species, 

including American elk, mule deer, bighorn 

sheep, and pronghorn that rely on range in 

the area. In addition, the proposed lands 

provide important raptor habitat and fi sheries 

resources. 

Riparian communities are underrepresented 

within the NRA. Riparian vegetation provides 

valuable habitat for wildlife. Threats to the 

health of riparian communities include 

gull, and green-winged teal. Nesting areas 

are more likely to be found in inland areas 

and in the narrow portions of the reservoir 

arms where habitat is more suitable and 

water-based recreation activity is restricted. 

Waterfowl and shorebirds that nest in these 

areas include killdeer, common snipe, mallard 

and common merganser. In addition, great 

blue herons wade along the shoreline in these 

narrow reservoir arm areas. A heron rookery 

is located in the Cooper Ranch/Neversink 

area in the eastern portion of the NRA and in 

Land Unit C (Gunnison River COA). 

Common raptors at Curecanti NRA include 

red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, golden 

eagle, bald eagle, and American kestrel. Great 

horned owls nest in the area and are common 

year-round, and fl ammulated owls are 

common in the summer months.

Of the birds recorded in the NRA, four 

are federally or state listed as regionally 

threatened, endangered, or candidate species, 

including bald eagle, whooping crane, and 

yellow-billed cuckoo. The Gunnison Sagegrouse, a unique species native to the region 

and prevalent in the sagebrush communities 

within the NRA, was designated as a federal 

candidate species for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act on December 

28, 2000. On April 18, 2006, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the agency 

responsible for the 

determination of 

the bird’s status, 

decided not to list 

it as endangered or 

threatened, and has 

removed it from the 

candidate species 

list. However, NPS 

still considers the 

Gunnison Sagegrouse to be a NRA 

sensitive species.

In addition to the federal status mentioned 

above, the Sandhill crane, peregrine falcon, 

Gunnison Sage-grouse, and long-billed curlew 

are listed as state special concern species. Special 

status species are discussed later in this chapter. 

Gunnison Sage-grouse

 NATURAL RESOURCES
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

92 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

streamside development, grazing, pollution, 

exotic plants, and changes to the fl ood 

regime. These activities have taken a large 

toll, especially when considering the original 

inundation and loss of riparian habitat caused 

by the fi lling of the three reservoirs. 

 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Species listed by both the U.S. Fish and 

 Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Colorado 

 Wildlife Commission, and those of special 

concern to the NRA, all of which could 

potentially be impacted by the actions in 

Alternatives 1 and 2, are listed in Table 7, 

and described in more detail in this section. 

Species protected by the Endangered 

Species Act are listed by USFWS as federally 

threatened or endangered. In addition, 

USFWS lists candidate species that are 

considered for listing at a later date. While 

not protected under the Endangered Species 

Act, candidate species are also considered 

when analyzing impacts of actions that may 

potentially aff ect them.

A letter was sent by Curecanti NRA staff 

to the Grand Junction offi ce of USFWS on 

May 21, 2001 requesting a list of federally 

threatened and endangered species in the 

vicinity of the NRA. USFWS responded on 

June 28, 2001 and subsequently updated this 

response on March 17, 2005, with a list of the 

following species: seven federally endangered 

species—the black-footed ferret, bonytail, 

Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, 

razorback sucker, Uncompahgre fritillary 

butterfl y, and clay-loving wild-buckwheat; 

four federally threatened species—bald eagle, 

Canada lynx, Mexican spotted owl, and Uinta 

Basin hookless cactus; and three candidate 

species—Boreal toad, Gunnison Sage-grouse, 

and yellow-billed cuckoo. Subsequent to this 

latest update, USFWS decided not to list the 

Boreal toad and the Gunnison Sage-grouse as 

endangered or threatened, and has removed 

them from the candidate species list. However, 

the state of Colorado and Curecanti NRA still 

consider the Gunnison Sage-grouse to be a 

special status species. No critical habitat for 

federal special status species was identifi ed in 

the proposed lands. 

The Colorado Wildlife Commission maintains 

a list of special status species including statelisted threatened, endangered, or special 

concern species. The federally-listed species 

mentioned above are also given special status 

by the state. Other state listed species that 

may potentially be aff ected by the actions 

at Curecanti NRA include the American 

peregrine falcon, Colorado River cutthroat 

trout, greater Sandhill crane, Gunnison 

Sage-grouse, and long-billed curlew. These 

species are listed as special concern species 

and do not have protected status. However, 

they have been determined by the Colorado 

 Wildlife Commission to be at risk of eventual 

threatened or endangered status.

The NRA considers all federally- and statelisted species to be special status. Other species 

of concern that the NRA considers to be special 

status, which may potentially occur in the 

proposed lands, include bighorn sheep, Great 

blue heron, Gunnison’s prairie dog, Adobe 

thistle, Black Canyon gilia, Colorado desert 

parsley, Gunnison milkvetch, hanging garden 

sullivantia, and skiff milkvetch (Table 7).

Federal Species

Suitable foraging habitat for bald eagle exists 

along the entire length of Curecanti NRA, as 

the reservoirs provide an ample food source 

for bald eagles in the area. Winter eagle 

activity is concentrated around the Gunnison 

River and the reservoir shorelines. Nesting 

generally occurs in large trees that occur along 

the Gunnison River (such as the Neversink 

/ Cooper Ranch area) and along tributaries 

(both within and outside the current NRA). 

Foraging individuals are likely to be active 

throughout the remainder of the NRA.

The black-footed ferret once ranged 

throughout grasslands and mountain basins 

of North America, but is now extirpated from 

the majority of its range including southern 

Colorado. The occurrence of the black-footed 

ferret in the proposed lands is extremely 

unlikely and the species is not evaluated 

further in this document.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 93

Common Name Scientific Name Status Applicable 

Land Units 

Federal Special Status Wildlife Species 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus FT ST All 

Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes FE SE N/A 

Bonytail Gila elagans FE SE N/A 

Canada lynx Lynx Canadensis FT SE A, B, E, F, H 

Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius FE ST N/A 

Humpback chub Gila cypha FE ST N/A 

Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida FT ST N/A 

Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus FE SE N/A 

Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly Boloria acrocnema FE N/A 

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus FC SSC N/A 

State Special Status Wildlife Species

American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum SSC A, E, G, H 

Colorado River cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki 

pleuriticus SSC A, B (potential reintroduction 

sites) 

Greater Sandhill crane Grus Canadensis tabida SSC C 

Gunnison Sage-grouse Centrocercus minimus SSC B, C, D, E 

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus SSC All 

NRA Sensitive Wildlife Species 

Bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis PS B 

Great blue heron Ardea heodias PS C 

Gunnison’s prairie dog Cynomys gunnisoni PS B 

Federal Special Status Plants Species

Clay-loving wild-buckwheat Eriogonum pelinophilum FE N/A

Uinta Basin hookless cactus Sclerocactus glaucus FT N/A

NRA Sensitive Plants Species 

Adobe thistle Cirsium perplexans G2 S2 Near: G, H 

Black Canyon gilia Gilia pentstemonoides G3 S3 A, E, H 

Colorado desert parsley Lomatium concinnum G2 S2 G 

Gunnison milkvetch Astragalus anisus G3 S2 C, D 

Hanging garden sullivantia Sullivantia hapemanii G3, T3, S3 A, B, E 

Skiff milkvetch Astragalus microcymbus G1 S1 B, C, D 

Status Key 

FC = Federal Candidate Species 

FE = Federal Endangered Species 

FT = Federal Threatened Species 

PS = NRA Sensitive Species 

SE = State Endangered Species 

SSC = State Special Concern Species 

ST = State Threatened Species 

S1 = Critically Imperiled in Colorado 

S2 = Imperiled in Colorado 

S3 = Vulnerable in Colorado 

G1 = Globally Critically Imperiled 

G2 = Globally Imperiled 

G3 = Globally Vulnerable 

 T3 = Globally vulnerable at 

infraspecific level

Source: USFWS Ecological Services, Grand Junction, 2001; Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2000

 NATURAL RESOURCES

TABLE 7: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE VICINITY OF CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

94 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

The bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, and 

humpback chub are all members of the 

minnow family that are endemic to the 

Colorado River Basin. The Razorback sucker 

is a large sucker that is also endemic to the 

Colorado River system. The alteration of 

the river system by damming and water 

development activities has changed the fl ow 

regime, temperature, and sedimentation 

qualities of the river system, making much of 

the former range of these species uninhabitable. 

In addition, the introduction of many 

non-native fi sh and other aquatic animals, 

plants, pathogens, parasites, and chemical 

contaminants have aff ected the river system’s 

ecosystem (Mueller and Marsh 2003). Of 

these species, only the Colorado pikeminnow 

and razorback sucker (stocked) are known to 

inhabit the Gunnison River, though not within 

the proposed lands. None of these fi sh are 

analyzed further in this document.

Canada lynx occur at elevations of 9,000 

to 14,500 feet in forests, meadow, or tundra 

environments. Northern coniferous 

forests are the preferred habitat of the lynx 

(NDIS). Snowshoe hare is the primary 

prey of lynx. Other prey includes squirrels, 

beavers, muskrats, deer, caribou, and moose 

(Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Lynx potentially could 

occupy higher elevation areas surrounding 

Curecanti NRA. According to the Colorado 

Division of Wildlife’s Natural Diversity 

Information Source (NDIS), overall lynx 

range encompasses western portions of the 

Curecanti region. A recent project which used 

CDOW data along with vegetation cover type 

data to map potential lynx habitat on BLM 

managed lands (Baker - CNHP, CDOW), 

found Land Units A (CO 92 COA), B ( Blue 

Mesa Reservoir Agency), E (Sapinero/Blue 

Mesa COA), F (Gateview Agency), and H 

(West-End Agency) to contain potential 

habitat for the species. However, at this time, 

the lynx is not known to reside within the 

proposed lands and is not analyzed further.

The Mexican spotted owl nests in closed canopy 

forests and narrow rocky canyons in remaining 

habitat in the southwestern United States. 

Although potential habitat may occur in the 

area, the species is not known to exist within the 

proposed lands. The Mexican spotted owl is not 

analyzed further in this document. 

The federally endangered Uncompahgre 

fritillary butterfl y lives in patches of snow 

willow at high elevations, and has very limited 

habitat, a small population size, and low 

genetic variability, which may aff ect long-term 

population stability (USGS 2005). The species 

is susceptible to trampling by recreationists 

and grazing animals. Though known to occur 

in alpine meadows in Gunnison County, due 

to lack of suitable habitat, the Uncompahgre 

fritillary is not expected to occur within the 

proposed lands and is not analyzed further in 

this document.

In the western United States, yellow-billed 

cuckoo habitat consists of old growth riparian 

woodlands with dense understories, while 

in other portions of the country more open 

woodlands are adequate (Kingery 1998). In 

the proposed lands, the locations of potential 

occurrence for this species would be in the 

riparian corridors such as those along the 

Gunnison River or its tributaries. The yellowbilled cuckoo is designated as a non-game 

species within Colorado. As that designation 

applies, it is not legal to take, harass, or 

threaten the species. There have been 

historical infrequent summer records of nonbreeding yellow-billed cuckoo occurrences 

within the NRA (Andrews and Righter 1992; 

Hyde and Cook 1980), but there is no evidence 

of breeding by the species in Gunnison 

County (Kingery 1998). There are no known 

recent sightings within the NRA or proposed 

lands, and the species is not analyzed further 

in this document.

Clay-loving wild buckwheat is a federally 

endangered plant found in Mancos shale 

badlands, in salt desert shrub communities. 

Populations are known to exist in west-central 

 Montrose County, but are not expected to 

occur within the proposed lands. This species 

is not evaluated further in this document.

The Uinta Basin hookless cactus is a federally 

threatened plant found on hills and mesas 

in the Colorado and Gunnison river valleys 

on gravelly soils (CNPS 1997). It is known to 

occur in north-central Montrose County, well 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 95

 NATURAL RESOURCES

west of the proposed lands (CNHP). This 

species is not expected to occur within the 

proposed lands, and is not analyzed further in 

this document.

State Listed Species

The American peregrine falcon has been 

federally delisted, but remains a state species 

of concern. The falcon occupies a variety 

of habitats at elevations of 3,000 to 10,000 

feet and usually nests in high cliff ledges. 

Peregrines are known to occur nearby in 

the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 

Park, especially near the Painted Wall area. 

They also regularly nest within the NRA, but 

have the most potential for occurrence in the 

proposed lands in Land Units A (CO 92 COA), 

E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), G (West-End 

COA), and H (West-End Agency) (Andrews 

and Righter 1992; Hyde and Cook 1980). 

Colorado River cutthroat trout historically 

occupied portions of the Colorado River 

drainage in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, 

Arizona, and New Mexico (GMUG MIS 

Assessment). Populations of the species have 

dramatically declined due to land management 

practices and hybridization with non-native 

salmonids, and current populations of the 

species occur primarily in headwater streams 

and lakes (CRCT Task Force 2001; GMUG 

MIS). The Colorado River cutthroat trout is 

known to occur in the Gunnison River below 

Crystal Reservoir (incidental occurrence 

through occasional stocking), Antelope Creek 

(a tributary to North Beaver Creek), Road 

Beaver Creek (a tributary to Cebolla Creek), 

as well as in the national park (Kowalski, pers. 

comm. 11/27/2007). Potential cutthroat trout 

reintroduction sites within the proposed lands 

include West Elk Creek, Curecanti Creek, and 

East Elk Creek, in Land Unit A (CO 92 COA) 

and B ( Blue Mesa Reservoir Agency).

The greater Sandhill crane occupies a variety 

of habitats including crops, grasslands, 

mudfl ats, and riparian areas at 3,000 to 10,000 

feet in elevation. The area along Curecanti 

NRA and the Gunnison River is considered 

to be suitable habitat for the species during 

migration, primarily in spring, but is not 

a known breeding area for the species 

(Kingery 1998; Andrews and Righter 1992). 

Sandhill cranes are most likely to occur 

in riparian communities or in agricultural 

areas surrounding the NRA. Land Unit C 

(Gunnison River COA), along the Gunnison 

River, supports potential habitat for the 

greater Sandhill crane.

The Gunnison Sage-grouse has been 

dropped as a candidate for federal listing, 

but remains a state species of concern. The 

bird has important habitat located within 

Curecanti NRA and surrounding areas. The 

NRA is currently engaged in monitoring 

programs for the Gunnison Sage-grouse 

lek (breeding) sites in cooperation with the 

 Colorado Division of Wildlife. This native to 

the Gunnison Basin was recognized in 2000 

to have diff erent coloration and mating rituals 

from the Northern Sage-grouse. The breeding 

population size is small, totaling only 4,000 

individuals, with up to 3,000 of those believed 

to reside in Saguache or Gunnison counties, 

Colorado (BLM 2001). The birds nest in big 

sagebrush-dominated communities from April 

to July. Within the NRA, a historic Gunnison 

Sage-grouse lek occurs near the shoreline at 

the Stevens Creek campground.

Threats to Gunnison Sage-grouse include 

degradation of habitat, habitat loss or 

fragmentation, and physical disturbance, 

especially during critical mating, nesting, or 

brooding periods. Habitat degradation or 

loss has resulted from land treatments that 

convert sagebrush landscapes to developed 

or fragmented areas. Roads, utility and 

energy development, urban, or agricultural 

development are examples of activities that 

can threaten Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat. 

Physical disturbance to the species may occur 

through off -highway vehicle use, harassment 

by scientifi c studies or bird watching, gaining 

access to fi shing spots, and hunting other 

animals. Hunting of Gunnison Sage-grouse 

was discontinued a number of years ago. Land 

unit E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA) contains 

critical winter range, while units B ( Blue Mesa 

Reservoir Agency), C (Gunnison River COA), 

and D (Iola Basin COA) contain severe winter 

range for Gunnison Sage-grouse. Sage-grouse 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

96 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

nesting areas are found within units B ( Blue 

Mesa Reservoir Agency) and D (Iola Basin 

COA), while a brood area is located in Land 

Unit C (Gunnison River COA).

Habitat of the long-billed curlew includes 

croplands, grasslands, shrublands, and 

wetland and riparian areas at elevations 

of 3,000 to 5,000 feet. They are known to 

occur as springtime migrants throughout 

 Gunnison County, including the vicinity of 

Curecanti NRA (Andrews and Righter 1992). 

However, there is no evidence that they 

breed throughout most of western Colorado, 

including within Gunnison County (Kingery 

1998). In Colorado, the long-billed curlew is 

primarily an eastern plains species.

NRA Sensitive Species

Curecanti NRA contains a variety of species 

that the staff considers to be native species 

of concern. These include bighorn sheep 

(discussed with big game species), great blue 

heron, Gunnison Sage-grouse (previously 

discussed under State Listed Species), and 

Gunnison’s prairie dog. The NRA has not yet 

completed a comprehensive identifi cation and 

evaluation of all native species of concern.

The great blue heron is a summer resident of 

Curecanti NRA. Nesting locations are located 

within the NRA and on adjacent lands. The 

Gunnison River supports important habitat 

and this nesting location is one of only two 

heronries in Gunnison County (Bio-Environs 

2001). Great blue heron nesting occurs in 

mature narrowleaf cottonwoods in the 

Neversink / Cooper Ranch area within the 

NRA, as well as in Land Unit C (Gunnison 

River COA). The nesting colony is an 

important resource, and monitoring has taken 

place since 1987. Management for maintenance 

and establishment of future generations of 

riparian vegetation community is important to 

the success of the colony.

The Gunnison’s prairie dog lives in short- to 

medium-height grass prairies and plateaus 

at moderate to high elevations. Gunnison’s 

prairie dogs are restricted to southwestern 

and south-central Colorado. They range 

in elevation from 6,000 to 12,000 feet. As 

with all prairie dog species, populations are 

much smaller than they were historically 

due to eradication, habitat loss, and disease. 

In Curecanti NRA, Gunnison’s prairie dogs 

inhabit the sagebrush grassland communities.

Adobe thistle (Rocky Mountain thistle) is 

found in Mesa, Montrose, Delta, Eagle, and 

Ouray counties on barren gray shale slopes 

and adobe hills in open areas and disturbed 

sites in mixed shrublands and pinyon juniper 

woodlands (CNHP 2002). It is found within 

the Curecanti NRA in the vicinity of Morrow 

Point Reservoir. Other areas of concern for 

the species include Land Units G (West-End 

COA) and H (West-End Agency).

Black Canyon gilia is a Colorado endemic 

that grows in cracks in vertical walls, on 

narrow ledges, and cliff rims at elevations of 

6,800 to 9,000 feet in Gunnison, Montrose, 

Ouray, Hinsdale, and Mineral counties in 13 

known populations (CNPS 1997). Within the 

proposed lands, the species may potentially 

occur or be of concern in or near Land Units 

A (CO 92 COA), E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa 

COA), and H (West-End Agency) (NPS Map 

- tes_63.rtl). 

Colorado desert parsley grows on adobe hills 

and plains in rocky soils derived from Mancos 

Formation shale. It is associated with arid shrub 

communities, typically saltbush (CNPS 1997). 

A portion of Land Unit G (West-End COA) is 

within an area of concern for the species (NPS 

Map - species_rank_eo.rtl 3/22/01).

Two sensitive milkvetch species that occur in the 

NRA, Gunnison milkvetch and skiff milkvetch, 

are listed by the Colorado Natural Heritage 

Program (CNHP) as globally and state critically 

imperiled and globally and state imperiled, 

respectively. The Gunnison milkvetch and the 

skiff milkvetch occur in dry upland sagebrush 

areas at elevations of approximately 7,500 to 

8,500 feet (CNHP 2002).

Gunnison milkvetch has been found 

occasionally on the sagebrush fl oor of the 

Gunnison Basin, and is a concern in Land 

Units B ( Blue Mesa Reservoir Agency) and C 

(Gunnison River COA) (CNPS 1997, NPS Map 

- tes_63.rtl). Skiff milkvetch is known only 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 97

 NATURAL RESOURCES

from locations in and near the South Beaver 

Creek drainage (CNPS 1997). Land units 

known to contain occurrences or potential 

habitat for skiff milkvetch include Land Units 

B ( Blue Mesa Reservoir Agency), C (Gunnison 

River COA), and D (Iola Basin COA) (NPS 

Map - tes_63.rtl).

The skiff milkvetch occurs in its highest 

abundance on property just southeast of 

the Curecanti NRA boundary in the South 

Beaver Creek drainage on BLM property, 

which is an Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC). A portion of the ACEC 

that encompasses the best and largest 

population of skiff milkvetch was designated 

as a Colorado Natural Area in 1997. This status 

provides additional monitoring and protection 

for the rare plant species. Colorado Natural 

Areas Program (CNAP) is a state agency which 

preserves some of the fi nest examples of 

Colorado’s original and unique landscapes for 

the benefi t of present and future generations. 

CNAP works in partnership with local, state, 

and federal agencies and private citizens to 

recognize and protect areas which represent 

exceptional examples of Colorado’s diverse 

ecosystems. The CNAP designation is 

approved by the Natural Areas Council, 

signed by the Governor of Colorado, and 

when enacted, protects elements of statewide 

importance.

Hanging garden sullivantia is the only species 

in this genus found in Colorado. Found in 

hanging gardens and wet cliff s of various 

geology including limestone, shale, and 

quartzite (CNHP 1999). It is known to occur 

at the bottom of the Black Canyon of the 

Gunnison (NPS 1997). Exact locations within 

the proposed lands are unknown, but habitat 

that could support the species is found in 

 Land Units A (CO 92 COA), and E (Sapinero/

Blue Mesa COA) (Dangoule Bockus, pers. 

comm. 04/05/2005).

Resource Significance 

The proposed lands contain habitat that is 

important for the conservation of special 

status wildlife and plant species that are 

signifi cant resources of the NRA and the 

entire nation. Continued and increased 

conservation of important habitat off ers 

unique opportunities to contribute to the 

preservation of such species. Special status 

species that are signifi cant in the area include 

American peregrine falcon, bald eagle, 

bighorn sheep, Colorado River cutthroat 

trout, great blue heron, greater Sandhill 

crane, Gunnison Sage-grouse, Gunnison’s 

prairie dog, long-billed curlew, Adobe 

thistle, Black Canyon gilia, Colorado desert 

parsley, Gunnison milkvetch, hanging garden 

sullivantia, and skiff milkvetch.

 NATURAL LIGHTSCAPE (NIGHT SKY)

NPS areas protect resources so that they may 

be shared with visitors for generations to 

come. These include the dark star-lit skies of 

night. However, each year new light sources 

eat away at this vanishing resource. Forty 

percent of Americans live under night skies 

so bright that their eyes no longer have to 

adjust to night vision. Two-thirds of the U.S. 

population cannot see the Milky Way, and 

more than half of today’s young people have 

never seen it at all.

NPS areas have no authority to require that 

neighboring landowners and cities lessen glare. 

The 1916 Organic Act, which created the national 

park system, calls for conserving scenery and 

other resources for future generations. It does 

not specifi cally mention light.

Light by light, we are losing sight of the 

unknown. The universe awash in stars — a 

source of wonder and inquiry since civilization 

began — is being obliterated by mega-wattage 

spilling into the sky from every corner: malls, 

airports, ballparks, theme parks, billboards, car 

dealerships, miniature golf courses, and the 

neighbor’s driveway.

NPS launched the Night Sky Team after a 

1999 study of 189 NPS areas found two-thirds 

reporting light pollution. Beginning in 2004, 

the NPS Night Sky Team partnered with 

the Northern Colorado Plateau Network to 

expand night sky inventories at NPS areas in the 

Colorado Plateau. The goal was to capture night 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

98 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

sky brightness approximating the twentieth 

percentile atmospheric clarity (as estimated by 

Bext or atmospheric extinction) to establish a 

baseline of light pollution. Additionally, light 

pollution sources were to be identifi ed and 

relative contributions established.

Field visits were made to Black Canyon and 

Curecanti in 2004 to evaluate night sky. The 

night sky quality monitoring report completed 

in 2006 indicates that on a clear night most 

light pollution is restricted to the near horizon 

leaving the majority of the sky in the vicinity 

of the park in good condition. Within the 

immediate vicinity, the communities of Grand 

Junction, Fruita, Delta, and Montrose are 

equally bright. Increasing amounts of night 

light present a threat to the quality of the 

NRA’s night sky programs and the visitor 

experience and enjoyment, but also presents a 

threat to the quality of life of local residents.

Resource Significance

One of the signifi cant resources now available 

to NRA visitors is the night sky. It is a resource 

worthy of attention and conservation, and 

off ers opportunities for lay persons and 

astronomers to ponder the universe.

 NATURAL SOUNDSCAPE

“ Soundscape” refers to the total ambient 

acoustic environment, which is made up 

of both natural sounds and human-made 

sounds. Part of the NPS mission 

is to protect soundscapes as a 

vital component of the visitor’s 

enjoyment of a site. Both the 

sounds of the wild and the sounds 

meaningful in historic settings are 

protected in the National Park 

System.

Though human-made sounds 

can be heard within the NRA 

from sources such as traffi c from 

surrounding highways, overhead 

aircraft, and motorized watercraft 

use within the reservoirs, overall, 

the soundscape of much of the 

NRA appears to be well preserved, 

as certain portions of the NRA off er a sense 

of serene solitude. NRA backcountry trails 

give visitors opportunities to hear natural 

sounds. Pine Creek, Curecanti Creek, Mesa 

Creek, and Crystal Creek Trails are examples 

of excellent places to listen to natural sounds, 

and if conditions are favorable, to experience 

serenity and quiet.

Additional data on ambient soundscape 

environments and noise intrusions would 

be needed to more fully evaluate the present 

condition within the NRA. However, it should 

be recognized that noise intrusions internal 

to the NRA (such as NPS and concession 

construction activities, new recreational 

technologies, etc.) and external to it (private 

development construction, mowing of lawns, 

increased local traffi c, etc.) could serve to 

degrade the present condition.

Resource Significance

One of the signifi cant resources now 

available to NRA visitors is the soundscape. 

It is a resource worthy of attention and 

conservation, and off ers opportunities for 

visitors to enjoy a reprieve from the often 

bustling sounds of their everyday lives.

Dark nights provide stargazing opportunities
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 99

 CULTURAL RESOURCES

 CULTURAL RESOURCES

 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

As early as 10,000 years ago, this area appears to 

have supported a series of human adaptations 

to desert, plateau, and mountain conditions. 

Paleo-Indian tradition dated from pre-9000 B.C. 

and 5000 B.C. In about 6500 B.C. there was a dual 

emphasis with the addition of gathering plant 

foods. This coupling of food gathering and 

hunting successfully continued in the Upper 

Gunnison Basin until American Indian and 

Euro-American contact (NPS 1994).

The Archaic period with its hunting 

adaptation is represented in the NRA’s 

archeological record from approximately 

4000 B.P. through A.D. 1. There also appears 

to be considerable evidence of aboriginal 

occupation dating from approximately 

A.D. 400–1600. The first evidence of an 

Indian group in the Upper Gunnison Basin, 

which was recognized and named by EuroAmericans, is that of the Utes who migrated 

to the Colorado area from the Great Basin in 

A.D. 1200–1300 (NPS 1994).

Artifacts and radiocarbon dates collected 

from the area of the NRA range from 8000 B.C. 

until about A.D. 1500 and appear to document 

essentially continuous intermittent use of the 

Upper Gunnison Basin since the end of the 

Pleistocene. The historic period for American 

Indians in western Colorado begins with fi rst 

written account of contact with Ute groups and 

ends in approximately 1881 with their movement 

to reservations. The NRA also contains many 

unrecorded sites refl ecting late nineteenth 

century Euro-American activity including smallscale ranching, mining, and logging as well as 

construction camps that supported expansion of 

the railroad (NPS 1994).

The Denver and Rio Grande Railroad 

(D&RG), later renamed the Denver and Rio 

Grande Western Railroad (D&RGW), was 

the most successful narrow gauge railroad 

to cross the Rocky Mountains. The tracks 

connected the Front Range cities of Denver, 

Colorado Springs, and Pueblo with Salida. 

The main line ran from Salida over Marshall 

Pass to Gunnison, through the Black Canyon 

to Cimarron, and over Cerro Summit to 

Montrose, on to Grand Junction, and into 

Utah. From the Gunnison area, branch 

lines ran to Lake City and mining areas at 

Crested Butte. Built in 1881–1882, the D&RGW 

operated passenger service until 1940 and 

freight trains until 1949. Given the rugged 

terrain in some areas, narrow gauge (3 feet 

between the rails rather than the standard 

4 feet 8-1⁄2- inch gauge) was used to save on 

construction costs and to negotiate tighter 

curves. Thus, the D&RGW narrow gauge was 

an active railroad through 

the Black Canyon above 

Cimarron for nearly 70 years, 

until the line was abandoned 

in 1949.

The construction of the 

Gunnison Diversion 

Tunnel (1905–1909) was an 

engineering marvel for its 

day. One of the fi rst projects 

of the Reclamation Service, 

now known as the Bureau 

of Reclamation, it was one 

of the largest tunnel projects 

to be attempted at the time, 

11 feet wide by 12 feet high, 

stretching almost six miles 

through hard rock, clay, sand, Cimarron Canyon rail exhibit
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

100 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

in the late 1970s with both University of 

Colorado and NPS staff from the Midwest 

Archeological Center (MWAC) uncovered 

additional features including the remains of an 

isolated hearth that generated a radiocarbon 

date of approximately 8,000 B.C. In 1984, the 

Curecanti Archeological District was listed 

on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Between 1980 and 1984, MWAC undertook 

fi ve seasons of construction-related research. 

Construction-related research projects were 

undertaken between 1991 and 1992 by MWAC, 

as well as by Powers Elevation Company and 

Alpine Archeological Consultants. A mix 

of new sites, isolated fi nds, and previously 

recorded sites were inventoried. Two formerly 

unrecorded sites were added to the Curecanti 

Archeological District nomination (NPS 1994).

Within Land Unit B ( Blue Mesa Reservoir 

Agency), north of Blue Mesa Reservoir, 

important cultural material, including 

archeological resources, has been 

documented. Areas on the northeastern edge 

of the land unit, near North Beaver Creek, also 

contain cultural resources eligible for listing 

on the National Register of Historic Places.

 HISTORIC STRUCTURES 

AND RESOURCES

Five structures are currently listed on the 

fi scal year (FY) 1999 NPS List of Classifi ed 

Structures (LCS) for Curecanti NRA. One 

structure, the Gunnison Diversion Tunnel, is 

additionally listed as a National Historic Civil 

Engineering Landmark.

Important railroad features occur in Land 

Units C (Gunnison River COA), F (Gateview 

Agency), and G (West-End COA), and include 

encampments, foundations, ovens, and railroad 

grade features, as well as archeological resources.

Cimarron is home to a display of historic 

railroad cars that includes Locomotive No. 

278, its coal tender, a boxcar, and caboose, 

which resides on the D&RG truss (also know 

as trestle) in the Cimarron River Canyon 

near the town of Cimarron. Built by Baldwin 

Locomotive Works in Philadelphia in 1882, 

and shale. The construction itself was very 

treacherous work, and the average stay of men 

working on the tunnel was about 2 weeks. 

The tunnel was steamy because of hot water 

seepages, underground streams often fl ooded 

the tunnel, and there were many other dangers 

to face. The tunnel is still in use today, as it 

diverts water from the Gunnison River at East 

Portal for irrigating the otherwise desert-like 

Uncompahgre Valley. The Gunnison Tunnel 

is on the National Register of Historic Places, 

and is a National Historic Civil Engineering 

Landmark.

Above the Diversion Tunnel, Reclamation also 

constructed three large dams on the Gunnison 

River, together known as the Wayne N. 

Aspinall Storage Unit, between 1962 and 1976. 

The Aspinall Unit is one of the four main units 

of the Upper Colorado River Storage Project 

(UCRSP). The three dams in the Aspinall 

Unit work as a system to store water, produce 

electricity, and regulate water fl ow. There is 

no question the dams have altered the natural 

environment. However, they have provided 

a variety of benefi ts to communities and 

citizens, especially in the area of agriculture. 

 ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Sporadic 

archeological 

research in the 

Curecanti area 

began as early 

as the 1930s, 

but the fi rst 

formal research 

was prompted 

in 1962 by 

Reclamation plans to construct the three dams 

along the Gunnison River. Surveys in the area 

of Blue Mesa Reservoir identifi ed 10 sites with 

8 below the proposed high water line behind 

the Blue Mesa Dam that were believed to 

refl ect short-term occupations by nomadic 

Indian groups. Under Executive Order 11593, 

surveys were undertaken in 1976 with the 

University of Colorado that identifi ed another 

130 archeological sites, most within the 

vicinity of Blue Mesa Reservoir. Examinations 

Cultural resources help us answer 

questions about our past
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 101

VISITOR USE, UNDERSTANDING, AND ENJOYMENT

Locomotive No. 278 served as a mainline 

freight and helper engine on the Crested 

Butte Branch and this section of the D&RG’s 

main line for over 70 years. The city of 

Montrose leased the locomotive, tender, and 

caboose to NPS in 1989 for 99 years. The 

truss or steel deck span bridge was installed 

in 1891, and was listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places in 1976 as the last 

remaining structure representing the narrow 

gauge railroad (NPS nd-b).

Other historic resources occur within the 

proposed lands, such as an old school 

house at Sapinero and the U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) Sapinero Guard Station 

( Land Units E [Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA] 

and A [CO 92 COA]).

The Old Spanish Trail was designated as a 

National Historic Trail, a component of the 

National Trails System, by Public Law 107-

325, on December 4, 2002. The trail was a 

trading and traveling route that connected 

Santa Fe with Los Angeles, and was used 

between 1829 and approximately 1847. The 

northern route passed through what is now 

the eastern end of Curecanti NRA and Land 

Unit C (Gunnison River COA), and possibly 

skirted Land Unit D (Iola Basin COA), 

although the exact location of the trail has yet 

to be located in this area (NPS nd-c).

 RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE

The prehistoric and historic stories of human 

culture in the Curecanti area are recorded in 

the traces and tracks left by American Indians, 

miners, railroaders, and ranchers. These 

signs document not only human struggles to 

survive but also how changing human value 

systems, economics, social, and technological 

changes, and the importance of water have 

shaped the use and character of the land and its 

people. Cultural history contains archeological 

examples of some of the oldest villages found 

in North America, predating the pyramids of 

Egypt. The narrow-gauge railroad exhibited 

in Cimarron graphically portrays the story of 

technology’s eff ects of shaping people and 

using land. It is likely that the proposed lands 

contain additional signifi cant cultural resources 

that are associated with archeological and 

historic resources found within the NRA.

 VISITOR USE, UNDERSTANDING, 

AND ENJOYMENT

 RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

Curecanti NRA is located in a sparsely 

populated area of Colorado. The nearest cities, 

including population and distance to NRA 

headquarters at Elk Creek, include: Gunnison 

(16 miles, population 5,400); Montrose (50 

miles, population 12,300); and Grand Junction 

(111 miles, population 42,000). The nearest 

large metropolitan area is Denver (200 miles, 

population 555,000). The Front Range of 

Colorado (stretching from Pueblo in the 

south to Fort Collins in the north) is home 

to 3.5 million people; 462,000 people live in 

the Western Slope region of Colorado, and 

147,000 in the Central Mountain Region. 

Approximately 1 million visitors use the 

NRA’s facilities annually. The peak season 

is from Memorial Day to Labor Day, with 

activities focusing on water-based recreation 

and camping. However, there is potential to 

expand land-based recreational opportunities 

through the implementation of Alternative 2 

(the Proposed Action). While the NRA is open 

year-round, due to its high altitude setting, 

approximately half of the visits occur in June, 

July, and August.

Annual Visitor Use

Annual recreation visitor data for 1996 

to 2005 indicate that visitation has varied 

slightly (see Table 8). Annual visitor numbers 

fi rst reached over 1 million in 1983, and except 

for a drop in visitor numbers in 2002, have 

been between 879,000 and 1,145,000 yearly 

since then. The impacts of higher gas prices, 

low reservoir levels due to drought, wildfi re 

occurrence, and lower fi shing success during 

some years are believed to have had an 

impact on the number of visits.
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

102 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

The recreation area is situated adjacent to 

 Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 

Park, and is en route for many people who 

tour other national parks in the region (e.g., 

Rocky Mountain, Mesa Verde, Arches, and 

Canyonlands). Based on ranger observation, 

most visitors to the NRA are from Colorado 

(NPS 2002b). 

Based on the available data, no dramatic 

increase in NRA visitation is anticipated over 

the next 10 years. However, general population 

trends in Colorado suggest an annual increase 

of 2% per year, and an increase in population 

could mean an increase in visitor numbers 

(CDOLA 2002). Gunnison County has a large 

number of summer residents and second home 

owners who visit the NRA on a regular basis. 

Monthly Visitor Use

Based on the 10-year average, 54% of the 

annual visitation occurs during June, July, and 

August. Based on monthly visitor statistics, an 

average of 5,619 people visit the recreation area 

each day in June, July, and August (NPS Public 

Use Statistics Offi ce). 

Visitor Activities

Curecanti NRA is a relatively narrow strip 

of land and water stretching eastward 

approximately 40 miles from the eastern 

border of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison 

National Park along the Gunnison River 

corridor. It is surrounded by hundreds 

of thousands of mostly undeveloped 

acres of Reclamation, BLM, USFS, and 

 Colorado Division of Wildlife lands, 

and private property that in some areas 

is being developed. The predominant 

TABLE 8: ANNUAL VISITATION AT CURECANTI

NATIONAL RECREATION AREA,1996–2005 

Year Number of Visitors Percentage Change 

from Previous Year 

1996 1,017,256 +2.4% 

1997 966,680 -5.0% 

1998 973,652 +0.7% 

1999 1,044,523 +7.3% 

2000 1,022,320 -2.1% 

2001 879,776 -13.9% 

2002 732,713 -16.7% 

2003 1,008,810 +37.7% 

2004 1,006,102 -0.3% 

2005 882,768 -12.3% 

10-Year Average 953,460 -- 

(NPS Public Use Statistics Office) 

A variety of recreational boating opportunities are already 

available on Curecanti reservoirs, arms, and inlets. 

Alternative 2 would expand the opportunities for landbased recreation.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 103

VISITOR USE, UNDERSTANDING, AND ENJOYMENT

setting provides a rural character with a 

spattering of developed sites, mostly along 

U.S. Highway 50 (US 50). The construction 

of three CRSP dams along the Gunnison 

River between 1962 and 1976 transformed 

this locale into a water-based recreation 

destination. There are three reservoirs along 

the Gunnison River within the NRA; Crystal 

Reservoir, Morrow Point Reservoir, and 

 Blue Mesa Reservoir. Because Crystal and 

Morrow Point Reservoirs lie deep within the 

canyon of the Gunnison River, boating there 

is limited by horsepower restrictions.

 Blue Mesa Reservoir is approximately 20 miles 

long at full pool and has 96 miles of shoreline. 

It is divided into three basins: Iola, Cebolla, 

and Sapinero—all suitable for water-based 

recreation. Full reservoir pool sits at 7,519.4 

feet above sea level. Water temperatures 

remain quite cold year- round, which 

somewhat restricts water-based recreation 

activities to the warmer summer months. 

Water related activities include the use of 

powerboats, canoes, sailboats, sailboards, 

and kayaks. Other recreational activities 

include sightseeing, photography, wildlife 

watching, fi shing, hunting, swimming, hiking, 

backpacking, developed and backcountry 

camping, and picnicking. In winter, the NRA 

supports a variety of activities, including 

snowshoeing, Nordic skiing, ice skating, ice 

fi shing, and snowmobiling.

Scenic US 50 stretches east-west along the 

recreation area. Therefore, Curecanti NRA is 

experienced by many “accidental visitors” who 

get out of their vehicles to walk along the shore 

and beaches, sightsee, fi nd solitude, or take 

photographs. Developed marinas, picnic areas, 

campgrounds, and boat ramps are accessible 

from the highway, and there are numerous 

undeveloped pullouts and overlooks.

Curecanti NRA’s recreation is currently 

mostly water-based, because the area 

was established primarily to include and 

immediately surround the reservoirs created 

for the water storage project. Therefore, a 

relatively small amount of adjacent land was 

included within the original NRA. However, 

surrounding the current NRA, are a variety 

of land-based recreational opportunities on 

public lands administered by other agencies, 

including BLM, CDOW, and USFS. And 

potential opportunities for enhanced resource 

understanding and additional resourcebased recreation exist on surrounding lands 

that are currently under private ownership. 

These existing and potential opportunities are 

appropriate to the purpose and mission of the 

NRA. The National Park Service is therefore 

consulting with neighboring agencies and 

communicating with neighboring private 

landowners to explore ways of enhancing 

the enjoyment, and the recreational and 

educational experience of visitors to the NRA. 

The following is a list of recreational 

opportunities (existing and potential), within 

and surrounding the NRA, as identifi ed at 

workshops and open houses with the public 

and with the staff . It is not within the scope 

of this study to identify which of these 

opportunities would or would not be provided 

within the NRA. That would be done during 

a future planning process relating to a new 

general management plan, implementation 

plan, or other planning eff ort. It would 

be based on a number of factors, such as 

appropriateness to the resource, compatibility 

with each other, and impacts on resources and 

visitor enjoyment.

 Aerial activities (cliff diving, 

fl oat planes, hang gliding, hotair ballooning, model airplanes, 

 parasailing)

 Artistic experiences (creative)

 Backpacking

 Biking (frontcountry, mountain)

 Boating (ice-boating, motorized, nonmotorized, river kayaking, and sailing)

 Camping, designated

 Cross-country skiing

 Dog sledding

 Facility-based activities (attending 

conferences, dining, lodging)

 Fishing (including ice-fi shing)
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

104 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

 Hiking (interpretive, backcountry, 

single or multi-day experience)

 Horseback riding

 Hunting (archery and fi rearms)

 Ice climbing

 Ice skating

 Interpretation and education 

(attending interpretive programs, 

educational day camp, educational 

residential camp, educational 

seminars, exploring cultural resources, 

exploring visitor centers and exhibits, 

learning about the resource, research, 

and touring the dams)

 Jogging and trail running

 Night sky viewing

 Observation (bird watching and 

other wildlife)

 Off -road vehicle use

 Photography

 Picnicking

 Rock climbing

 Scuba diving and snorkeling

 Sightseeing (motorized and 

non-motorized)

 Snowmobiling

 Snowshoeing

 Swimming

 Water skiing (towed, or self-propelled), 

wake boarding, and tubing

 White-water rodeo

 Windsurfi ng

The most popular existing visitor activities 

and potential recreational uses are discussed 

below in more detail.

CAMPING AND PICNICKING—There are 10 

developed campgrounds with about 390 

campsites, and 21 backcountry/boat-in 

campsites within the NRA. There are 19 picnic 

areas within the recreation area, with many 

of these located adjacent to campgrounds 

or other developed facilities. Record high 

numbers of campers (including tent and RV 

camping) occurred in the late 1980s, with 

120,000 overnight stays per year. The 10-year 

average for annual overnight stays is 63,780, 

which includes tent campers, RV campers, 

and backcountry campers (NPS Public Use 

Statistics Offi ce). 

HIKING, BACKPACKING, SIGHTSEEING, 

 WILDERNESS-LIKE EXPERIENCE, AND OTHER

RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES—There are 

designated hiking trails along the northern 

side of the reservoirs including the Crystal 

Creek Trail, Mesa Creek Trail, Hermits Rest 

Trail, Curecanti Creek Trail, and Dillon 

Pinnacles Trail. The pinnacles are the 

dominant geologic feature along Blue Mesa 

Reservoir. The Dillon Pinnacles Trail is very 

popular, off ering spectacular views of the 

reservoir, the distant San Juan Mountain 

peaks, and the interestingly eroded volcanic 

pinnacles.

Two trails to the reservoirs are reached from 

US 50. The Mesa Creek Trailhead, which is 

on the north side of Crystal Reservoir just 

below Morrow Point Dam, is accessed from 

the south side of the reservoir by crossing a 

footbridge over to the northern shoreline. 

Parking for the trailhead is reached via the 

road leading from Cimarron to the dam. The 

Pine Creek Trail, which runs along the south 

shore of Morrow Point Reservoir just below 

Blue Mesa Dam, is accessible from a trailhead 

just off US 50. 

Hikers on Curecanti Creek Trail
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 105

VISITOR USE, UNDERSTANDING, AND ENJOYMENT

Backcountry areas that off er opportunities 

for solitude occur within the current NRA 

primarily on Crystal and Morrow Point 

Reservoirs. However, access can be diffi cult. 

Some of the arms on Blue Mesa Reservoir 

off er similar opportunities. However, boat and 

vehicle noise may be clearly audible. Greater 

potential exists on proposed lands for such 

solitude opportunities, especially Land Units 

A (CO 92 COA), B ( Blue Mesa Reservoir 

Agency), and H (West-End Agency). An 

example of a potential extended backcountry 

opportunity is a continuous trail along the 

north rim above the Gunnison River, linking 

 Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area, 

 Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, 

and Curecanti National Recreation Area.

Backcountry/boat-in camping opportunities 

exist on all the reservoirs. Due to the 

narrowness of reservoir arms and creek 

outlets, the visitor is more in touch with the 

surrounding landscape and geology. Though 

the NRA off ers multiple opportunities for 

backcountry camping on the reservoirs, 

there is limited opportunity for backpacking 

experiences elsewhere in the NRA. However, 

potential exists within the proposed lands for 

backpacking, especially in Land Units A (CO 

92 COA), B ( Blue Mesa Reservoir Agency), 

and H (West-End Agency). 

Horseback riding is currently an approved 

activity in some areas, such as the Dillon 

Pinnacles Trail to access the West Elk 

 Wilderness north of Curecanti NRA. 

Horse corrals are located at Dry Gulch and 

Ponderosa campgrounds and outside the NRA 

at Soap Creek Campground (USFS).

Mountain biking is a popular activity in 

 Gunnison County. Several trails exist on 

public lands east of the NRA, 

and bicyclists also enjoy riding 

paved and unpaved roads. US 

50 raises a safety concern due 

to vehicle speed; however, 

much of US 50 has been 

widened to include 8-foot 

paved shoulders. There is a 

potential to designate bicycle 

trails in the NRA, and a desire 

on the part of the local trails 

commission to fi nd a trail to 

connect the NRA to the City 

of Gunnison. The potential 

to connect trails elsewhere 

is greatly enhanced by using 

existing roads and trails within 

the proposed lands, such as in 

 Land Units C (Gunnison River 

COA) and D (Iola Basin COA). For example, 

an east-west bicycle trail might be appropriate 

south of Blue Mesa Reservoir.

For cross-country skiing enthusiasts, there are 

several areas that off er good skiing to those 

who enjoy the challenge of breaking trail 

Boat-in camping off ers backcountry experiences

Equestrian opportunities may be expanded under 

Alternative 2
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

106 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

NRA. More detailed information about scenic 

resources can be found later in this chapter.

FISHING AND HUNTING—Fishing and hunting 

are permitted within the NRA in accordance 

with federal and Colorado state regulations. 

 Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) has 

concurrent jurisdiction in the management 

of fi sh and wildlife in the NRA, and federal 

regulation adopts non-confl icting state 

statutes that deal with harvesting of fi sh and 

wildlife. Under both Alternatives 1 and 2, NPS 

would continue to cooperate with CDOW 

on related matters. Therefore, there would be 

no change in the way fi shing and hunting are 

managed under either alternative.

Fishing is generally permitted in units of 

the national park system unless specifi cally 

prohibited. There is no regulation prohibiting 

fi shing within Curecanti NRA. Fishing is one 

of the primary activities at the NRA, as the 

area provides some of the best cold-water 

fi shing opportunities in the nation. Federal 

or following informally established routes; 

however, there are no groomed ski trails. 

Skiers can ski the frozen, snowy surface of 

 Blue Mesa Reservoir, ski the level road to the 

East Elk Creek Campground, or beyond to 

the Sapinero Wildlife Area for a round-trip 

distance of 4 miles.

Cross-country skiing is highly dependent 

on suffi cient snow accumulation, which has 

varied greatly over the years. Skiing within the 

NRA is popular on the frozen surface of Blue 

Mesa Reservoir. However, skiing within the 

NRA at higher elevations is greatly restricted, 

because the NRA does not currently include 

higher elevations. Areas north of Blue Mesa 

Reservoir are generally closed to conserve 

severe winter deer and elk range. However, 

some land units would off er additional 

potential for cross-country skiing at higher 

elevations, particularly Land Units A (CO 92 

COA) and E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA).

Ice climbing is an appropriate activity. 

However, there are limited locations where 

suffi cient ice fl ows accumulate, and some of 

these locations have diffi cult or no public 

access. The potential to improve and/or open 

up such access occurs in Land Units A (CO 92 

COA) and E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA).

Sightseeing is an important aspect of all 

recreational activities, as well as an end 

in itself, for NRA visitors and highway 

travelers. The natural open spaces and the 

spectacular geological and mountainous 

setting for streams, lakes, and canyons are 

key contributors to visitor enjoyment of the 

Fishing is a primary draw to the rivers and reservoirs of 

Curecanti NRA

Fall sightseeing opportunities along the West Elk Loop 

Scenic and Historic Byway (CO 92)

Cross-country skiing opportunities at Curecanti NRA 

would expand under Alternative 2.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 107

VISITOR USE, UNDERSTANDING, AND ENJOYMENT

and state fi sh hatcheries stock over 3 million 

fi sh in Curecanti’s reservoirs each year. Brook 

trout are found in local tributaries, while 

brown, rainbow, and Mackinaw (lake trout) 

are common fi sh in Curecanti’s reservoirs. 

Blue Mesa is also well known for its nationally 

signifi cant kokanee salmon fi shery. Fishing 

from both boats and the shoreline are popular 

at Blue Mesa Reservoir, and from handcarried watercraft at Crystal and Morrow 

Point Reservoirs.

Hunting is permitted in units of the 

national park system when authorized 

by specifi c statute or regulation, and not 

subsequently prohibited by regulation. 

Hunting is authorized within Curecanti NRA 

by Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, 

§7.51. For purposes of public safety and 

wildlife management, the Superintendent’s 

Compendium can and does close specifi c 

locations to hunting (for example, no hunting 

within 100 yards of developed areas). Under 

the Proposed Action, some minor changes 

could occur to the total acreage open to 

hunting. For example, if a private parcel is 

acquired from a willing seller, additional land 

may become available for hunting that is not 

now open to the public. Under Alternative 

2, land proposed to be transferred to the 

NRA from other agencies would continue 

to support hunting if hunting is currently 

permitted on such land.

Land units of private property within the 

COA provide a potential to expand fi shing 

and/or hunting opportunities into areas not 

now publicly accessible, subject to future 

acquisitions from willing landowners (such 

as through exchange, purchase of fee simple 

interest, obtaining a right-of-way or easement) 

or landowner agreement. Public comment 

suggested a need to seek greater fi shing 

opportunities along Curecanti Creek by CO 92 

(Land Unit A), to improve fi shing access along 

the south shore of Blue Mesa Reservoir east 

of the Middle Bridge (Land Unit E), and along 

the Gunnison River (Land Unit C).

WATER-BASED RECREATION—Some swimming 

occurs at Blue Mesa Reservoir, despite its cold 

waters (average surface temperature is 65o F in 

summer). There are no designated swimming 

beaches. However, Bay of Chickens, Dry 

Creek, and Old Highway 50 beach are 

sometimes used, because they are less steep 

and rocky, and have designated “no wake” 

zones. Water skiing occurs in July and August 

when waters are at their warmest. 

Fishing from boats, one of the most popular activities on 

 Blue Mesa Reservoir

Sailboats capture the stiff afternoon breeze across Blue 

Mesa Reservoir
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

108 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

cold temperature of the water 

and the common high afternoon 

winds, canoeing and kayaking is 

concentrated along shorelines 

and in the narrower arms of the 

reservoir and east of the Lake 

City Bridge. Windsurfi ng on 

 Blue Mesa Reservoir has been 

a popular activity in the past. 

Recent years have seen some 

decline; yet windsurfi ng still 

occurs, primarily in Iola Basin. 

There are designated, paved 

launch ramps on Blue Mesa 

Reservoir at Lake Fork Marina, 

Elk Creek Marina, Ponderosa, 

Stevens Creek, and Iola. When reservoir levels 

are low, some of these designated ramps are 

not usable. 

There are two marinas operated by concession 

on Blue Mesa Reservoir: at Elk Creek and at 

Lake Fork. Services include showers, groceries, 

fi shing supplies, slip rentals, boat rentals 

(aluminum fi shing boats, pontoon boats, and 

speed boats), gas sales, boat repairs, and dry boat 

storage. The concession off ers guided fi shing on 

 Morrow Point Reservoir. A restaurant is located 

at Elk Creek near the marina.

Resource Significance

Recreational opportunities in the NRA related 

to hiking and trail access, scenic overlook 

development, wildlife viewing, backcountry 

camping, increased hunting and fi shing access, 

and other low impact recreational activities are 

currently limited to a few key sites. In addition, 

the majority of recreational opportunities 

currently available within the NRA are 

found along US 50 in the more developed 

frontcountry area of Blue Mesa Reservoir and 

continuing east along the Gunnison River.

Much of the land surrounding the existing 

NRA is ideally suited to provide more of the 

popular recreational activities that are currently 

available on a somewhat limited basis within 

the NRA. Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action) 

of the study, would provide the potential to 

greatly expand these land-based recreational 

opportunities for NRA visitors.

Watercraft use has occurred on Blue Mesa 

Reservoir since the reservoir was created in 

1965. Fishing and recreational boating are the 

main activities. 

Based on angler surveys conducted by 

the Colorado Division of Wildlife in 2001, 

approximately 14,635 boats used Blue Mesa 

Reservoir during the May to October 

season. The largest group of motorized 

watercraft using the reservoir is fishing 

boats. In 2002, 1,160 annual boating permits 

were issued for Curecanti NRA, and 4,137 

2-day to 2-week permits were issued. All 

motorboats are required to have permits 

displayed on them. During a holiday 

weekend, such as Fourth of July, there can 

be up to 200 boats on the reservoir. 

Kayakers, canoeists, and sailors also visit 

the recreation area, but make up a small 

percentage of reservoir users. Due to the 

Elk Creek, one of two marinas on Blue Mesa Reservoir

Boat dock and slip rentals at Elk Creek Marina
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 109

VISITOR USE, UNDERSTANDING, AND ENJOYMENT

 INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATIONAL 

OPPORTUNITIES

Visitors to Curecanti can use NRA and other 

information resources to plan their visits. 

An NPS website provides information about 

camping and other activities. The public 

information offi ce can mail pre-visit materials 

to those requesting them by phone or mail. 

Curecanti NRA off ers outreach and 

educational programs that are designed to 

increase awareness and foster an appreciation 

for the NPS mission and the natural, cultural, 

and recreational resources of the NRA.

Personal service programs are provided 

for over 10,000 pre-school, K–12, college/

university students, and lifelong learners 

in 11 communities, 6 school districts, and 

colleges and universities across the nation. 

Undergraduate and graduate level courses are 

off ered annually for teachers. 

Interpretive Facilities

Elk Creek Visitor Center, the NRA’s principal 

visitor center is located 16 miles west of 

Gunnison on US 50. This visitor center 

provides information on visitor activities, and 

has a wide-variety of interpretive publications 

for sale. Evening programs are off ered on 

some summer evenings at the nearby Elk 

Creek Campground Amphitheater.

Visitor trends at the Elk Creek Visitor Center 

suggest this facility is currently underused, 

with as few as 200 visits per day during the 

peak summer months. In comparison, the 

visitor center located at the nearby Black 

Canyon of the Gunnison National Park 

receives 2,000 visits per day in summer. Visitor 

use and trends suggest that a diff erent location 

for the principal visitor center would serve the 

public more eff ectively. Lands surrounding 

the NRA that are being examined in this 

study might provide such an opportunity. For 

example, other more ideal locations might 

be just east of Sapinero, or at Hunters Point. 

Both locations would have easy access to and 

from US 50. The consideration of a specifi c 

location would be addressed in a new general 

management plan, or implementation plan for 

the NRA, should the Proposed Action of this 

RPS be implemented.

A second visitor center is located at Lake Fork. 

Located off US 50 near the Blue Mesa Dam, 

this visitor center provides a photo display 

related to history and resources of Curecanti 

and a sales outlet. Due to staff and funding 

shortages, the Lake Fork facility was not open 

in the 2005–2006 seasons.

A third visitor center is located at Cimarron, 

on US 50 approximately 45 miles west of 

Gunnison and 20 miles east of Montrose. 

It provides exhibits on the Denver and Rio 

Grande Railroad that operated its narrow 

gauge line in this area from 1881 until 1949. A 

sales outlet for interpretive materials, with an 

emphasis on railroad history, is located at the 

Cimarron visitor center.

Parking turnouts along the highways within 

the proposed lands provide opportunities 

for enhanced interpretive and educational 

activities that support the NRA’s purpose. 

Areas such as Land Units A (CO 92 COA) 

and E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA) off er 

views of geological formations such as the 

Dillon Pinnacles, as do other locations in the 

NRA. North and South Beaver Creek ( Land 

Units B [ Blue Mesa Reservoir Agency] and 

C [Gunnison River COA]) could provide a 

variety of interpretive opportunities. Areas 

along US 50, particularly through Land Unit E 

(Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), could provide an 

opportunity for new opportunities to capture 

visitors and other highway users to interpret 

 Blue Mesa Reservoir and other area resources.

Resource Significance

Interpretation and educational opportunities 

are essential for sharing the importance of 

the resources at the NRA with visitors and 

students of all ages. Continued outreach 

education is an essential component of the 

program; such eff orts help instill a sense 

of reverence for the land, and encourage 

recreational uses that are compatible with, yet 

do not degrade the resources.
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

110 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

summer of 1998, visitors feel that scenic 

resources are very important to their sense 

of enjoyment of the NRA. Following are 

summarized responses to statements on the 

survey that relate to the scenic resource:

A total of 390, or 98% of the people who 

responded to the following statement on the 

survey, agreed or strongly agreed with the 

statement: I am visiting Curecanti because I 

want to enjoy distant and unobstructed views.

A total of 321, or 98% agreed or strongly 

agreed with the statement: Preserving 

natural views surrounding Blue Mesa Lake 

(Reservoir) from increasing development is 

important to me.

A total of 321, or 98% disagreed or strongly 

disagreed with the statement: There should 

Opportunities for visitor facilities and 

interpretive activities would be enhanced by 

Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action). Potential 

locations for both occur in some areas of the 

proposed lands, especially within Land Unit E 

(Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA).

 SCENIC RESOURCES

Covering Gunnison and Montrose Counties, 

the reservoirs and canyons of Curecanti NRA 

off er a premier wild setting that contains 

a variety of magnifi cent scenic resources. 

The Curecanti area is recognized nationally 

and locally for its high scenic qualities and 

viewsheds, especially those experienced from 

the waters of Blue Mesa Reservoir and the 

West Elk Loop Scenic and Historic Byway, 

where segments of US 50 and CO 92 play an 

important role.

Scenic viewsheds and overlook points 

play a major role in the visitor experience 

and recreational enjoyment of the NRA, 

particularly from Blue Mesa Reservoir and 

along the CO 92 corridor that skirts the 

Black Canyon that contains Morrow Point 

and Crystal Reservoirs. Curecanti receives 

a great many “accidental visitors,” travelers 

who encounter the scenic landscapes while 

driving highways within and adjacent to the 

NRA. Many of these travelers use roadside 

overlooks and pull-outs to sightsee and 

photograph the outstanding landscapes.

Based on a Visitor Satisfaction Survey 

conducted by NPS at Curecanti during the 

View from Colorado Highway 92

Sapinero Basin on Blue Mesa Reservoir
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 111

 SCENIC RESOURCES

be no limits to development on the land 

surrounding Blue Mesa Lake (Reservoir).

A total of 276, or 70% disagreed or strongly 

disagreed with the statement: Humans have 

the right to modify the natural environment to 

suit their needs.

Many of the scenic vistas observed by visitors 

are outside of the NRA on public or private 

lands. Some of these vistas are on land units 

within the proposed lands and are observed 

from existing overlooks within the NRA, as 

well as from the highways and reservoirs. 

Additionally, vistas within the NRA and 

beyond the NRA are seen from these land 

units. These important views are listed below.

 Lands surrounding CO 92 (Land Unit 

A) are visible from Blue Mesa Dam 

Overlook, Pioneer Point, Hermit’s 

Rest, and Crystal Creek Trailhead 

within the NRA. From CO 92, 

visitors can observe Morrow Point 

Reservoir, Curecanti Needle, Blue 

Mesa Reservoir, and Crystal Reservoir 

within the NRA, and Fitzpatrick Mesa, 

Blue Mesa (including Hunters Point 

and Windy Point) on lands adjacent 

to the NRA. These views on adjacent 

private lands are contained primarily 

within Land Units A (CO 92 COA), 

E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), and 

G (West-End COA). The San Juan 

Mountains are visible to the south.

 Soap Mesa (Land Unit A) is observed 

from Sapinero, the Dillon Pinnacles 

Overlook and Trail, Ponderosa 

Campground, McIntyre Gulch, and 

 Blue Mesa Reservoir within the NRA. 

From Soap Mesa, one can see Blue 

Mesa Reservoir within the NRA and 

Fitzpatrick Mesa, Sapinero Mesa, and 

Blue Mesa adjacent to the NRA ( Land 

Units A [CO 92 COA] and E [Sapinero/

Blue Mesa COA]), and the San Juan and 

West Elk Mountains in the far distance. 

 Sapinero Mesa (Land Unit E) is 

visible from the following areas 

within the NRA: US 50 and CO 

92; Sapinero and Dillon Pinnacles 

Overlooks; Soap Creek Road; 

Ponderosa Campground; McIntyre 

Gulch; Lake Fork Campground 

Soap Mesa from Soap Creek Road

Looking southeast to Sapinero Mesa from Soap Creek Road
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

112 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

and Marina; Blue Mesa Reservoir; 

and Elk Creek Campground. From 

Sapinero Mesa, visitors can view 

lands above CO 92 and Soap Mesa in 

Land Unit A (CO 92 COA) adjacent 

to the NRA, Blue Mesa Dam and 

 Blue Mesa Reservoir, and the West 

Elk Mountains, 

Sawatch Range, and 

Continental Divide 

in the far distance. 

There is a potential 

location for a future 

visitor center in this 

area adjacent to 

and south of US 50. 

However, further 

analysis of such 

a facility would 

more appropriately 

be carried out in 

a future general 

management plan or implementation 

plan. 

 Blue Mesa (Land Unit E), including 

Hunters Point and Windy Point, is 

visible from existing overlooks along 

CO 92 (Blue Mesa Dam Overlook, 

Pioneer Point, and Hermit’s Rest) 

and the US 50 corridor. Areas within 

the NRA below (north of) Windy 

Point provide what is likely the most 

impressive views of the Curecanti 

Needle, Chipeta Falls, the rugged 

Fitzpatrick Mesa

Curecanti Needle, as seen from the South Rim of the Black 

Canyon, near Windy Point

Aerial view of several tributaries to the Black Canyon of the Gunnison, including 

Spring Gulch (distant left)
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 113

 SCENIC RESOURCES

cliff s and waters of Morrow Point 

Reservoir and scenic Soap Mesa. 

However, access is not available to 

this location due to the proximity of 

private lands. From Hunters Point, 

the view toward Blue Mesa Reservoir 

includes, within its landscape, 

the Dillon Pinnacles, West Elk 

Mountains, and Soap Mesa. With 

its immediate access from US 50, it 

is a site that may be suitable for the 

future location of a visitor center. This 

would be addressed in a new general 

management plan or implementation 

plan for the NRA. 

 Fitzpatrick Mesa (Land Unit A), south 

of Morrow Point Reservoir, is visible 

from existing overlooks along CO 92 

(Pioneer Point and Hermit’s Rest), 

and from several pull-outs along CO 

92. From Fitzpatrick Mesa, visitors 

can view Morrow Point Reservoir 

within the NRA, CO 92 corridor, 

including lands to the north, Blue 

Mesa, and Soap Mesa ( Land Units A 

[CO 92 COA] and E [Sapinero/Blue 

Mesa COA]), and the West Elk and 

San Juan Mountains and Sawatch 

Range in the far distance.

 Spring Gulch on the northwest end 

of Crystal Reservoir (Land Unit G) 

is visible from overlooks along East 

Portal Road and the Black Canyon of 

the Gunnison South Rim Drive.

 Agrarian and riparian landscapes 

are visible from US 50 and overlooks 

within the NRA, between Lake City 

Bridge and the eastern entrance to 

the NRA.

High quality natural or agrarian landscapes 

were identifi ed by the public during a photo 

assessment workshop during the study 

process. Many of these areas are within 

existing vistas and land units identifi ed above 

and include some scenes that are thought to 

best depict Gunnison and Montrose Counties. 

Specifi c areas identifi ed within these land units 

or other nearby areas include the following: 

 Area along CO 149 past Iola, 

including Blaine Rock, as seen from 

 Blue Mesa Reservoir

 Open bluff s and viewsheds north of 

 Blue Mesa Reservoir at East Elk Creek

 South side of Blue Mesa Reservoir as 

seen from Bay of Chickens 

 Land to the south of Middle Bridge

 Land between Lake City Cutoff Road 

and Sapinero

 Sapinero Mesa west into Lake 

Fork Canyon

 Land near and to the south of Blue Mesa 

dam as seen from Blue Mesa Reservoir

 West Elk Creek and Soap Creek 

area north of Blue Mesa Reservoir, 

including land north of Dillon 

Pinnacles, the peninsula between West 

Elk Arm and Soap Creek Arm, and the 

land along Soap Creek Road

 Soap Mesa plateau, from and 

including Cottonwood Gulch area to 

Pioneer Point

 Intersection of CO 92 and Soap 

Creek Road

 CO 92 west of Corral Creek, Curecanti 

Creek and Meyers Gulch, and east of 

Deadman’s Curve

Gunnison River west of Gunnison
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

114 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

 Land along US 50 west of Blue 

Mesa Dam

 Vicinity of fi rst switchback on US 50 

north of Blue Creek that provides a 

good view of Sheep Mountain

 Fitzpatrick Mesa

 Hillside southeast of Cerro Summit 

as seen from CO 92 west of Montrose 

County line

 Top of East Portal Road.

Examples of unique geological and/or visually 

attractive features were also identifi ed, 

suggesting places within the NRA that still 

need to be protected, or places outside the 

NRA that might need more conservation. Such 

sites included the north side of US 50 between 

Dry Creek and Red Creek, containing West 

Elk Breccia rock formation (ancient volcanic 

mudfl ow), and Morrison Formation, which is 

known to contain dinosaur fossils elsewhere. 

Soap Creek cliff s, Dillon Pinnacles, Curecanti 

Needle, and Curecanti Creek at hairpin curve 

on CO 92 were also suggested as areas that 

may need additional conservation, whether 

within or outside the NRA.

 RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE

An appreciation of the unique aspects of the 

scenic vista has long been associated with this 

area. As the 1965 Memorandum of Agreement 

between Reclamation and NPS was being 

developed for management of the NRA, scenic 

resource values were recognized as part and 

parcel of the natural resource environment. In 

1999, when Congress passed Public Law 106-

76, which called for this study, the concept of 

scenic resource values took its independent 

place along with the other natural, cultural, and 

recreational resource values to be assessed.

The scenic vistas within and adjacent to the 

NRA are an important component of visitor 

enjoyment, experience, and appreciation. The 

scenic resources contribute to the national 

and regional signifi cance of Curecanti NRA, 

as well as the West Elk Loop Scenic and 

Historic Byway that passes through and 

beyond the NRA. Besides the important 

geologic formations that are evident in the 

NRA, the open mountain vistas and natural 

landscapes within and surrounding the NRA 

are untouched in comparison to many other 

mountain park-like areas. Scenic vistas seen 

from existing corridors such as US 50, CO 

92, CO 149, and from the water surface of 

 Blue Mesa Reservoir within the NRA provide 

a varied and exceptional visual experience. 

Opportunities to enjoy a variety of recreational 

water and land-based activities within such a 

spectacular setting are unique to the NRA. 

The extremely scenic geological and natural 

landscape setting is considered to be a 

key resource for enjoyment of the NRA. 

Development on private lands surrounding 

the NRA, especially within the COA, has 

been increasing in the past few years. There 

is a potential for development of privately 

held mineral rights at a number of locations 

within the NRA. This is already occurring at 

the Dickerson Pit near Beaver Creek, towards 

the east end of the NRA, along US 50. If 

such development should continue without 

regard for potential impacts on viewsheds and 

other resources important to the NRA, the 

recreation and overall experience at Curecanti 

may well be diminished along with its unique 

vistas and rural setting. It is essential that the 

scenic resource be conserved, in order for 

Curecanti to retain its unique and spectacular 

setting for recreational activities. Alternative 

2 (the Proposed Action), provides tools to 

accomplish this end in cooperation and 

partnership with the counties and neighbors.

 REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

CHARACTERISTICS

REGIONAL SETTING

Curecanti NRA is a 40-mile-long area located 

in Gunnison and Montrose Counties in 

southwestern Colorado. The eastern edge of 

the NRA lies approximately 5 miles west of the 

 City of Gunnison. The Cimarron area of the 

NRA is 20 miles east of Montrose, while the 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 115

REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS

western-most area of the NRA, at East Portal, 

is 16 miles northeast of the City of Montrose. 

 Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, 

also administered by NPS and adjacent to 

Curecanti NRA on its west end, lies entirely 

within Montrose County.

 Gunnison County encompasses approximately 

3,257 square miles, or 2,084,480 acres. Within 

the county, USFS administers over 1.2 million 

acres of the Gunnison, Uncompahgre, and 

White River National Forests; BLM administers 

over 300,000 acres; Reclamation administers 

31,161 acres; and NPS administers 32,223 acres 

(including land being administered under 

agreements with Reclamation and USFS). There 

are fi ve wilderness areas and numerous stateowned wildlife and resource management areas. 

Crested Butte is home to the Crested Butte 

Mountain Resort, off ering year-round activities.

 Montrose County encompasses 2,247 square 

miles (1,438,080 acres). Of this total, the 

USFS administers over 320,000 acres of the 

Gunnison, Uncompahgre, and Manti-La 

Sal National Forests; BLM administers over 

620,000 acres; Reclamation administers 30,677 

acres; and NPS administers 36,820 acres 

(including land being administered under 

agreements with Reclamation and USFS). 

There are two wilderness areas, one national 

park, one national conservation area, and 

three state wildlife areas. 

 POPULATION

Colorado is the seventh fastest growing state 

in the United States (CDOLA 2002), and the 

Gunnison basin as a whole is experiencing 

an explosive increase in both permanent 

population and seasonal visitation (CDOLA 

2002). Gunnison county ranks twenty-third 

(top 36%) and Montrose County ranks 

twenty-fi rst (top 33%) for rate of population 

change in the state (CDOLA 2002).

The Gunnison County population increased 

approximately 3.1% annually from 1990 to 

2000 resulting in a 36% change over the 

10-year period (Table 9). Montrose County 

population rose approximately 3.2% annually 

between 1990 and 2000, resulting in a 37% 

growth rate, slightly higher than Gunnison 

County. Annual growth rates in Montrose 

County have been above the annual 2.71% rate 

of the state. However, since 2000, Gunnison 

County annual growth has been only slight 

(less than 1%), whereas Montrose County 

continues to show annual growth between 

2 and 3%. By 2020, population in Gunnison 

and Montrose Counties is expected to reach 

approximately 20,346 and 50,530 persons, 

respectively (CDOLA 2002). 

Including annexation, the city of Montrose 

has sustained an annual growth over the last 

fi ve years of 6%, while the city of Gunnison 

has shown a slight decrease. 

 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

In Gunnison and Montrose Counties, 

approximately 75% of jobs are in wage and 

salary positions where people work for 

someone else. The remaining jobs (25%) 

are individuals that are self-employed. 

Unemployment averaged 6.4% for Gunnison 

County and 4.8% for Montrose County in 

November 2003. Unemployment in Colorado 

was 5.6% during the same period (Colorado 

Labor Market). Wage rates are below the 

statewide averages.

Employment by industry in Gunnison County 

has remained relatively unchanged since 

1985, except for some decline in sectors such 

as mining. In 2000, the largest employment 

sectors included Wholesale/Retail (26%) 

and Services (27%) followed by Government 

(15%), Construction (10%), and Financial/

TABLE 9: POPULATION ESTIMATES

Town or County 1990 2000 2005 

Gunnison County 10,273 13,956 14,264

Montrose County 24,423 33,432 37,880

City of Gunnison 4,636 5,409 5,303

City of Montrose 8,854 12,344 16,070

Source: Colorado State Demography Office 

 (dola.colorado.gov/dlg/demog) 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

116 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Insurance/Real Estate (7%). The remaining 

sectors such as agriculture and mining were 5% 

or less. In Montrose County, the employment 

distribution is similar. The Service (25%) and 

Wholesale/Retail sectors (24%) are largest, 

followed by Government (13%), Manufacturing 

(10%), Construction (10%), and Agriculture 

(8%) ( Montrose County 2001). In both 

counties, the Service sectors not only provide 

the most jobs but have demonstrated the most 

new job growth from 1970 to 1997. The largest 

component of the Service sector in Gunnison 

County relates to recreation, whereas 

in Montrose County it is health services 

( Wilderness Society 1999). Tourism is a major 

industry for the region, with visitors coming 

year-round to enjoy activities such as skiing, 

rafting, fi shing, kayaking, camping, hiking, and 

sightseeing (Region 10).

Non-labor income is the largest component of 

Total Personal Income (TPI) in both Gunnison 

and Montrose Counties. Non-labor income 

includes income sources such as dividends, 

interest, rent, and transfer payments, such as 

social security and other pension programs. 

Non-labor income represented 28% of TPI 

in both Gunnison and Montrose Counties in 

1970. In 1997, non-labor income remained at 

28% of TPI in Gunnison County, whereas it 

grew to 40% of TPI in Montrose County. Both 

fi gures are indicative of a growing retirement 

community and households with investment 

income. The Service industries have also 

accounted for between 13% and 20% of income 

growth in counties within the same time period 

( Wilderness Society 1999) (Region 10).

 Gunnison County per capita retail sales in 

2002 averaged $28,321 and retail sales totaled 

$397.2 million. Gunnison County per capita 

sales exceeded the statewide average by 23%. 

 Montrose County per capita sales in 2002 

averaged $19,495 and retail sales totaled $692.7 

million. Montrose County per capita sales 

were 84.8% of the Statewide average. City of 

Montrose is the dominant trade center in the 

area with 2002 retail sales of $586.6 million 

(CDH nd) (Region 10).

In 2001, the average wage paid workers in 

 Gunnison County was only 63% of the 

Colorado average and 68.8% for Montrose 

County. Gunnison County per capita 

personal income was $22,762 and $23,007 for 

 Montrose County. For that time period, the 

State average per capita income was $33,455 

(CDH nd) (Region 10).

Agricultural sales of livestock and crops by 

 Gunnison County farmers and ranchers 

totaled $7 million in 2001 and $96.2 million 

by Montrose County farmers and ranchers 

(CDH nd) (Region 10).

The median price of a 1,500 square foot home 

in Gunnison County as of January 2002 was 

$227,985 ($151.99 per square foot), and in 

 Montrose County it was $139,470 ($92.98 

per square foot) (CDH nd). The average sale 

price of a home in the City of Gunnison and 

surrounding area increased 12.3% from 2000 

to 2002, and in Montrose County the increase 

was 2.4% (CDH nd) (Region 10).

 NRA CONTRIBUTION TO 

REGIONAL ECONOMY

Visitors to Curecanti, NRA staff , and their 

households are integral to the regional 

economic and social structure. Some key 

dimensions of the NRA’s role within the 

region are described below.

Curecanti NRA provides economic 

stimulus with ongoing operating and capital 

expenditures. The budget for fi scal year 2005 

was $3,041,000. Salaries for interpretation, 

law enforcement, and search and rescue 

activities comprise the largest share of the 

budget. The remaining funds are allocated 

for activities such as facility operating and 

maintenance, resource conservation, and 

management services. Portions of the NRA’s 

annual expenditures circulate through the 

regional economy in the form of consumer 

and business purchases, yielding indirect 

economic benefi ts.

In addition to the direct stimulus attributable 

to the NRA, spending by its visitors contributes 

to the local economy. Evaluation of visitor 

spending in and around units of the national 

park system, based on 2005 dollars, indicates 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 117

REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS

that an average party of visitors to a NPS unit, 

such as the NRA, spends $42.72 per day if the 

party is from the local area; $62.84 per day if the 

party comes from outside the local area; and 

$193.37 per day if the visit includes an overnight 

at a local motel (NPS 2006b).

Money Generation Model version 2 (MGM2) 

is an economic model developed for NPS to 

estimate local and non-local tourism on the 

local economy. Economic impacts of visitor 

spending are estimated in the MGM2 using 

multipliers for local areas for each unit of 

the park system (NPS 2006b). This includes 

the direct and secondary economic eff ects in 

gateway communities around the park unit 

in terms of jobs, personal income and value 

added. Value added is the sum of personal 

income, profi ts and rents and indirect business 

taxes. The following are the results of applying 

MGM2 to evaluate Curecanti NRA economic 

impacts using 2005 data (NPS 2006b):

 Total Visits - 904,433

 Total Combined Sales- $35,571,000

 Total New Jobs Created – 697

 Value Added - $20,330,000.

 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

“Payments in Lieu of Taxes” (or PILT) are 

Federal payments to local governments 

that help off set losses in property taxes 

due to nontaxable Federal lands within 

their boundaries. Payments are calculated 

following a formula that takes into account 

a variety of factors: acres of eligible land, 

county population, consumer price index, and 

previous year payments from other federal 

agencies, including state pass-through laws 

that require payments to pass from counties 

to local communities or entities rather than 

staying with the county government (Bodine 

and Koontz 2003).

In 2003, federal payments in lieu of taxes 

amounted to $342,195 for Gunnison County 

and $1,250,560 for Montrose County. Of the 

approximately 1.6 million acres of federal land 

in Gunnison County and 900,000 acres in 

 Montrose County, Reclamation lands and land 

interests and NPS lands that make up the NRA 

and the national park, represent only 2.5% and 

6% of these total acres and PILT payments by 

respective county (BLM 2003). 

 QUALITY OF LIFE 

Residents of both counties, as well as the 

respective county governments, recognize 

that the environmental resources within 

the counties are an important 

component of their economies, 

including recreation and tourism.

A 2002 Community Profi le Survey 

developed by the Gunnison County 

Planning Commission with Board 

of County Commissioners surveyed 

4,500 houses with a 41% response 

rate on a variety of issues. Those 

responding were asked to rate how 

important the environment /open 

space would be to them in terms 

of importance facing Gunnison 

County over the next 5 years using 

a scale of 1 to 5 (fi ve being the least 

important). Forty percent indicated 

that it was the most important issue. Those 

ranking it at a level 2 were between 20 and 25% 

and level 3 between 15 and 20%. When asked 

how they perceived growth in the East River 

Valley, more than 40% of those responding 

indicated that regulations should be changed 

to direct growth. Another 30% indicated that 

Conserving resources enhances quality of life
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

118 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

TABLE 10: RESERVED SUB- SURFACE INTERESTS 

T R Section Previous Owner Interests Reserved

49N 2W 13 Cooper, M. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 22 Benson, S., et al. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 22 Charter, et al. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 22 Cox, E. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 22 Hackett, E. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 22 Harris, E. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 22 Matchett, T. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 22 McKelvey, J. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 22 Owen, P. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 22 Rueger, R. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 22 Wright, S. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 23 Clark, W. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 23 Larimore, et al. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 23 McClure, A. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 13, 24 Harris, E. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 19, 20, 29, 30 Oswald, M. oil, gas & minerals – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 19, 29, 30 Keenan, F. oil, gas & minerals – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 21, 22, 27 Rippling River Ranch oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 21, 28, 29 Burris, C. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 23 Wood, F. oil, gas, coal & minerals – subordinated to 

CRSP 

49N 2W 23 Wright, F. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 24 Costello, A. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 24 Dickerson, R. oil, gas & decomposed granite – 

subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 24 Doran, L. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34 Blackstock, E. oil, gas, coal & minerals – subordinated to 

CRSP 

49N 2W 29 Gunnison School Dist. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 29 Killion, R. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 29 Kleitz, D. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 29 Laskowski, A. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 31 Bannister, O., et al. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 31 Howe, K. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 31 Reiss, P. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 31 Sunderlin, R. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 2W 32, 33 Woodward, D. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 3W 25, 26 Holman, J. 

oil & gas – BMR Parcel 12A (10 acres in 

Sec. 25) had reserved oil/gas rights 

subordinated to CRSP 

49N 3W 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34 Miller, A. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 3W 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 Moncrief, W. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 3W 34, 35 Trout Haven Inc. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 3W 35 Dyer, D. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 3W 36 Abrahamson, J. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 3W 36 Sunderlin, R. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

48N 4W 1, 2 Holman, J. oil & gas – additional research necessary 

48N 4W 2, 3, 4, 10 Austin, N. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

48N 4W 3, 4 Curecanti Sheep Co. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 119

REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS

purchase contract and/or deed for each parcel 

acquired.

The term “split estate” describes the situation 

where one party owns the surface rights and 

another party owns the subsurface rights (oil, 

gas, or minerals). Privately owned, or reserved, 

subsurface interests within the NRA are 

shown in Table 10.

At this time, only the Dickerson Pit (Pit) 

is under operation. The Pit is a privately 

operated mineral materials site within the 

NRA that has been in existence since 1927. In 

1963, Reclamation purchased the surface rights 

for 79.57 acres from Mrs. Ruth Dickerson 

for the Colorado River Storage Project. Mrs. 

Dickerson reserved “the perpetual right to 

mine and remove decomposed granite and 

the materials intermixed therewith” from a 

portion of the conveyance, creating a 33.16 

acre split mineral estate, together with the right 

of ingress and egress over the mineral estate. 

However, this mineral right is subordinated 

to the United States’ rights, in that, “. . . any 

rights reserved hereunder shall be exercised 

in such manner as will not interfere with the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of 

any works of the proposed Curecanti Unit 

of the Colorado River Storage Project Act as 

determined by the Secretary of the Interior 

or his duly authorized representative.” The 

Pit is located immediately west of US 50, the 

primary access road through the NRA, east 

of Blue Mesa Reservoir along the Gunnison 

River. In 1965, NPS assumed jurisdiction 

regulations should be changed to limit growth. 

When asked “what do you value most about 

living in Gunnison County”, the value of 

scenery was ranked as one of the important 

reasons by over 75% of survey respondents 

(levels 1 through 6 out of 13) (Michaelson nd).

 Montrose County conducted a community 

survey in late 1999 asking residents to respond 

to the draft Master Plan. Eighty of the 119 

respondents indicated that planning and 

zoning was essential. Eighty respondents 

believe that the county is not taking suffi cient 

steps to direct growth, and a majority 

indicated that they would like to see much less 

population growth than in the previous few 

years ( Montrose County 2001).

 PRIVATE LAND USE WITHIN THE 

NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

All surface lands and waters within the 

NRA are currently owned by the federal 

government. However, in a number of 

locations throughout the NRA, there exist 

retained private rights (such as rights-of-way, 

water rights, access rights, and oil/ gas/mineral 

rights). Where Reclamation acquired land 

but not the appurtenant mineral, or oil or gas 

rights, it subordinated those reserved rights 

to require their development in a manner that 

would not interfere with project purposes. 

The subordination for reserved mineral rights, 

including oil and gas, is contained in the land 

T R Section Previous Owner Interests Reserved 

49N 4W 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23 Carpenter, F. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 4W 16, 21, 27, 28, 29, 33 LeValley, J. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 4W 26, 27 Gilmore, L., et al. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 4W 28 Goodwin, C. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 4W 32 Cotten, C. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 4W 32 Curecanti Sheep Co. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 4W 32 Lucas, E. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 4W 32 Oswalt, H. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 4W 32, 33 Santarelli, R. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

49N 4W 33, 34, 35 Holman, J. oil & gas – additional research necessary 

48N 6W 5 Bliss, R. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

48N 6W 5 Brack, L., et al. oil & gas – subordinated to CRSP 

 Source: Cooper, Katherine, NPS, Land Resources Program Center, November 2000 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

120 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

over the area, including the Pit, pursuant 

to a Memorandum of Agreement with 

Reclamation. The Pit operations have been 

regulated since the 1980s under NPS special 

use permits. On February 17, 2003, the current 

operator, Gunnison Gravel and Earthmoving, 

submitted a proposed Plan of Operations to 

expand the Pit from the existing permitted 

operation (12.4 acres) to the maximum 

33.16 acres. The NRA has completed an 

environmental assessment of the proposal and 

in 2006 issued a special use permit allowing 

the expansion, subject to the exclusion of a 

portion of the area that contains signifi cant 

cultural resources.

 NEIGHBORING PRIVATE LANDS 

AND LANDOWNERS WITHIN THE 

 PROPOSED LANDS

Land Ownership

Private property within Land Units A (CO 

92 COA), C (Gunnison River COA), D 

(Iola Basin COA), E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa 

COA), and G (West-End COA) have been 

included within the proposed lands because 

of the regionally or nationally important, 

or potentially important natural, cultural, 

recreational, or scenic resources that occur 

on these properties. There are a total of 125 

diff erent private ownerships within the COA. 

They consist of individuals, joint ownerships, 

partnerships, and corporations. Some entities 

own more than one property within the COA. 

Many landowners live within Montrose and 

Gunnison Counties or in other Colorado 

locations. Some owners live in nearby states 

such as Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona; or 

in more distant states, such as North Carolina 

and Alabama. Some properties have been held 

by the same family (including descendants) for 

decades, while other properties may have had 

a recent conveyance to new owners.

In 2005, there were 168 individual parcels of 

private land throughout the COA, ranging 

in size from 0.25 acre to 3,258 acres. The 

average number of acres per parcel varies 

according to general location and land use 

( Gunnison County and Montrose County 

GIS departments).

 Within Land Unit A (CO 92 COA), 

parcels on the north side of Morrow 

Point Reservoir in the vicinity of Black 

Mesa and Curecanti Creek average 

approximately 150 acres, although 40% 

of the parcels are almost 200 acres or 

more. In the Soap Creek area, 50% 

of the parcels are 5 acres or less, but 

one large parcel is over 2,000 acres in 

size. Parcels south of Morrow Point 

Reservoir on Fitzpatrick Mesa also 

average between 150 and 200 acres.

 Land units C (Gunnison River COA) 

and D (Iola Basin COA) along the 

Gunnison River and near Southeast 

Iola Basin include only a handful of 

private properties ranging in size from 

approximately 3 acres to 386 acres.

 Within Land Unit E (Sapinero/Blue 

Mesa COA) on Sapinero and Blue 

Mesas, 75% of the parcels are less 

than 10 acres in size, while 2 of the 

remaining 4 parcels are almost 500 

acres. Parcels at Hunters Point and 

Windy Point average between 50 and 

100 acres, respectively.

 Land unit G (West-End COA) consists 

of 18 parcels, 4 of which are north of 

the current NRA and 14 south. Ten 

parcels are under an acre. The largest 

parcel is about 60 acres.

Existing Land Uses

The predominant land uses on private 

property within the proposed lands consist of 

agriculture, primarily cattle and sheep grazing, 

and are limited to low residential use.

Land unit A (CO 92 COA) along CO 92 and 

north of Morrow Point Reservoir supports 

ranching activities, including cattle and 

commercial elk; and some limited extractive 

uses, such as timber removal. A few residential 

structures are found in the area. Residential 

development increases in the vicinity of 

Soap Creek Road, although it continues to 

be limited. Existing conservation easements 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 121

conserve a signifi cant amount of acreage from 

being developed, and are held by the Rocky 

Mountain Elk Foundation and Colorado 

Open Lands. Still within Unit A, lands south of 

 Morrow Point Reservoir support agriculture 

uses such as sheep grazing.

CO 92 currently weaves in and out of the 

NRA. As people drive along the highway, or 

stop and exit their vehicles along the highway, 

they are often confused whether they are on 

public land (i.e., the NRA) or private land. 

This is of special concern during the hunting 

season, where hunters may inadvertently hunt 

on private land. Another area that may suff er 

private trespass due to the current boundary 

situation is a location where access is gained 

to a popular climbing/ice climbing route. The 

landowner of one large ranch in this area has 

proposed exchanging land with the NRA, 

whereas CO 92 could, in essence, become the 

boundary line between the NRA and private 

land. The NRA parcels aff ected are shown on 

the Alternative 2 ( Proposed Action) map as 

Tract 4, Tract 5, Tract 6, and Tract 7.

Land unit C (Gunnison River COA) along the 

Gunnison River supports cattle ranching and 

limited residential use. Land unit D (Iola Basin 

COA) has grazing activities, residential use, 

and commercial uses. Land unit E (Sapinero/

Blue Mesa COA) is comprised of lowdensity residential use, limited commercial 

use along US 50, and some grazing activity 

between Hunters and Windy Point. Private 

lands within Unit G (West-End COA) on the 

western end of the proposed lands include a 

few residences, but are generally vacant with 

regard to structures, and used for grazing.

Some private lands within the proposed lands 

are currently subdivided, for sale, or have a 

high probability of being developed in the near 

future. These private lands generally occur in 

the vicinity of major transportation corridors 

and in the vicinity of other development, such 

as along US 50 near Sapinero Mesa, Hunters 

Point, Windy Point, and Cimarron. Private 

lands along CO 92 and in the vicinity of 

Willow Creek face a moderate probability of 

being developed in the near future because of 

their accessibility (Roberts 2004).

Development on private lands adjacent to 

the NRA has increased in recent years and 

is expected to continue into the future. 

Insensitive and/or unchecked development, 

including development of mineral/mining 

rights that might exist, especially on lands 

within the COA, could have an adverse impact 

on the spectacular natural scene, which makes 

the NRA such a signifi cant resource in which 

to recreate, sightsee, and take pictures. In turn, 

it could have an adverse impact on the quality 

of life for local residents and on the overall 

quality of the visitor experience.

 Property Values

As stated in the Alternatives chapter, one 

of the tools for resource conservation 

being considered in the Proposed Action 

is to acquire interests in land from willing 

landowners. As described in the Estimated 

Costs section of that chapter, the future 

Development on private land adjacent to the NRA, but not within the COA

REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

122 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

direct costs of acquiring such interests 

are very uncertain. Therefore, for the 

purposes of developing the estimated cost 

of implementing the Proposed Action, the 

following current ranges of market values 

were used as guidance. They are based on 

records of land sales occurring over recent 

years on vacant and/or agricultural land 

within what is proposed as the COA.

Range of Market Values:

 Within Gunnison County — $1,500 to 

$4,000 per acre

 Within Montrose County — $500 to 

$1,500 per acre.

In general, assessed land values in Gunnison 

County grew from $373 million in 2002 to 

almost $390 million in 2003, a 4.5 % growth 

in assessed values. Montrose assessed land 

values grew by 2.5% from $301 million to 

$305 million. Gunnison County and other 

mountain communities reported some of 

the largest increases in assessed value in 

recent years, a trend that is expected to 

continue, although to a lesser degree (State 

of Colorado 2002).

 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, 

RECLAMATION, AND OTHER

NEIGHBORING AGENCY MANAGEMENT

AND OPERATIONS

A number of federal, state, and local agencies 

have lands and/or facilities located within 

the existing NRA and/or the proposed lands 

for the RPS Proposed Action, including 

NPS, Reclamation, BLM, USFS, Colorado 

Division of Wildlife, and Western Area Power 

Administration (Western). Each agency has 

individual interests regarding the potential 

expansion of Curecanti NRA. A primary 

and shared concern amongst the agencies 

is that the mission, land management, and 

operational responsibilities of each agency 

within the proposed lands are evaluated to 

ensure that all responsibilities are considered 

in developing the RPS recommendations.

This section identifi es agency lands within 

the proposed lands more specifi cally those 

areas considered for inclusion within the NRA 

for the Proposed Action. It also generally 

describes each agency’s management 

responsibilities for those areas.

 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

NPS manages the natural and cultural 

resources, public recreation, and associated 

facilities at Curecanti NRA and Black Canyon 

of the Gunnison National Park as one 

operating unit with two districts. The Blue 

Mesa District includes the area from Riverway 

west to Morrow Point Dam, and the Black 

Canyon District from Morrow Point Dam 

(including the Cimarron Visitor Center) west 

to and including the national park.

A Superintendent has overall authority and 

utilizes fi ve divisions for operating the two 

areas: (1) Resource Stewardship and Science; 

(2) Interpretation, Education, and Technology; 

(3) Visitor Protection and Fee Collection; (4) 

Facility Management; and (5) Administration 

and Concession Management. The staff consists 

of approximately 32 permanent positions, 5 term 

positions, and 44 seasonal positions. This work 

force is supplemented by over 5,000 hours per 

year of Volunteers-in-Parks service. 

Staff expertise is provided by a number of 

specialized positions, including an outdoor 

education specialist, an information 

technology specialist and computer assistant, 

an ecologist, hydrologist, aquatic biologist, 

terrestrial biologist, archeologist, interpretive 

specialists, law enforcement specialists, 

climbing/backcountry ranger, GIS specialist, 

fee collection personnel, and specialized 

maintenance and administrative positions.

Enforcement Operations

Law enforcement staff provide visitor and 

resource protection, road and boat patrols, 

search and rescue services, fi re protection, and 

a variety of other services. However, during 

parts of the year the NRA lacks suffi cient 

permanent staff coverage to meet some visitor 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 123

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RECLAMATION, AND OTHER NEIGHBORING AGENCY MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

needs. Additional seasonal staff is added to 

provide coverage during the primary visitor 

season, particularly from mid-May through 

Labor Day. Occasionally, Colorado Division 

of Wildlife Offi cers provide patrols to monitor 

fi shing and hunting activities. 

Infrastructure and Maintenance 

Operations

The NRA infrastructure includes 3 visitor 

centers, 10 campgrounds, 7 self-guiding trails, 

12 miles of hiking trails, 22 miles of roadways, 1 

central maintenance facility (which also serves 

as the central maintenance facility for Black 

Canyon of the Gunnison National Park), the 

main NRA headquarters (which also serves 

as headquarters for Black Canyon of the 

Gunnison NP), and 22 employee housing units 

for on-site protection and management of 

NRA resources. Primary facilities are shown 

on the Existing Conditions map.

There are 12 permanent and 19 seasonal 

maintenance workers. This recurring staff 

is often supplemented and supported using 

special project funds, contracts, and the 

assistance or expertise from other NPS areas, 

and other organizations, as available. 

 Grazing

When the NRA was originally created, 

some BLM grazing allotments, or portions 

thereof, were included within it. NPS and 

BLM addressed the issue through creating 

Memorandums of Understanding that allow 

BLM to continue management of grazing in 

these areas in cooperation with NPS.

 Grazing also occurs on USFS land being 

managed by NPS under an agreement with the 

Forest Service. The areas where this occurs 

include the Bear-Trap Long Gulch allotment 

(with 10 permittees) and the Soap Creek 

allotment (currently vacant). 

Land Unit F: Gateview Agency Lands

NPS facilities in Land Unit F (Gateview 

Agency; and identifi ed as Tract 10 on the 

Alternative 2 Proposed Action map) along 

the Lake Fork arm are adjacent to extensive 

BLM lands. Because of the distance for NPS 

to travel to maintain the facilities at Gateview, 

a full day is required to do fundamental 

maintenance of garbage pickup, check water 

systems, and clean facilities. Because of the 

more frequent presence of BLM staff in this 

area (south along the Lake Fork), the potential 

operating effi ciencies of transferring Gateview 

Campground to BLM was considered during 

the course of the study.

NPS facilities in the Gateview area include 

roads, a small campground, restrooms, a 

photovoltaic chlorinated well system, bearproof trash cans, and historic resources such 

as railroad-related features. All facilities are 

currently maintained by NPS.

Should NPS transfer its administrative 

jurisdiction for land and resources that it 

manages under agreement with Reclamation 

to another agency, a supplemental agreement 

between NPS and the receiving agency would 

need to be completed.

 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

The mission of Reclamation is to manage, 

develop, and protect water and related 

resources in an environmentally and 

economically sound manner in the interest 

of the American public. To accomplish 

that mission, Reclamation must have 

administrative jurisdiction of its lands, land 

interests, water and water interests, and 

facilities necessary to fulfi ll and protect the 

authorized purposes of its respective projects. 

According to Reclamation law, other uses 

may be allowed on Reclamation lands, so long 

as they are compatible or consistent with a 

project’s purposes or the purpose for which 

Reclamation obtained lands or land interests. 

 Bureau of Reclamation Projects

Most of the lands within the current NRA, 

and some adjacent lands, were withdrawn 

or acquired for Reclamation purposes (refer 

to Existing Conditions map in Chapter 

1). Reclamation currently operates and 

maintains two projects and uses its land, 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

124 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

land interests, water and water interests, and 

facilities to fulfi ll and protect the respective 

project purposes:

 Uncompahgre Project

 The Wayne N. Aspinall Unit ( Aspinall 

Unit) of the Colorado River Storage 

Project.

A third nearby Reclamation project, the 

Fruitland Mesa Project, was authorized 

but never constructed. Reclamation has 

recommended to BLM that it revoke the 

withdrawals for the Fruitland Mesa Project.

 Uncompahgre Project

The Uncompahgre Project (originally the 

Gunnison Project) was authorized by the 

Secretary of the Interior on March 14, 1903, 

under the provisions of the Reclamation Act of 

1902 to provide agricultural irrigation water to 

about 76,300 acres in the Uncompahgre River 

Valley. The Act of June 22, 1938 authorized 

the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a 

contract for the sale or development of power 

on the Uncompahgre Project. Uncompahgre 

Project facilities within or adjacent to the NRA 

include, but are not necessarily limited to the:

 Gunnison River Diversion Dam;

 Gunnison Tunnel;

 River Portal Tunnel Road; and

 Residence, outbuildings and 

appurtenances of the Uncompahgre 

Valley Water Users.

The Uncompahgre Project is operated and 

maintained by the Uncompahgre Valley 

Water Users Association (UVWUA) under a 

contract with Reclamation. Withdrawn lands 

associated with the Uncompahgre Project in 

the vicinity of the East Portal of the Gunnison 

Tunnel were added to the current NRA in 1978 

and are managed by NPS for recreation and 

other purposes in accordance with the 1965 

MOA with Reclamation.

 Aspinall Unit, CRSP

The Aspinall Unit (formerly the Curecanti 

Unit) of the CRSP was authorized by the CRSP 

Act of April 11, 1956 (70 Stat. 105). Reclamation 

operates and maintains the Aspinall Unit, 

its facilities, and its lands and land interests 

to meet project purposes. The presence of 

the three reservoirs has created water-based 

recreational opportunities.

 Aspinall Unit related facilities within or 

adjacent to the NRA include, but are not 

necessarily limited to the:

 Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, and Crystal 

Dams and Reservoirs;

 Access roads to each of the three dams;

 Power plants and associated electric 

transmission facilities serving each dam;

 Communication facilities and 

associated access roads; and

 Electrical transmission lines and 

associated access roads (now 

operated/maintained by Western).

Bureau of Reclamation Lands

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized 

to acquire private lands and to withdraw 

public land from entry or other disposition 

under the public land laws necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of 

Reclamation projects. The Secretary is also 

authorized to dispose of recreation facilities 

and facilities that benefi t fi sh and wildlife to 

Morrow Point Dam, one of three large dams managed by Bureau of 

Reclamation within the Aspinall Unit at Curecanti
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 125

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RECLAMATION, AND OTHER NEIGHBORING AGENCY MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

federal, state, and local government agencies 

by lease, transfer, exchange, or conveyance 

upon such terms and conditions as would best 

promote their development and operation in 

the public interest.

Reclamation withdrew lands from the public 

domain for Reclamation purposes, and 

acquired other lands and land interests for 

the above projects and purposes. Lands and 

land interests held by Reclamation within 

and adjacent to the NRA include about 

39,958 acres of withdrawn lands, 11,465 acres 

of acquired lands, and 983 acres of land 

interests including various rights-of-way 

and easements. Reclamation withdrew and/

or acquired some lands and interests for 

mitigation purposes for the Aspinall Unit, and 

transferred them to other federal, state, or 

local agencies for management.

Reclamation utilizes and manages its lands 

and land interests, and water and water 

interests for Reclamation project purposes. 

NPS manages recreation and certain other 

resources on Reclamation lands and land 

interests, and water and water interests 

within the NRA in accordance with the 

1965 Memorandum of Agreement with 

Reclamation. BLM manages the lands 

withdrawn for the Fruitland Mesa Project.

Land Unit D: Iola Basin COA

The study team considered making 

recommendations for conserving private 

lands in the vicinity of Willow Creek on the 

south side of Iola Basin because the area 

contains important riparian habitat, is a 

popular location for parasailing and hang 

gliding activities, and requires adjustments 

to the administrative boundary. Acquisition 

of interests in this area would enhance 

conservation of habitat, simplify the 

management of recreational activities, and 

improve administrative effi ciency.

 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The proposed lands encompass lands 

managed by BLM. All BLM lands are managed 

according to actions outlined in specifi c 

resource management plans individually 

developed for each fi eld offi ce. Natural, 

cultural, and recreational resources are 

managed to accomplish a variety of multiple 

use objectives. These vary according to the 

attributes of the individual area.

The Gunnison Field Offi ce is responsible for 

the management and stewardship of more 

than 600,000 acres of public land in the upper 

Gunnison River basin in southwest Colorado. 

BLM lands north and south of Blue Mesa and 

 Morrow Point Reservoir within the proposed 

lands are managed by the Gunnison Field Offi ce. 

The Uncompahgre Field Offi ce is responsible 

for the management and stewardship of 

more than 900,000 acres of public lands in 

southwestern Colorado. BLM lands from the 

southern point of Crystal Reservoir to the 

west within the proposed lands are managed 

by the Uncompahgre Field Offi ce.

BLM lands adjacent to the NRA were 

evaluated during the study. These lands are 

located in Land Units B ( Blue Mesa Reservoir 

Agency), F (Gateview Agency), and H (WestEnd Agency), and are described below. Land 

unit D (Iola Basin COA) is also discussed 

because of activities on adjacent BLM lands.

Livestock grazing occurs both within the 

proposed lands and within the current NRA. 

Some of the lands withdrawn by Reclamation 

for the Curecanti Project included BLM 

lands and their associated grazing allotments. 

Some allotments have all the federal portion 

of the allotment entirely within the NRA, 

while other allotments have some of the 

federal portion within the NRA and some on 

adjacent BLM land. However, in all cases, 

BLM manages these grazing allotments under 

an agreement with NPS.

Land Unit B: Blue Mesa Reservoir 

Agency Lands

BLM lands are scattered throughout this land 

unit and are managed by the Gunnison Field 

Offi ce. The land unit stretches east from Soap 

Creek Arm to Neversink along the Gunnison 

River and includes one small piece of land that 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

126 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

is located on the southeast side of Iola Basin 

near Kezar Basin. All the BLM lands within 

this land unit, excluding the piece near Kezar 

Basin, are within the West Antelope Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) or 

the Dillon Pinnacle ACEC. An ACEC is an 

area managed by BLM that contains important 

historic, cultural, and scenic resources, fi sh or 

wildlife resources, or other natural systems or 

processes (BLM 1991).

The Dillon Pinnacle ACEC, adjacent to the 

NRA just east of the West Elk Arm, was 

created to protect the regionally signifi cant 

vertical spires or pinnacles that are outstanding 

examples of eroded volcanic mudfl ows. 

The pinnacles are a predominant scenic 

feature from many locations within the 

NRA, particularly from US 50 along Blue 

Mesa Reservoir. BLM manages this area to 

protect both its scenic and geologic attributes. 

Recreational use also occurs in the area.

The West Antelope ACEC extends from 

Dillon Mesa east to West Antelope Creek near 

Gunnison (north side of study unit) and is 

managed to provide important wildlife habitat 

for wintering elk, deer, and bighorn sheep. 

Land uses are permitted that do not remove 

or damage elk and deer crucial winter range. 

Several state wildlife areas are located within 

the midst of the ACEC, further supporting the 

management of these winter range attributes. 

The ACEC also receives some dispersed 

recreation use in the vicinity of Dillon Gulch, 

but generally public access is diffi cult.

The Haystack Cave, located near the NRA, 

has yielded a signifi cant number of fossils, 

particularly faunal specimens. The area is 

managed for public use, but is often vandalized, 

despite an existing gate (BLM 1991).

 Grazing — Several grazing allotments include 

small percentages of NRA land within them. 

These include the Stevens Creek, Steuben 

Creek, and Beaver Creek allotments. 

These allotments are managed by the BLM 

Gunnison Field Offi ce.

Land Unit D: Iola Basin COA

Hang gliders currently take fl ight from Big 

Mesa on BLM land in the southeast portion of 

Iola Basin and often times land on private or 

NPS property in the vicinity of Willow Creek 

near Iola Basin. Grazing occurs in the landing 

site on the private land. Although historically 

the landowner has allowed the hang gliders 

to land, more recently this activity is being 

denied, as the leaseholder of the grazing rights 

has not supported the hang gliding activity.

 Grazing — One grazing allotment, Iola, 

includes a small percentage of NRA land 

within it. This allotment is managed by the 

BLM Gunnison Field Offi ce.

Land Unit F: Gateview Agency Lands

A variety of recreational activities in this area 

are managed by BLM. Many recreationists 

raft the Lake Fork of the Gunnison River and 

take out of the river in the vicinity of Gateview 

Campground, a facility currently managed 

by NPS. Fishing occurs along the Lake Fork 

with some parking occurring within the 

campground. Historic features associated with 

the narrow gauge railroad are also in the area. 

 Grazing — Several grazing allotments include 

small percentages of NRA land within them. 

These include the Sapinero Mesa, Ten 

Mile Springs, and Big Willow allotments. 

These allotments are managed by the BLM 

Gunnison Field Offi ce.

Land Unit H: West-End Agency Lands

BLM lands are scattered throughout this land 

unit, and are managed by both the Gunnison 

Field Offi ce, and the Uncompahgre Field 

Offi ce. Parcels within this land unit occur 

north and south of Crystal and Morrow Point 

Reservoirs, and west of Cimarron. A large 

area under BLM administration occurs on 

the western edge of Fitzpatrick Mesa, which 

is managed for wildlife habitat and grazing. 

Some severe winter elk range and mountain 

lion hunting also occur in this area.

 Grazing — Several grazing allotments include 

more NRA lands then BLM lands — these 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 127

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RECLAMATION, AND OTHER NEIGHBORING AGENCY MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

include the Pine Mesa, Windy Point, Blue 

Creek, Round Corral Spring, North Cimarron, 

and Spring Gulch allotments. The Round 

Corral Creek, Fitzpatrick Mesa, Highway, 

Rawhide/Coff ee Pot, and Dead Horse 

allotments contain a smaller percentage of 

NRA lands within them. The BLM Gunnison 

Field Offi ce manages the Pine Mesa, Windy 

Point, Blue Creek, Round Corral Spring, 

Round Corral Creek, Fitzpatrick Mesa, and 

North Cimarron allotments; while the BLM 

Uncompahgre Field Offi ce manages the Dead 

Horse, Highway, Spring Gulch, and Rawhide/

Coff ee Pot allotments.

 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION / FEDERAL 

HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

The Colorado Department of Transportation 

(CDOT) holds easements and rights-of-way 

for the highways that pass through the existing 

NRA and Land Units A (Highway 92 COA), 

E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), G (West-End 

COA), and H (West-End Agency). CDOT, 

in coordination with the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), is responsible 

for maintenance, construction and safety 

activities, and traveler enhancements that 

occur on the routes they administer— US 50, 

CO 92, and CO 149. (CDOT 2005)

CDOT and NPS consult on an as needed basis 

whenever the activities of one agency have the 

potential to aff ect the operations of the other 

agency. Some highway maintenance activities 

have the potential to impact resources, and/or 

visitor access to NRA areas and facilities, and/

or the enjoyment thereof. When possible, NPS 

and CDOT identify such issues early on in 

project planning and work together to identify 

ways to reduce such impacts.

A portion of the facilities at the East Cimarron 

day-use area lies outside the NRA boundary 

within the CDOT right-of-way for US 50. These 

facilities provide rest and restroom opportunities 

for both NRA visitors and highway travelers.

The West Elk Loop Scenic and Historic Byway 

is a component of the state byway program 

administered under CDOT. The byway passes 

through the existing NRA and Land Units A 

(Highway 92 COA) and H (West End). NPS and 

the byway exchange information on activities 

and objectives via direct NPS representation on 

the byway’s steering committee.

 COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE

A number of state 

wildlife areas exist 

within the proposed 

lands in Land Unit B 

( Blue Mesa Reservoir 

Agency) that are 

managed to protect 

wildlife habitat and 

to provide public 

opportunities for 

hunting and fi shing. 

Three areas located 

north of Blue Mesa 

Reservoir and 

surrounded by the 

West Antelope ACEC 

were evaluated in 

more detail for the 

RPS. They include the Gunnison State Wildlife 

Area (SWA), the Centennial SWA, and the 

Sapinero SWA. The Gunnison SWA is located 

6 miles west of Gunnison on US 50 and runs 

north along Beaver Creek. The Centennial SWA 

is 6 miles further west and just north of US 50 

(12 miles from Gunnison) and is comprised of 

approximately 1,800 acres. The Sapinero SWA 

is also accessed from US 50, just west of the 

Centennial SWA. It is a 1,728-acre parcel situated 

between West Elk Creek on the west and Dry 

Creek on the east and is intermingled with BLM 

lands (CDOW 2004a). NRA facilities operated 

under agreement between CDOW and NPS 

occur on CDOW land within Sapinero SWA, at 

Dry Gulch campground, and near the East Elk 

Creek group camp site.

Some of these CDOW lands are Reclamation 

wildlife mitigation lands for the Aspinall 

Unit, which were transferred to CDOW. They 

need to continue to be managed for wildlife 

purposes. 

Big game hunting, a popular 

fall time activity within and 

surrounding the NRA
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

128 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

 U.S. FOREST SERVICE

Lands in the Gunnison and Paonia Ranger 

Districts of the Gunnison National Forest 

occur within the proposed lands. The 

Gunnison National Forest is one of three 

national forests administered under the Grand 

Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National 

Forests (GMUG). The GMUG is managed 

under one Forest Supervisor. Each District is 

managed by a District Ranger and his/her staff . 

At present, the GMUG is in the midst of a 

Forest Plan Revision that would be completed 

in the next several years. The forest lands 

within the proposed lands are part of the 

Gunnison Basin Geographic Area and North 

Fork Valley Geographic Area. Working 

groups (citizens and agency representatives) 

are assisting the Forest Service in identifying 

vision statements and management themes 

for how these lands should be managed. 

At present, there is a strong emphasis on 

protection of wildlife corridors and critical 

winter range in the area with provision for 

recreational opportunities (USFS 2004b). 

During the course of the RPS, several areas 

were considered for transfer between the 

Forest Service and NPS because of their 

proximity to Curecanti NRA, existing 

agreements, and additional discussions that 

have occurred between the agencies. These 

lands are located on the north side of the NRA 

in the vicinity of Soap Creek and along CO 92.

Land Unit B: Blue Mesa Reservoir Agency 

Lands – Land South of West Elk Wilderness

The Gunnison Ranger District of the 

Gunnison National Forest adjoins BLM and 

Reclamation lands to the north of Blue Mesa 

Reservoir. These combined lands surround 

the Soap Creek and West Elk Arms of Blue 

Mesa Reservoir and the northern portion of 

Soap Creek Road (also designated as Forest 

Road 721) that originates from CO 92 near 

Blue Mesa Dam. 

The Soap Creek Campground is located 

within this unit on USFS lands approximately 

7.25 miles north on Forest Road 721 and 

another 0.5 miles along Forest Road 824. The 

campground is comprised of 21 designated 

sites that include parking spurs, fi re grates, 

vault toilets, and other camping amenities. 

The campground is currently maintained via 

a concession contract. Horse corrals located 

at the campground are busy during hunting 

season. Fifth-wheel campers often park in 

undesignated areas in the vicinity of the 

corrals, often times resulting in more camping 

use outside of the campground than within 

the designated sites. Overnight use occurs at 

the corrals, including one outfi tter that uses 

the corrals as an overnight stop.

Ponderosa Campground is located within 

the NRA, just 1.75 miles south of Soap Creek 

Campground. NPS provides service and 

patrols to the Ponderosa Campground.

The vacant Soap Creek grazing allotment 

exists within this unit. Even when grazed, the 

number of cattle was minimal, but they often 

wandered into the campground. 

Some snowmobiling use occurs on USFS and 

other public lands in the area. However, it is 

minimal and mainly occurs on existing roads.

Land Unit H: West-End Agency Lands – 

Long Gulch/Beartrap Area

 Grazing — The Paonia District of the 

Gunnison National Forest lies north of CO 

92 and Morrow Point and Crystal Reservoirs. 

The district manages a 30,000-acre grazing 

allotment in the Long Gulch/Beartrap area 

with only a small portion within the NRA. The 

allotment is used for early-season cattle by a 

grazing pool of 10 permittees. Cattle currently 

cross and graze on lands co-managed by 

NPS and USFS under an agreement. The 

parcel contains the Crystal Trail, which NPS 

maintains. The cattle use this area for a week 

or two early in the summer. However, little 

or no confl ict with NRA visitors has resulted 

from this brief use. 

 WESTERN AREA POWER 

ADMINISTRATION

Western owns and operates a number of 

facilities, including transmission lines and 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 129

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RECLAMATION, AND OTHER NEIGHBORING AGENCY MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

TABLE 11:WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES

Facility Type Facility Name 

Transmission Line Curecanti-Rifle 230-kilovolt (kV) 

Transmission Line Curecanti-Crystal 115-kV 

Transmission Line Curecanti-Poncha 230-kV 

Transmission Line Curecanti-Morrow Point 230-kV 

Transmission Line Curecanti-Blue Mesa 115-kV 

Transmission Line Blue Mesa-Salida 115-kV 

Communication Site Dead Horse Mesa Passive Reflector 

Communication Site Crystal Microwave Site 

Communication Site Sheeps Knob Microwave Site 

Communication Site Black Mesa Passive Reflector 

Communication Site Hermits Point Passive Reflector 

Communication Site Morrow Point Microwave Site 

Communication Site Curecanti Microwave Site 

Substation Curecanti Substation 

Substation and Communication Site Blue Mesa Substation and Microwave Site 

Source: Western 2004 

communication sites. Western facilities are 

shown on the Existing Conditions map. Table 

11 identifi es the type of facility and provides 

the facility name. The transmission lines cross 

a variety of land units within the proposed 

lands.

As a power marketing administration within 

the U.S. Department of Energy, Western is 

tasked with the safe and reliable delivery of 

electric power generated by Reclamation 

power plants at Aspinall Unit dams. In order 

to accomplish this task, Western requires 

continuous and uninterrupted access to 

facilities in order to properly conduct 

operation and maintenance activities. Roads 

cannot be closed unless alternative access 

is provided. Facilities cannot be relocated 

to enhance recreational opportunities or 

improve scenic resources, unless all parties 

are in agreement and funding is authorized to 

implement the project.

In addition, Western maintains and operates 

the various communication sites needed to 

eff ectively operate the Aspinall Unit dams 

for Reclamation. Western is responsible for 

maintaining communication equipment. They 

must be able to access those communication 

sites at any given time to provide maintenance 

functions such as replacing batteries, adjusting 

refl ectors, and upgrading or replacing radio 

equipment. Thus, the sites and access to them 

are not only important to Western, but are 

also critical to Reclamation’s operation of the 

project (Western 2004).
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

130 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Autumn colors abound along Colorado Highway 92 above Morrow Point Reservoir

 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 131

 ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES

 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter of the Resource Protection 

Study / Environmental Impact Statement 

(RPS/EIS) analyzes the benefi cial and adverse 

impacts of the actions in Alternatives 1 and 

2 on each of the retained impact topics that 

are outlined in the Purpose of and Need for 

Action chapter, and described in detail in the 

Aff ected Environment chapter. In addition, a 

summary of the primary diff erences between 

the two alternatives is contained in the table 

on the last page of the Summary, near the 

beginning of this document.

 GENERAL METHODOLOGY FOR

ASSESSING IMPACTS 

 DEFINITIONS AND FOUNDATION FOR 

ANALYSIS

Four of the elements of the environment 

that are assessed in detail in this chapter are 

traditionally done so in environmental impact 

statements. In addition, they are required to 

be done so by this study’s enabling legislation. 

They are the natural, cultural, recreational, 

and scenic resources.

The analysis is organized by impact topic. Under 

each topic is a listing of relevant policies and 

regulations, an overview of the topic-specifi c 

methodology, if applicable, and defi nitions 

of the impact thresholds, followed by the 

impacts of each alternative. The Summary of 

Environmental Consequences table displays the 

impacts of all alternatives on each topic (shown 

at the end of the Alternatives, Including the 

 Proposed Action chapter).

The impact analyses were based on the 

extensive mapping of resources that occurred 

during the early phases of the project, as well 

as on information provided by NRA staff and 

relevant references and technical literature 

citations. Each analysis by impact topic 

involved the following steps.

 Identify the area of analysis or 

geographic area that would be aff ected. 

For most impact topics, the area of 

analysis includes the current NRA 

and the proposed lands for the RPS. 

The term “proposed lands” refers to 

(1) public lands adjacent to the NRA 

that were identifi ed through the study 

process to warrant transfer to NPS 

for inclusion within the NRA for 

more overall effi cient management 

for all agencies concerned, in keeping 

with each agency’s mission; and (2) 

private lands that warranted increased 

conservation measures relating to NRA 

goals and objectives, to be included 

within a Conservation Opportunity 

Area (COA), outside the proposed 

NRA boundary. The proposed lands 

are a feature of Alternative 2 – the 

 Proposed Action, and are a subset of 

the larger “study area” that was initially 

examined at the beginning of the 

study. The proposed lands are divided 

into eight land units, A through H, to 

facilitate analysis.

 Identify the resources within the 

proposed lands and individual land 

units that could be impacted.

 Determine how the actions of 

each alternative would aff ect these 

resources, and characterize those 

impacts. Under Alternative 1 (the 

No-Action alternative), identify the 

baseline condition or existing impacts 

using the terms defi ned below. Identify 

the impacts of Alternative 2 (the 

 Proposed Action), by qualitatively 

measuring the change in resource 

condition between existing conditions 

(Alternative 1) and Alternative 2.

Potential impacts of both alternatives 

are described in terms of type (benefi cial 

or adverse, direct or indirect); context 

(site-specifi c, local, or regional); duration 

(short-term or long-term); and intensity 

(negligible, minor, moderate, or major). 

CHAPTER 4 – INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

132 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

This is consistent with the regulations of the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

that implements the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). More exact interpretations 

of intensity, duration, and type of impact 

are given for each impact topic examined. 

Defi nitions of intensity and duration vary by 

topic; but for all impact topics, the following 

defi nitions for type of impact were applied.

Benefi cial: A positive change in the condition 

or appearance of the resource or a change 

that moves the resource toward a desired 

condition.

Adverse: A change that declines, degrades, 

and /or moves the resource away from 

a desired condition or detracts from its 

appearance or condition.

Direct: An eff ect that is caused by an action 

and occurs in the same time and place.

Indirect: An eff ect that is caused by an action, 

but occurs later in time or is farther removed 

in distance, and is still reasonably foreseeable.

 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND 

DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS

Throughout this chapter, reference is made 

to land units, which were defi ned earlier in 

the Alternatives, Including the Proposed 

Action chapter and the Aff ected Environment 

chapter. They were created for purposes 

of analysis during the development of 

alternatives. Collectively, they constitute the 

“proposed lands,” which consist of the public 

and private lands outside the NRA that were 

considered most important for conservation, 

and that are included within the larger overall 

study area.

A total of eight land units were identifi ed, 

according to geographical location, similarity 

of resource values, reasonably foreseeable 

activities that occur within them, and land 

ownership. The land units are identifi ed by 

the letters A through H, are shown on the 

map for Alternative 2 ( Proposed Action), and 

are referenced throughout the RPS/EIS. They 

consist of two types of land: (1) privatelyowned land within the COA – Land Units A, 

C, D, E, and G; and (2) non-NPS agency lands 

that are included within the proposed NRA 

boundary shown in Alternative 2 – Land Units 

B, F, and H. For ease of reference, the land 

units are again defi ned below.

Land Unit A (CO 92 COA): private 

lands north and south of Colorado State 

Highway 92 (CO 92) and Morrow Point 

Reservoir, including Black Mesa, Soap 

Mesa, Soap Creek, and Fitzpatrick Mesa

Land Unit B ( Blue Mesa Reservoir 

Agency): agency lands from Soap Creek 

east to Beaver Creek, including Dillon 

Pinnacles, Blue Mesa north and south 

shores, and Gunnison River Canyon

Land Unit C (Gunnison River COA):

private lands in the vicinity of Neversink 

and Riverway

Land Unit D (Iola Basin COA): private 

lands in Iola Basin, and South Gunnison 

River Canyon

Land Unit E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa 

COA): private lands in the vicinity of 

Sapinero Mesa, and Windy Point to 

Hunters Point

Land Unit F (Gateview Agency):

agency lands in the vicinity of Gateview 

Campground

Land Unit G (West-End COA): private 

lands west of Fitzpatrick Mesa on the 

south side of Crystal Reservoir, and the 

area around Spring Gulch on the north 

side of Crystal Reservoir

Land Unit H (West-End Agency): agency 

lands north and south of Crystal and 

Morrow Point Reservoirs.

Collectively, all the land units comprise the 

“proposed lands” for Alternative 2, consisting 

of public lands recommended for addition 

to the NRA (the agency lands); and the lands 

recommended for inclusion in a COA (the 

private lands).
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 133

The criteria that were used to determine the 

area of each land unit are shown in Table 2. 

This table fi rst appeared in the Alternatives, 

Including the Proposed Action chapter, and 

then in the Aff ected Environment chapter. It 

again appears below, for ease of reference. If 

a resource or other criterion occurs within 

a given land unit, it is identifi ed by a dot in 

the matrix. If the dot is highlighted in yellow, 

the associated criterion is considered to be a 

primary reason for the inclusion of the land 

unit within the proposed NRA boundary or 

the COA for Alternative 2.

The impact analysis under each impact 

topic focuses on both area-wide impacts, 

and impacts that are specifi c to each land 

unit. Impacts are highly dependent upon 

future landowner actions, because the rights 

of landowners are not aff ected by either 

alternative. Although NPS may facilitate 

resource conservation opportunities, all 

landowners would continue to have the 

freedom to exercise their personal property 

rights. Because landowner choices cannot be 

predicted by this plan, certain assumptions 

were necessary regarding land development to 

determine qualitative impacts.

Alternative 1 Assumptions

As noted in the Alternatives, Including the 

 Proposed Action chapter, NPS would have 

no authority to expend funds for acquisition 

of fee title or conservation easements outside 

the existing NRA and would not be able to 

acquire funds for such a purpose without such 

congressional authorization. In addition, NPS 

would probably have limited success in going 

to Congress to seek funding for individual 

pieces of property or to add land to the NRA 

on an ad hoc basis.

NPS might be able to use very limited 

operating funds and/or special project funds 

to implement partnered projects within and 

outside the NRA, and would rely more on 

funding from other agencies and organizations 

to accomplish goals such as wildlife habitat or 

wetland improvement projects. Therefore, for 

purposes of analysis, it was assumed in this 

alternative that there is a greater likelihood 

that more of the private lands adjacent to the 

NRA would be developed over time than in 

Alternative 2, and that resource values could 

be compromised.

Some land units within the proposed lands are 

more likely to be developed than other land 

units within the 5-to 10-year timeframe of this 

NEPA analysis. Based on their knowledge of 

the lands surrounding the NRA, members of 

the study team identifi ed this development 

probability in Table 12. Please note that these are 

only assumptions for purposes of analysis. The 

defi nition of each level of development follows.

 Low – Because of topography and 

other issues, there is limited access 

and little development in the area. 

Included are areas where conservation 

easements are already in place. The 

likelihood of development in the near 

future is small.

 Moderate – Topography does not 

exclude development, and some access 

is available. Current landowners may not 

be interested in selling their property.

 High – The area is easily accessible, 

and some development already exists 

in the area.

 Very High – Direct access exists to 

major transportation corridors. 

Development is imminent, or some 

subdivision/development has already 

occurred. Some owners have stated 

they are interested in selling.

Lands with a high or very high development 

potential are the most likely to be developed 

within the next 10 years. Lands with low 

potential would most likely remain in their 

current, undeveloped state for some time into 

the future.

Alternative 2 Assumptions

The congressional authorization of the COA; 

the proactive eff orts by the National Park 

Service to conserve lands surrounding the 

NRA; support from third party benefactors, 

such as conservation organizations and friends 

of the NRA; and the availability of funds from 

GENERAL METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING IMPACTS
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

134 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Table 2: Factors Considered in Establishing Land Units 

Land Unit 

A B C D E F G H 

Criteria 

 CO 92 COA  Blue Mesa Reservoir Agency  Gunnison River COA  Iola Basin COA  Sapinero /Blue Mesa COA  Gateview Agency  West-End COA  West-End Agency 

Administrative Efficiency z z z z z z z

Archeological/Historical Sites z z z z z z z z

Bighorn Sheep – Overall Range z z z z z z

Elk – Severe Winter Range z z z z z z z z

Gunnison Sage-grouse (all categories) z z z z z 

Heron Rookery z 

Historic Railroad Feature z z z

Lynx – Potential Habitat z z z z z

Management Issues / Logical Boundary z z z z z z

Mule Deer – Severe Winter Range z z z z z z z

Paleontology/Geology z z z z

Prairie Dog – Overall Range z z z

Pronghorn – Winter Range z z 

Raptor Range z z z z z z z z

Rare and/or Imperiled Species z z z z z z z z

Recreation Opportunities z z z z z z 

Scenic Qualities from Primary Overlook or within 

3-mile Viewshed z z z z z z z z

Understanding of Significant Resources z z z z z z z

Water Quality z z z z z z z

Notes: 

A dot indicates the criterion is present within the land unit. 

The addition of yellow highlighting indicates that not only is the criterion present, but it is of such significance, in 

combination with the other criteria present, to recommend that the land unit be included within the COA or proposed 

NRA boundary in Alternative 2.
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 135

TABLE 12: PROBABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT BY LAND UNIT

Region of 

Proposed Lands 

Description and Geographic 

Location 

Probability of 

Development in Near 

Future

Land Unit A 

CO 92 COA 

Private lands in COA 

North and south of CO 92 and 

Morrow Point Reservoir: Black 

Mesa, Soap Mesa, Soap Creek, 

Fitzpatrick Mesa 

Low to Moderate 

Low: Fitzpatrick Mesa and 

parts of Soap Mesa 

Moderate: Black Mesa, 

Soap Mesa, Soap Creek 

Land Unit B 

Blue Mesa Reservoir Agency 

Agency lands from Soap Creek 

east to Beaver Creek: Blue Mesa 

north shore, Iola Basin south 

shore, Gunnison River Canyon 

Not applicable – all federal 

land 

Land Unit C 

Gunnison River COA 

Private lands in COA 

Neversink, Riverway Moderate 

Land Unit D 

Iola Basin COA 

Private lands in COA 

South Gunnison River Canyon, 

southeast Iola Basin 

Low to High 

Low: Gunnison River 

Canyon 

High: Southeast Iola Basin 

Land Unit E 

Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA 

Private lands in COA 

Sapinero Mesa; Windy Point; 

Hunters Point 

Very high 

Land Unit F 

Gateview Agency Agency lands in Gateview area Not applicable – all federal 

land 

Land Unit G 

West-End COA 

All private COA lands west of 

Fitzpatrick Mesa and Spring 

Gulch (on both sides of Crystal 

reservoir) 

Low to High 

Low: all areas but Cimarron 

High: Cimarron area 

Land Unit H 

West-End Agency 

Agency lands west of Fitzpatrick 

Mesa and Black Mesa (on both 

sides of Crystal Reservoir), 

including USFS land near Long 

Gulch. 

Not applicable – all federal 

land 

GENERAL METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING IMPACTS
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

136 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Congress would improve the likelihood of 

future resource conservation on private lands. 

This likelihood is emphasized and assumed in 

the impact analysis for Alternative 2. However, 

success of this alternative is dependent in large 

part upon the interest and cooperation of 

private landowners.

Although resource conservation mechanisms 

would be available, it is recognized that 

property owners may choose not to exercise 

any of these options. Thus, it is assumed 

in the Alternative 2 impact analysis that a 

range of actions are possible on any private 

parcel, including: (1) continuation of existing 

conditions, where no land conservation 

tool would be implemented (same as 

Alternative 1); and (2) a land conservation 

tool is implemented, such as NPS providing 

assistance through general agreements or 

incentive payments, or acquisition of an 

interest in the land, such as conservation 

easements or fee simple acquisition. In turn, a 

range of impacts could occur.

Recognizing that a range of impacts are 

possible under Alternative 2, the analysis for 

each impact topic focuses on the potential 

impacts under the assumption that some 

degree of landowner cooperation would 

occur. However, it is also recognized that 

the impacts of Alternative 1 (the No-Action 

alternative) could also occur under Alternative 

2 (the Proposed Action), if there is no 

cooperation on the part of landowners. In 

any event, impacts will be further assessed 

in more detail at the time a land protection 

plan is produced. At that time, which tools of 

resource conservation to apply to which tracks 

of land within the COA will be clearly defi ned.

 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The CEQ regulations to implement the 

National Environmental Policy Act require 

the assessment of cumulative impacts in the 

decision-making process for federal projects. 

Cumulative impacts are defi ned as “the impact 

on the environment which results from 

the incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (federal or nonfederal) or person 

undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 

1508.7). Cumulative impacts are considered 

for all alternatives, including the No-Action 

alternative. Cumulative impacts were 

determined by combining the impacts of the 

alternative being considered with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. Therefore, it was necessary to identify 

other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable 

future projects at the NRA, and if applicable, 

the surrounding region. These projects, also 

known as cumulative actions, are grouped and 

listed below according to agency, county, and 

land trusts and conservation groups.

National Park Service Plans or Actions

Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 

Park and Gunnison Gorge National 

Conservation Area Act of 1999. This Act 

recognizes the many signifi cant ecological, 

geological, scenic, historical, and recreational 

values of lands within and adjacent to the 

Black Canyon of the Gunnison. The Act 

established the Black Canyon of the Gunnison 

National Park, the Gunnison Gorge National 

Conservation Area, and the Gunnison Gorge 

 Wilderness, and expanded the Black Canyon 

of the Gunnison Wilderness. When Congress 

changed the designation of Black Canyon 

from a national monument to a national 

park, land was transferred from the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) to NPS to be 

included within the national park boundary. 

The Act also provided for the continuance of 

existing grazing leases that now occur within 

the park on the former BLM land, through 

the lifetime of the current permit holders. 

The Act provided that NPS could acquire 

by purchase, donation, or exchange, specifi c 

land or conservation easements, subject 

to the approval of the property owner. A 

subsequent Act (2003) further modifi ed the 

boundary of the national park, and identifi ed 

additional private land, again subject to 

landowner approval. The 2003 Act provided 

that Reclamation would retain administrative 

jurisdiction over the Crystal Dam Access 

Road, and land, facilities, and roads of the 

 Bureau of Reclamation in the East Portal Area 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 137

for the maintenance, repair, construction, 

replacement, and operation of any facilities 

relating to the delivery of water and power 

under the jurisdiction of Reclamation.

Fire Management Plan. A fi re management 

plan was approved in 2006 for Curecanti 

National Recreation Area and Black Canyon 

of the Gunnison National Park. The plan 

identifi es a strategy for managing wildfi re, and 

using fi re as one of many management tools. 

NPS wildfi re and prescribed fi re events will 

be coordinated with other agencies (BLM, 

USFS, Reclamation, and Colorado State Forest 

Service) and aff ected private landowners. The 

plan provides NPS with greater fl exibility to 

manage wildfi re and to utilize fi re as one of 

many possible tools to address resource issues.

Other Federal Agency Plans or Actions

Bureau of Land Management. A variety 

of plans exist that outline management 

objectives for BLM land in the region 

surrounding the NRA. They include the 

Gunnison Area and Uncompahgre Basin 

Resource Management Plans, the Gunnison 

Sage-grouse Conservation Plan, the 

 Gunnison Gorge National Conservation 

Area Resource Management Plan, and areawide fi re management plans. Although BLM 

is an agency that manages for multiple-use 

objectives, all of its plans manage regionally 

important natural resources such as elk and 

mule deer winter range, Gunnison Sagegrouse, and riparian habitat to preserve these 

resources. Cultural and recreational resources 

are also managed to preserve their integrity 

and to provide resource-based recreation 

opportunities, respectively.

 Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation intends 

to prepare a draft EIS to describe potential 

eff ects of operational changes for the Aspinall 

Unit that are related to compliance with the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The purpose 

of Reclamation’s proposed action is to 

operate the Aspinall Unit to avoid jeopardy 

to endangered species while maintaining the 

congressionally authorized Unit purposes. 

Alternative operations will be considered. The 

 Aspinall Unit (formerly the Curecanti Unit) of 

the CRSP was authorized by the CRSP Act of 

April 11, 1956 (70 Sat. 105). Reclamation operates 

and maintains the Aspinall Unit, its facilities, 

its lands and land interests, and its water and 

water interests to meet project purposes. The 

presence of the three reservoirs has created 

water-based recreation opportunities.

U.S. Forest Service. The Gunnison National 

Forest adjoins the NRA along its northern side. 

USFS manages land for values similar to the 

NRA and the BLM, such as wildlife habitat 

and recreational resources, but has additional 

mandates to manage for other multiple use 

objectives, including extractive industries, such 

as timber. The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, 

and Gunnison (GMUG) National Forests are 

combined into one administrative unit. At 

present, forest plans are in the process of being 

amended. The process was begun in 2001, and 

a draft plan was released for public review and 

comment in spring 2007. The plan identifi es 

thirteen management areas representing a 

continuum from low management intensity 

with a high degree of naturalness, to high 

management intensity with low levels of 

naturalness. As of this writing, completion of 

the plan was being held in abeyance due to a 

decision by a U.S. District Court pertaining 

to a 2005 Planning Rule being used by USFS.

Information on this project can be obtained at 

the following website: www.fs.fed.us/r2/gmug/

policy/plan_rev.

Western Area Power Administration. 

Western and/or other utilities could propose 

that existing transmission line corridors within 

and adjacent to the NRA be upgraded, or 

new corridors be added, to handle additional 

capacity in order to adequately distribute 

electric power across this east/west pathway. 

There are a limited number of options 

available to the utility industry for routes 

to move product to the market, whether 

the product is electricity, oil or gas, or even 

water; and existing rights-of-way provide an 

opportunity that may not exist elsewhere.

State Agency Plans or Actions

Colorado Department of Transportation 

/ Federal Highway Administration. 

Highway easements and/or rights-of-way 

GENERAL METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING IMPACTS
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

138 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

(ROW) are in place along US 50 and CO 

92; therefore, additional land acquisition 

activity or potential confl icts with the RPS 

are not likely. Future work on US 50 between 

Montrose and Monarch Pass will involve 

modernizing the road, such as providing 8-

foot shoulders where possible. Road widening 

is not anticipated, unless viable opportunities 

present themselves. Some improvements may 

occur to highway intersections, and minor 

road improvements may be made along US 50.

West Elk Loop Scenic and Historic Byway.

The West Elk Loop is one of 25 scenic byways 

designated by the State of Colorado. It covers 

204 miles of two-lane roads through parts of 

rural western Colorado that aff ord spectacular 

views of wilderness areas, canyon rims, and 

a variety of other memorable mountain 

environments. Portions of the byway are 

located along CO 92 and US 50 within the 

proposed lands.

The road begins in Carbondale and follows 

CO 133 south over McClure Pass to Paonia 

Reservoir, Paonia, and Hotchkiss. The road 

continues to head south from Hotchkiss 

on CO 92 veering to the east near the Black 

Canyon of the Gunnison and Black Mesa. 

It joins US 50 at Blue Mesa Reservoir and 

travels into Gunnison. From Gunnison, the 

road travels north to Crested Butte and turns 

west over Kebler Pass, with the loop ending at 

Paonia Reservoir.

In 2000, the West Elk Byway Corridor 

Management Plan was completed. The goals 

identifi ed in the chapter addressing resource 

conservation in that document appear to be 

similar to the objectives of the RPS.

County Plans or Actions

Gunnison County Comprehensive Plan.

The Gunnison County Comprehensive Plan 

is currently in process, and is being developed 

in response to a requirement of state law. The 

vision of the plan is to provide physical and 

economic direction for the county-- as a road 

map for coordination between Gunnison 

County and local cities and towns to address 

future growth. The plan defi nes areas with 

the least and most development constraints, 

identifi es infrastructure needs, and anticipates 

and plans for impacts. It establishes overall 

direction for the county and specifi cally 

addresses issue areas such as housing, 

transportation, economic development, 

agriculture, transportation, recreation, and 

the environment. Two components of the 

plan have been completed and adopted: (1) 

the Crested Butte to Gunnison Corridor 

Plan; and (2) the Upper Crystal River Valley 

Plan. The county has not yet begun to study 

the area east and west of Gunnison, which 

includes the Curecanti area. The county has 

indicated that they may adapt certain aspects 

and/or recommendations for the Curecanti 

area that come out of the RPS, after they 

have undertaken the planning process for the 

western portions of the county.

Gunnison County Land Use Regulation 

(LUR). The purpose of the Gunnison County 

LUR, created in 2001, is to promote the health, 

safety, and general welfare of the citizens 

of Gunnison County by giving reasonable 

consideration to the social, economic 

and environmental characteristics of the 

community and the compatibility of proposed 

land use changes with existing uses. The LUR 

proposes to conserve environmental resources 

by maintaining environmental quality; 

preserving quality and quantity of water 

resources; preserving wildlife habitat; and 

regulating land use in natural hazard areas. 

The LUR also allows for the establishment 

of special geographic areas, or SGAs, if the 

county determines that certain economic or 

resource issues might be more adequately 

addressed with modifi cation of the LUR 

within the SGA. The county has used the 

SGA process sparingly, and any interest in 

considering an SGA for the Curecanti area 

will likely occur after the completion of the 

 Gunnison County Comprehensive Plan.

Montrose County Master Plan. The vision 

for the Montrose County Master Plan 

( Montrose County 2001) is as follows.

 Montrose County should retain its 

outstanding scenic and natural qualities while 

providing quality employment, housing, 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 139

education and recreation to its residents. 

Tourism recreation, agriculture and light 

industries will remain important segments 

of the economy; eff orts will be made to 

diversify and encourage sustainable economic 

development. The majority of the county’s 

youth should be able to have a career and 

eventually raise a family within the county. A 

healthy and vibrant community will continue 

to evolve, and the rural character and 

hometown atmosphere of Montrose County 

will be maintained.

The county is broken into four geographic 

areas, with portions of the NRA in the Maher/

Black Canyon area and the South Valley area. 

NPS lands, north and east of the Gunnison 

River, fall within the Maher/Black Canyon 

area. Lands south of the river, including US 

50, are located within the South Valley area 

that includes Montrose. The relevant land use 

policies include the following:

 Maher/Black Canyon: Preserve the 

rural character and ranching heritage 

of the Maher/Black Canyon area, and 

prepare for any impacts increased 

visitation at the Black Canyon of the 

Gunnison National Park may place on 

the Maher/Black Canyon area.

 South Valley: Support the development 

of land in a manner that is consistent 

with, or does not confl ict with, 

agricultural practices. Manage the 

development of land in a manner that 

is effi cient and cost-eff ective for the 

taxpayers of the county.

Conservation Easements and Land Trusts 

As of 2004, approximately 33,000 acres of land 

within Gunnison County were in easements 

or other types of open space. This represented 

approximately 10% of all private land in the 

county (Michaelson). Another large 10,000-

acre easement is held by the Rocky Mountain 

Elk Foundation north of CO 92. 

 Crested Butte Land Trust - 2,500 

acres (8% of 33,000 acres) – focuses 

on ecological/biodiversity resources, 

viewshed, and riparian resources

 Gunnison Ranchland Conservation 

Legacy – 14,000 acres (42%) – focuses 

on preserving/conserving ranches and 

ranchland

 Nature Conservancy – 8,357 acres (25%)

 Additional conservation easements 

– 4,913 acres (15%)

 Additional open spaces – 3,148 acres 

(10%).

Other Plans or Actions

DeGette’s Wilderness Bill. U.S. 

Representative Diane DeGette has proposed 

that the West Elk Wilderness Area be 

expanded to the south to include that area 

of land between Coal Creek and Red Creek. 

The area would encompass lands currently 

administered by three agencies – USFS, BLM, 

and NPS - and would include some lands in 

Land Unit B being proposed to be included 

in the NRA in Alternative 2. The National 

Park Service has not taken an offi cial position 

on this proposal, and it is not being analyzed 

in the RPS/EIS. However, if this wilderness 

were to be designated, and the land were to be 

included in the NRA, then NPS would work 

closely with USFS to develop management 

guidelines that are compatible with the rest 

of the West Elk Wilderness, while being true 

to the purpose and mission of the NRA. This 

would be addressed in an updated general 

management plan or implementation plan 

for the NRA. Otherwise, due to the relatively 

long and narrow confi guration of the NRA; 

the presence of highways, back-country 

roads, motorized recreational watercraft, 

off -road vehicles, and snowmobiles within 

or surrounding the NRA; and the presence 

of dams, power generating equipment, and 

related facilities, and mechanized operational 

requirements of Reclamation in performing 

their mission; the study team concluded 

that no other area within the NRA or the 

surrounding COA is suitable for Wilderness 

designation. Furthermore, any land that 

Reclamation has withdrawn for their projects 

would be inappropriate for Wilderness 

GENERAL METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING IMPACTS
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

140 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

designation due to project operational 

requirements, as mandated by Congress in the 

 Colorado River Storage Project Act. 

 IMPAIRMENT ANALYSIS

National Park Service management policies 

require an analysis of potential eff ects to 

determine whether or not actions would 

impair NPS area resources. The fundamental 

purpose of the national park system, as 

established by the Organic Act and reaffi rmed 

by the General Authorities Act, as amended, 

begins with a mandate to conserve area 

resources and values. NPS managers must 

always seek ways to avoid, or to minimize 

to the greatest degree practicable, adversely 

impacting resources and values.

These laws give the National Park Service 

the management discretion to allow impacts 

to area resources and values when necessary 

and appropriate to fulfi ll the area’s purposes, 

as long as the impact does not constitute 

impairment of the aff ected resources and 

values. Although Congress has given the 

National Park Service the management 

discretion to allow certain impacts within a 

national park system unit, that discretion is 

limited by the statutory requirement that the 

agency must leave area resources and values 

unimpaired, unless a particular law directly 

and specifi cally provides otherwise.

The impairment that is prohibited by the 

Organic Act and the General Authorities Act 

is an impact that, in the professional judgment 

of the NPS manager, would harm the integrity 

of area resources or values. Impairment may 

result from NPS activities in managing the 

area, visitor activities, or activities undertaken 

by concessioners, contractors, and others 

operating in the area. An impact to any 

area resource or value may constitute an 

impairment, but an impact would more likely 

constitute an impairment if it has a major or 

severe adverse eff ect upon a resource or value, 

where that resource or value is:

 Necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes 

identifi ed in the establishing legislation 

or proclamation of the area

 Key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the area, or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the area

 Identifi ed for conservation by the 

area’s general management plan 

or other relevant NPS planning 

documents.

A determination of whether there is 

impairment, or not, is included in the 

“Conclusion” section for each alternative for 

each impact topic relating to NRA resources 

and values. The determinations are based on 

the above defi nition of impairment. The term 

“impairment,” as defi ned above, does not 

apply to visitor recreation, regional economic 

and social characteristics, or National Park 

Service and neighboring agency operations, 

because for purposes of this analysis, they 

are not considered to be “resources,” such 

as natural resources, cultural resources, and 

scenic resources.

 NATURAL RESOURCES

In general, increased recreational use that 

occurs as a result of implementation of 

Alternative 2: Proposed Action may present 

more impacts to water quality, vegetation, 

wildlife communities, special status species 

and other natural resources, than would 

result under Alternative 1: No Action. This 

is especially true on some lands within the 

Conservation Opportunity Area (COA) should 

they ever be acquired in fee simple, or an 

interest thereof acquired, that would allow for 

public use.

Potential recreational development, and 

related uses such as described in the list 

of existing and potential recreational 

opportunities under Visitor Activities in 

the VISITOR USE, UNDERSTANDING, 

AND ENJOYMENT section of the Aff ected 

Environment chapter, could present localized 

impacts to wildlife, vegetation, soils, water 

quality, and other resources. However, 

before any such recreational development 

occurs, or uses allowed, NPS would evaluate 

the proposal(s) using the NEPA process. 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 141

The evaluation could occur for a single 

development or activity, or as a comprehensive 

study (e.g., a general management plan or 

implementation plan). At that time, impacts on 

the environment would be fully assessed, and 

mitigation measures identifi ed.

All recreational developments and/or activities 

within the future NRA boundary would 

be in accordance with the NPS mission 

of preserving unimpaired the natural and 

cultural resources and values of the NRA for 

the enjoyment, education, and inspiration 

of this and future generations. For any 

recreational uses and/or associated amenities 

authorized on COA lands, NPS would work 

with landowners to minimize impacts so that 

the goals of resource conservation are met.

 WATER QUALITY

Guiding Policies and Regulations

Current laws and policies require certain 

desired conditions be achieved for water 

quality at Curecanti National Recreation Area. 

Refer to the following box for details.

Methodology

Water quality impacts were qualitatively 

assessed using the “General Method 

for Assessing Impacts”, including land 

conservation and development assumptions, 

identifi ed at the beginning of the chapter. The 

following impact thresholds were established 

in order to measure the relative changes in 

water quality (overall, localized, short term 

and long term, cumulative, benefi cial and 

adverse) as a result of the alternative actions.

Negligible: The impact to water resources 

would be localized and incalculable.

Minor: The impact to water resources would 

be localized and calculable.

Moderate: The eff ect on water resources 

would be calculable and would result in a 

change in water chemistry and/or biota over a 

relatively wide area or stream reach.

Major: The eff ect on water resources would 

be calculable and would substantially change 

the water chemistry and/or biota over a large 

area or stream reach within and outside of the 

proposed lands.

Impacts are short-term when water quality 

recovers in less than 1 day. Long-term 

impacts occur when the recovery period is 

30 days or more.

Impacts of Alternative 1 – No Action

Analysis

Depending upon land development patterns 

on private lands within the proposed lands, 

sedimentation and loading of water quality 

contaminants into NRA waters could 

DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR 

WATER QUALITY SOURCE 

Surface water and groundwater are perpetuated as 

integral components of NRA aquatic and terrestrial 

ecosystems, consistent with the primary purposes of 

Reclamation’s projects; and the quality meets or remains 

better than all applicable water quality standards. 

- NPS Management Policies 2006

- NPS- 77, “Natural Resources 

Management Guidelines” 

- Clean Water Act 

- Executive Order (EO) 11514 

“Protection and Enhancement of 

Environmental Quality” 

Conserve the scenery, natural and cultural resources. NRA Purpose 

 NATURAL RESOURCES
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

142 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

potentially increase in drainages adjacent to 

developed areas. Without adequate mitigation, 

degradation of water quality could occur within 

the NRA and proposed lands, resulting in 

short- to long-term moderate to major impacts. 

Degraded water quality could lead to impacts 

to water-based recreational activities, resulting 

in long-term moderate to short-term major 

impacts to visitor use, enjoyment, appreciation, 

and understanding. Some minor benefi cial 

impacts would occur from the continuation 

of baseline understanding of water quality 

conditions through long-term cooperative 

monitoring eff orts, including basin-wide 

partnerships and cooperation with USGS.

Drainages most at risk of degradation include 

Cebolla Creek, Lake Fork, Steuben Creek, Pine 

Creek, and the Gunnison River above Blue 

Mesa Reservoir. Currently, degradation is an 

issue at Cimarron Creek, where E coli regularly 

exceeds standards in the summer months.

Cumulative Impacts

Development, grazing, off -road vehicle use, 

and other disturbance causing activities 

occurring on public and private lands adjacent 

to the proposed lands could continue to cause 

sedimentation and loading of contaminants in 

nearby water systems, including the Gunnison 

River and tributaries. Best management 

practices of federal and county agencies 

that manage or regulate land use in the 

area, such as the BLM, Forest Service, and 

Gunnison and Montrose Counties, would 

minimize some of these impacts on regional 

water quality by controlling or mitigating 

impact-related uses. In addition, private 

lands with conservation easements would 

not likely contribute to cumulative eff ects on 

regional water quality because of restricted 

development rights. These best management 

practices and conservation eff orts would 

mitigate some of the adverse impacts of other 

land use activities, that when combined with 

the impacts of Alternative 1, would result in 

cumulative impacts on area water quality that 

are long-term minor to moderate.

Conclusion 

The continuation of, or increase in, current 

land use practices within the proposed lands, 

particularly development, could cause longterm moderate to short-term localized major 

impacts from increased sedimentation or 

contaminant loading into waters within the 

proposed lands.

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value contained 

within the NRA, whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation for Curecanti 

NRA; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the NRA, or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the NRA; or (3) identifi ed as a goal in the 

NRA’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, as a result 

of activities undertaken by NPS, visitors, 

or concessioners, contractors, or others 

operating within the NRA, there would be no 

impairment of the NRA’s resources or values.

Impacts of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Analysis

There would be no direct impacts to water 

quality within the NRA, including those lands 

transferred from other agencies. Other impacts 

would vary with level of participation in land 

conservation tools, as well as the types of tools 

implemented. Since it is likely that landowners 

within the COA would support some level of 

partnership and participation in the tools that 

are authorized by Congress, long-term minor 

to moderate benefi cial impacts could result. 

Through mechanisms such as conservation 

easements and fee simple acquisition, it is 

likely that development would be limited, 

conserving important resource attributes such 

as vegetation and surface soils. These eff orts 

would result in less potential for sediment 

and other run-off from private lands. In 

addition, agricultural practices allowed under 

an easement would most likely be monitored, 

minimizing the potential for contaminant 

loading into waters of the NRA and proposed 

lands. The quality of existing water-based 

recreation activities would be maintained.
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 143

Cumulative Impacts

As described in Alternative 1, a variety of 

land use activities contribute to adverse 

water quality impacts within the region. 

However, some of these impacts are mitigated 

by ongoing best management practices 

implemented by land management agencies 

or local counties. Other land conservation 

activities outside the proposed lands also 

contribute to improved regional water quality. 

These activities when combined with the 

minor to major benefi cial impacts associated 

with increased land conservation activities 

in Alternative 2, would result in cumulative, 

minor to moderate benefi cial impacts.

Conclusion

The increased likelihood that landowners 

would use tools to conserve resources on their 

property would result in long-term minor to 

major benefi cial impacts on water quality.

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value contained 

within the NRA, whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation for Curecanti 

NRA; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the NRA, or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the NRA; or (3) identifi ed as a goal in the 

NRA’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, as a result 

of activities undertaken by NPS, visitors, 

or concessioners, contractors, or others 

operating within the NRA, there would be no 

impairment of the NRA’s resources or values.

 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY

Guiding Policies and Regulations

Current laws and policies require that certain 

desired conditions be achieved for geology 

and paleontology at Curecanti National 

Recreation Area. Refer to the following box 

for details.

Methodology

Potential impacts to paleontological 

resources were evaluated using the “General 

Methodology for Assessing Impacts.” The 

following impact thresholds were established 

to measure the potential changes in number 

of local paleontological sites as a result of the 

alternative actions.

Negligible: The impact would be localized and 

not detectable, or would be at the lowest levels 

of detection.

Minor: The eff ects to geological and/or 

paleontological resources would be localized 

and slightly detectable.

Moderate: The eff ect on geological or 

paleontological resources would be readily 

apparent and result in a change to their 

character over a relatively wide area.

 NATURAL RESOURCES

DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR 

GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY SOURCE 

Paleontological resources, including both organic and 

mineralized remains in body or trace form, are conserved,

preserved, and managed for public education,

interpretation, and scientific research. 

- NPS Management Policies 2006

- NPS- 77, “Natural Resources 

Management Guidelines” 

Natural geologic resources and processes function in as 

natural a condition as possible, except where special 

management considerations are allowable under policy,

especially to protect facilities, operations, and public 

safety. 

- NPS Management Policies 2006

Conserve the scenery, natural and cultural resources. - NRA Purpose 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

144 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Major: The eff ect on geological or 

paleontological resources would be readily 

apparent and substantially change their 

character over a large area within and outside 

of the proposed lands.

Because most geological and paleontological 

resources are non-renewable, any eff ects 

would be long-term.

Impacts of Alternative 1 – No Action

Analysis

Paleontological resources within Land 

Units A (CO 92 COA) and E (Sapinero/Blue 

Mesa COA) could be susceptible to longterm minor to moderate adverse impacts if 

future land use resulted in disturbance of 

areas where resources exist. Land Unit E 

would be especially vulnerable due to the 

very high development potential of this area. 

Resources in areas that would be transferred 

between agencies ( Land Units B [ Blue Mesa 

Reservoir Agency] and H [West-End Agency]) 

would continue to be conserved, as federal 

management would continue.

Cumulative Impacts

Regional paleontological resources could be 

aff ected by land use practices and activities 

occurring outside the proposed lands, such as 

development of private lands, off -road vehicle 

use and other recreational opportunities, and 

other land-disturbing activities. However, 

federal land management agencies charged 

with conservation of such resources would 

minimize or eliminate some of these impacts 

through monitoring and other management 

activities. Cumulatively, these land-disturbing 

activities when combined with impacts 

associated with Alternative 1 could potentially 

cause minor long-term adverse impacts 

to geological or paleontological features 

throughout the region.

Conclusion

Private lands in the vicinity of Sapinero Mesa 

and the area southeast of Morrow Point 

Reservoir would be vulnerable to long-term 

minor to moderate adverse impacts from 

development and other land uses that could 

result in disturbance and degradation to 

geological and paleontological resources. 

Resources in other locations with lower 

development potential would likely be 

conserved into the foreseeable future.

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value contained 

within the NRA, whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation for Curecanti 

NRA; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the NRA, or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the NRA; or (3) identifi ed as a goal in the 

NRA’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, as a result 

of activities undertaken by NPS, visitors, 

or concessioners, contractors, or others 

operating within the NRA, there would be no 

impairment of the NRA’s resources or values.

Impacts of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Analysis

Though some disturbance to resources 

within the proposed lands would still 

be likely, minor to moderate long-term 

benefi cial impacts would be expected due to 

increased conservation of resources on lands 

brought into the NRA through transfer or 

through the use of other tools by landowners 

within the COA.

Cumulative Impacts

Under Alternative 2, cumulative impacts to 

geological and paleontological resources in 

the region would be similar to Alternative 

1. However, the potential for landowners to 

implement resource conservation tools within 

the COA under Alternative 2 would reduce 

the degree of adverse impacts related to 

Alternative 1, resulting in cumulative negligible 

adverse impacts to these resources.

Conclusion

Minor to moderate long-term benefi cial 

impacts to geological and paleontological 

resources would occur as a result of an 

increase in resource conservation activities.
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 145

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value contained 

within the NRA, whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation for Curecanti 

NRA; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the NRA, or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the NRA; or (3) identifi ed as a goal in the 

NRA’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, as a result 

of activities undertaken by NPS, visitors, 

or concessioners, contractors, or others 

operating within the NRA, there would be no 

impairment of the NRA’s resources or values.

 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE

Guiding Policies and Regulations

Current laws and policies require that certain 

desired conditions be achieved for vegetation 

and wildlife at Curecanti National Recreation 

Area. Refer to the following box for details.

Methodology

Available information on wildlife and 

vegetation resources in the proposed lands 

was compiled. Where possible, map locations 

of sensitive resources within the various land 

units were consulted. Analyzed resources such 

as native vegetation communities, wildlife 

habitats, and special status species may occur 

in suitable habitat within the proposed lands, 

irrespective of ownership or managing agency. 

In addition, habitats extend beyond the 

boundary of Alternative 2’s proposed lands, 

and the evaluated resources are recognized as 

part of the larger ecosystem. The analyses of 

impacts include lands within the NRA as well 

as within the larger area of proposed lands, as 

stated. The following impact thresholds were 

established to measure the relative changes in 

vegetation and wildlife resources as a result of 

the alternative actions.

Negligible: Wildlife, including native fi sh, 

and their habitats would not be aff ected 

or the eff ects would be at or below levels 

of detection and would not be measurable 

or of perceptible consequence to wildlife 

populations. Impacts would be within 

the range of natural variability. No native 

vegetation (including riparian and wetland 

communities) would be aff ected, or some 

individual native plants could be aff ected as 

a result of the alternative, but there would be 

DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR 

VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE SOURCE 

Populations of native plant and animal species function in 

as natural a condition as possible except where special 

management considerations are warranted. 

- NPS Management Policies 2006

- NPS- 77, “Natural Resources 

Management Guidelines” 

Native species populations that have been severely 

reduced in or extirpated from Curecanti National 

Recreation Area are restored where feasible and 

sustainable. 

- NPS Management Policies 2006

Invasive plant and animal species are reduced in numbers 

and area, or are eradicated from natural areas of 

Curecanti National Recreation Area. Such action is 

undertaken wherever such species threaten the native 

vegetation or wildlife resource or public health, or when 

control is prudent and feasible. 

- NPS Management Policies 2006

- EO 13112, “Invasive Species” 

- NPS- 77 “Natural Resources 

Management Guideline” 

Conserve the scenery, natural and cultural resources. - NRA Purpose 

 NATURAL RESOURCES
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

146 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

no measurable or perceptible changes in plant 

community size, integrity, or continuity.

Minor: Eff ects to wildlife or habitats would 

be measurable or perceptible, but localized 

within a small area. While the mortality of an 

individual animal might occur, the viability of 

wildlife populations would not be aff ected, and 

the population, if left alone, would recover. 

Eff ects on native plants, riparian communities, 

or wetlands would be measurable and 

perceptible, but would be localized within a 

small area. The viability of the plant community 

would not be aff ected, and the community, if 

left alone, would recover.

Moderate: Eff ects to wildlife populations or 

habitat would occur over a relatively large 

area. The change would be readily measurable 

in terms of abundance, distribution, quantity, 

or quality of population. A change would 

occur over a relatively large area within native 

vegetation, riparian or wetland communities 

that would be readily measurable in terms of 

abundance, distribution, quantity, or quality.

Major: Eff ects to wildlife populations or 

habitats would be readily apparent, and would 

substantially change wildlife populations over 

a large area within or outside the proposed 

lands. Eff ects on native plant communities, 

riparian communities, or wetlands would 

be readily apparent and would substantially 

change vegetation community types over a 

large area.

Impacts to wildlife and vegetation are shortterm if they could recover in less than one year 

and in less than three years or growing seasons, 

respectively. Long-term impacts would occur if 

wildlife would require more than one year, and 

vegetation would require more than three years 

or growing seasons to recover.

Impacts of Alternative 1 – No Action

Analysis

Native Vegetation. Within the NRA, 

management for conservation of native 

plant communities would continue. Adverse 

impacts would include the likely continuation 

and possible increase in the spread of noxious 

or exotic plant species into the NRA from 

adjacent lands that are not managed for 

weed control. Displacement of native species 

by these species would result in long-term 

minor to moderate adverse impacts to native 

plant communities. Where federal agencies 

and other entities are cooperating to manage 

noxious weeds on lands adjacent to the NRA, 

localized minor benefi cial impacts would 

be realized within the NRA. Overall impacts 

would vary according to the level of funding 

made available to mitigate and control weed 

populations within the NRA.

The spread of noxious or exotic plant species, 

as well as development and other land 

uses, could also displace native vegetation 

communities on private and federal lands 

in the proposed lands, resulting in localized 

long-term moderate to major adverse impacts 

within the proposed lands. Land Unit E 

(Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA) has a very high 

development potential, and portions of Land 

Units D (Iola Basin COA) and G (West-End 

COA) also have high development potential. 

These lands would be most susceptible to 

alteration of native vegetation should these 

areas be disturbed during development.

Riparian and Wetland Communities. 

Riparian and wetland communities within the 

NRA and other federal agency lands would 

continue to be conserved as consistent with 

agency policies. Riparian and isolated (nonjurisdictional) wetlands located outside the 

NRA include those potentially present in 

proposed Land Units C (Gunnison River COA) 

and D (Iola Basin COA). These land units 

include areas of moderate to high development 

potential. Only jurisdictional wetlands are 

subject to regulation by the Corps on private 

lands. Under Alternative 1, moderate adverse 

impacts to riparian and isolated wetland 

communities in these areas would likely occur 

through continuation or increase in land uses 

such as development, haying and grazing. In 

addition, the invasion of noxious weeds into 

these communities could cause moderate 

long-term impacts to riparian or wetland 

communities within the NRA or Land Units 

C and D of the proposed lands. Jurisdictional 

wetlands are protected from fi lling activities 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 147

by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which 

requires appropriate mitigation for impacts. 

Wetland or riparian communities present 

on public lands outside of the NRA would 

be minimally impacted, as policies of land 

management agencies call for benefi cial 

protection of such areas in most instances.

Big Game Wildlife Species. Important habitat 

for big game within the NRA and surrounding 

proposed lands includes severe winter range 

for elk and mule deer, as well as overall range 

for bighorn sheep, and winter range for 

pronghorn. Big game habitat within the NRA 

would continue to benefi t from conservation. 

However, impacts to big game use of habitats 

within the NRA could occur as a result of 

habitat fragmentation on adjacent lands 

from development or other land uses. Longterm minor to moderate impacts to big game 

movements into and out of the NRA would 

occur from the continuation or increase in 

habitat fragmentation on adjacent lands. This 

could lead to the overuse of NRA range and 

long-term moderate impacts to habitat for elk, 

mule deer, bighorn sheep, and pronghorn as a 

result of degradation. In addition, the spread 

of noxious or exotic plant species onto NRA 

lands would likely continue and possibly 

increase, resulting in habitat degradation and 

long-term minor to moderate impacts to NRA 

big game habitat. Impact intensities would 

vary with funding for mitigation of invasive 

weed populations.

Table 13 displays the types of habitat and acres 

of each within the NRA that would continue to 

be conserved within the NRA as well as those 

acres on land units adjacent to the NRA that 

may be directly aff ected by land use activities.

Habitat located on lands outside of the NRA 

would be susceptible to long-term moderate 

to major adverse impacts from loss of severe 

winter range due to noxious or exotic plant 

species invasion, development, or other land 

use. This would include approximately 7,890 

acres of severe winter range for elk and 8,420 

acres of severe winter range for mule deer. 

Severe winter range for elk and mule deer 

in Land Units D (Iola Basin COA) and E 

(Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA) (2,850 and 1,020 

acres respectively) is most vulnerable due 

to high or very high development potential 

of those lands. Bighorn habitat of particular 

concern is located in Land Unit E and 

portions of Land Unit G, where potential 

for development is very high and high, 

respectively. Pronghorn winter range on other 

federal lands and on private lands within the 

proposed lands is located in Land Unit B ( Blue 

Mesa Reservoir Agency) and Land Unit D 

(Iola Basin COA). These areas are somewhat 

protected from direct impacts by the existence 

of current federal agency management and 

low to moderate development potential, 

respectively. Benefi cial impacts to this area, 

and other big game habitats in federal agency 

lands within the proposed lands would 

continue due to agency management policies.

 NATURAL RESOURCES

TABLE 13: BIG GAME HABITATS – NO- ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Species Habitat Type Acres within 

Current NRA 

Acres within 

Privately Owned 

Portions of 

Proposed Lands 

Surrounding NRA 

American Elk Severe Winter Range 18,000 7,890 

Mule Deer Severe Winter Range 16,000 8,420 

Bighorn Sheep Overall Range 14,600 None 

Pronghorn Winter Range 260 1,125 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

148 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

An additional threat to bighorn sheep includes 

the risk of disease transmission to wild herds 

from domestic sheep populations. This risk 

would continue in areas such as Fitzpatrick 

Mesa, where domestic sheep grazing occurs in 

close proximity to bighorn sheep habitat.

Localized benefi cial eff ects would continue 

to occur through current cooperative eff orts 

including agreements with landowners, 

counties, and joint agency management 

eff orts. Benefi ts would be realized on NRA 

lands and adjacent proposed lands where 

cooperative eff orts are occurring.

Raptors. Protection for raptors within the 

NRA and other federally managed lands in 

the proposed lands would continue. The loss 

and fragmentation of habitat on private lands 

in the COA adjacent to the NRA would likely 

continue and possibly increase, resulting in 

indirect long-term minor to moderate adverse 

impacts to raptor use within the NRA. Longterm moderate to major adverse impacts are 

possible on privately owned lands within the 

proposed lands, resulting from loss of raptor 

habitat and hunting grounds due to exotic 

plant species invasion, development, or other 

land use.

Fisheries. There would be potential for land 

use activities that cause sedimentation or 

pollution runoff , such as development or 

grazing that occurs outside of the NRA, to 

negatively impact water quality, resulting in 

indirect short-term to long-term negligible to 

minor eff ects to fi sheries within the NRA as 

well as in land units outside the NRA. Longterm cooperative monitoring eff orts including 

Basin-wide partnerships and cooperation with 

USGS would continue to provide baseline 

understanding of water quality conditions. 

Protection for fi sheries resources within the 

NRA and other federally managed portions of 

the proposed lands would continue.

Cumulative Impacts

Regionally, some vegetation, riparian 

communities and wetlands, and wildlife 

resources would likely experience moderate 

to major short- to long-term adverse 

impacts from the continuation or increase 

in developed land uses, such as residential 

development, that would result in loss of 

native vegetation or their displacement by the 

spread of noxious weeds. Minor to moderate 

localized long-term benefi cial impacts would 

likely result to resources on lands outside of 

the NRA and proposed lands from continued 

current regional cooperative eff orts, including 

resource conservation agreements with land 

owners, the Joint Agency Management Eff ort 

(JAME), and other federal land management 

activities. When combined with the impacts 

of Alternative 1, these land development and 

federal land management activities would 

result in moderate long-term cumulative 

adverse impacts.

Conclusion

The displacement of native vegetation 

communities by noxious weeds that spread 

from lands adjacent to the NRA would result 

in long-term minor to moderate adverse 

impacts to NRA lands. These impacts would 

be minimized where joint agency management 

eff orts are underway. Where private lands 

within the proposed lands lack weed 

management eff orts or occur in land units 

susceptible to development (such as D, E, 

and G), long-term moderate to major adverse 

impacts would result from the spread of 

noxious weeds or alteration and loss of native 

vegetation communities.

Riparian and wetland communities in Land 

Units C (Gunnison River COA) and D (Iola 

Basin COA) would be susceptible to moderate 

to major long-term adverse impacts through 

land use practices, invasion of noxious weeds, 

or development. Riparian and wetlands within 

the NRA and other agency lands would largely 

be conserved, but those communities adjacent 

to private lands with weed issues would be 

susceptible to long-term moderate to major 

adverse impacts.

Long-term minor to moderate adverse 

impacts to big game habitat and raptor use 

of the NRA would result from exotic species 

invasion and continuing habitat fragmentation 

on adjacent lands, particularly Land Units 

D (Iola Basin COA), E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa 

COA), and G (West-End COA). Loss of 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 149

habitat due to noxious or exotic plant species 

invasion, land development, or other land 

uses would result in long-term moderate to 

major adverse impacts on elk and mule deer 

severe winter range and bighorn sheep overall 

range. Raptor habitat and activities would be 

similarly aff ected.

 Fisheries within the NRA would not be 

directly impacted, though water quality 

impacts from activities outside the NRA could 

result in indirect short- to long-term negligible 

to minor eff ects to fi sheries inside and outside 

the NRA.

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value contained 

within the NRA, whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation for Curecanti 

NRA; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the NRA, or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the NRA; or (3) identifi ed as a goal in the 

NRA’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, as a result 

of activities undertaken by NPS, visitors, 

or concessioners, contractors, or others 

operating within the NRA, there would be no 

impairment of the NRA’s resources or values.

Impacts of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Under Alternative 2, a COA would be 

established that would encompass private 

lands within the proposed lands. The NRA 

would be congressionally authorized to 

partner with landowners within the COA for 

the purpose of resource conservation. This 

would provide enhanced opportunities for 

benefi cial eff ects to biological resources in the 

proposed lands through participation by COA 

landowners in partnerships. In addition, the 

 Proposed Action would include a net addition 

of 10,040 acres to the NRA from federal and 

state agency transfers.

Impacts to specifi c resources are detailed 

below. Impact intensities would vary with level 

of participation by landowners in resource 

conservation activities and the types of 

tools implemented, ranging from technical 

assistance and agreements to conservation 

easements and acquisition. In addition, the 

potential for development based on ease of 

access, existing development in the area, and 

topography also factors into prediction of 

impact intensity. Resources within land units 

with the highest potential for development 

would gain the most benefi ts from landowner 

use of tools for resource conservation.

Analysis

Native Vegetation. Within the NRA, 

management for conservation of native 

plant communities would continue, and 

no direct impacts from Alternative 2 would 

occur. Native vegetation on the net 10,040 

acres of land that would be transferred to 

the NRA from other agencies would not be 

impacted directly, as management strategies 

would be similar to those existing, and 

resource conservation would continue. 

Impacts from encroachment of noxious 

weeds from adjacent COA lands into the 

NRA would vary with degree of use of the 

resource conservation tools. Under low 

levels of participation, impacts to native 

vegetation from displacement by noxious 

weeds from adjacent land would be similar to 

those that are possible under the Alternative 

1. Localized, long-term minor to moderate 

benefi cial impacts would result on NRA 

lands adjacent to areas where agencies and 

landowners work cooperatively (for example, 

via JAME) to reduce potential for the spread 

of noxious weeds. Likewise, in other areas 

adjacent to private lands within the COA 

that participate in resource conservation, 

widespread minor to moderate benefi cial 

eff ects could occur through reduced spread 

of exotic species into the NRA. The intensity 

of benefi cial eff ects would vary with the 

type of tools that landowners would choose. 

Benefi cial eff ects would be minor to moderate 

with participation in technical assistance, 

general agreements, and incentive payment 

programs, while participation in conservation 

easements or acquisition programs would 

result in moderate to major benefi cial eff ects. 

In addition, impact intensities would vary with 

funding for mitigation that may be available to 

control weed populations within the NRA.

Impacts to private lands within the COA 

would vary with levels of participation 

 NATURAL RESOURCES
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

150 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

and types of resource conservation tools 

implemented. With low participation rates, 

development would most likely occur in 

Unit E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA) and 

portions of units D (Iola Basin COA) and G 

(West-End COA), where the development 

potential is highest. If development would 

take place in these areas, localized long-term 

moderate to major adverse impacts would be 

possible, as under Alternative 1. However, with 

participation in the congressionally approved 

tools in these portions of the COA, direct 

and indirect long-term moderate to major 

benefi cial impacts could result. Impacts to 

COA lands in land units with low development 

potential would also be benefi cial, though 

at minor levels, due to lower development 

potential. Intensity of benefi cial impacts to 

COA land units would vary based on which 

types of tools would be implemented, from 

those related to acquisition of interests in 

land, to lower levels of conservation, such as 

technical assistance and general agreements.

Riparian and Wetland Communities.

Riparian communities within the NRA, 

including those on lands transferred from 

other federal agencies, would continue 

to be conserved under agency resource 

management policies. Riparian and wetland 

communities in the COA portion of the 

proposed lands include those in Land Units 

C (Gunnison River COA) and D (Iola Basin 

COA). Portions of these land units are located 

in areas with moderate to high development 

potential. Benefi cial protections of most 

jurisdictional wetlands would continue to 

occur on all lands under Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act. If conservation tools were 

implemented in private land units, long-term 

benefi cial eff ects to non-jurisdictional riparian 

and wetland vegetation communities would 

likely result. Eff ects would range from minor 

to major, depending on the types of tools and 

level of conservation enacted.

Big Game Wildlife Species. Habitat for elk, 

mule deer, bighorn sheep, and pronghorn 

within the NRA, and on agency-transferred 

lands would benefi t from resource 

conservation tools identifi ed in Alternative 

2. Some level of participation by landowners 

in resource conservation activities would be 

expected, resulting in minor to major longterm benefi cial impacts to big game species by 

enhanced conservation of habitat within the 

COA. Table 14 displays the habitat type and 

acreage of each big game species that would 

be conserved within the NRA, as well as the 

total acres within the COA that could benefi t 

big game habitat if resource conservation tools 

were implemented.

Habitat located on private lands within 

the COA would be susceptible to adverse 

TABLE 14: BIG GAME HABITATS – PROPOSED ACTION

Big Game 

Species Habitat Type 

Total Acres of Habitat 

under NPS 

Management within 

Proposed NRA 

Acres on Private Lands 

within COA by Land Unit 

that Could Benefit from 

Inclusion in COA 

American 

Elk 

Severe Winter 

Range 25,000 7,890 (Land Units A, D, E, G) 

Mule Deer Severe Winter 

Range 23,000 8,420 (Land Units A, D, E, G) 

Bighorn 

Sheep Overall Range 20,500 None 

Pronghorn Winter Range 340 1,125 (Land Unit D) 

Land units containing at least some lands with high or very high development potential. 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 151

impacts from loss of severe winter range due 

to noxious or exotic plant species invasion, 

development, or other land use, as under 

Alternative 1. Severe winter range for elk and 

mule deer that is located in Land Units D (Iola 

Basin COA), E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), 

and G (West-End COA) is most vulnerable, 

due to high or very high development 

potential of at least a portion of lands within 

those units. Likewise, bighorn habitat of 

particular concern is located in Land Units E 

(Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA) and G (West-End 

COA) due to high development potential. 

On the other hand, pronghorn winter habitat 

within Land Unit D (Iola Basin COA), on 

the south side of the reservoir, is somewhat 

protected due to lower development threats. 

Benefi cial impacts resulting from conservation 

of private lands within the COA would be of 

higher intensity in these areas versus land units 

with lower levels of development potential. 

In addition, conservation easements and fee 

simple acquisition by NPS would most likely 

yield moderate to major benefi cial impacts, 

while less intensive tools would result in minor 

to moderate benefi ts to big game habitat.

Pronghorn winter range that is located on 

BLM land south of Iola Basin in land unit B 

( Blue Mesa Reservoir Agency) would remain 

protected when that parcel is transferred 

to the NRA. Additional pronghorn winter 

range on adjoining private land is somewhat 

protected due to lower development 

pressures; however, conservation eff orts in 

cooperation with landowners could still serve 

to benefi t pronghorn and their habitat. An 

additional threat to bighorn sheep includes the 

risk of disease transmission to wild herds from 

domestic sheep populations. This risk would 

continue in areas such as Fitzpatrick Mesa, 

where domestic sheep grazing occurs in close 

proximity to bighorn sheep habitat.

In addition to partnership benefi ts, localized 

benefi cial eff ects would continue to occur 

through current cooperative eff orts including 

agreements with landowners, counties, and 

JAME. Benefi ts would be seen on NRA 

lands and adjacent proposed lands where 

cooperative eff orts are occurring.

Raptors. Protection for raptors and habitat 

within the NRA, including federal agency 

transfer lands, would continue. It is likely that 

participation in these programs would occur, 

resulting in long-term benefi cial impacts within 

the NRA and COA from reduced loss and 

fragmentation of adjacent habitats. Intensity 

of benefi cial impacts would range from 

minor to major depending upon landowner 

participation and types of tools implemented. 

Benefi cial eff ects would be minor to moderate 

with implementation of tools where no interest 

would be acquired by NPS, and moderate to 

major when interest is acquired.

Fisheries. There would be no direct impact 

to fi sheries resources within the NRA from 

implementation of the proposed action. As 

in Alternative 1, land use activities outside 

of the NRA could negatively impact water 

quality, resulting in indirect short-term to 

long-term negligible to minor eff ects to 

fi sheries within the NRA as well as in the COA. 

Implementation of resource conservation 

tools under Alternative 2 would likely result 

in reduced potential for indirect impacts to 

fi sheries from degradation of water quality. 

Benefi cial impacts would likely be negligible 

to minor due to the low potential for adverse 

impacts to fi sheries resources.

Long-term cooperative monitoring eff orts 

including basin-wide partnerships and 

cooperation with USGS would continue to 

provide baseline understanding of water 

quality conditions. Protection for fi sheries 

resources within the NRA, including federal 

transfer lands, would continue.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts would be similar to 

Alternative 1, except land development and 

federal land management activities outside 

the proposed lands, in combination with 

decreased impacts of Alternative 2 (due 

to resource conservation activities) would 

result in minor to moderate cumulative 

adverse impacts.

Conclusion

Benefi cial impacts to vegetation and wildlife 

resources would result from landowners’ 

 NATURAL RESOURCES
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

152 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

participation in resource conservation 

partnerships. Benefi ts would be greatest in 

those areas of highest development potential, 

such as Land Units D (Iola Basin COA), E 

(Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), and G (WestEnd COA). By taking advantage of resource 

conservation tools that would be available 

under this alternative, long-term benefi ts 

to native vegetation, riparian and wetland 

communities, big game, and raptor habitat 

within NRA and COA lands would range 

from minor to major and those to fi sheries 

resources would range from negligible 

to minor. Intensity of impacts would be 

dependent on location, level of landowner 

participation, and types of tools implemented. 

However, if development occurs on private 

lands within the COA, adverse impacts to 

vegetation and wildlife resources would be 

similar to those described under Alternative 1.

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value contained 

within the NRA, whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation for Curecanti 

NRA; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the NRA, or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the NRA; or (3) identifi ed as a goal in the 

NRA’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, as a result 

of activities undertaken by NPS, visitors, 

or concessioners, contractors, or others 

operating within the NRA, there would be no 

impairment of the NRA’s resources or values.

 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Guiding Policies and Regulations

Current laws and policies require that 

certain desired conditions be achieved for 

special status species at Curecanti National 

Recreation Area. Refer to the following box 

for details.

Methodology

Information regarding threatened, 

endangered, and otherwise designated special 

status species was gathered from consultation 

with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NPS 

specialists, and Colorado Division of Wildlife. 

The methodology described under “General 

Methodology for Assessing Impacts” was used 

to determine resource impacts. In addition to 

the standard impact thresholds, terms used 

by USFWS during Section 7 consultation are 

included for use when determining potential 

impacts to species with federal status.

Negligible: The action would not aff ect a 

listed species or habitat at any detectable 

level, or would be discountable. For purposes 

of Section 7, for analysis of federally listed 

species, the determination would be no eff ect.

Minor: Eff ects on special status species 

or designated critical habitat would be 

discountable (i.e., adverse eff ects are unlikely 

to occur or could not be easily measured, 

detected, or evaluated) or are completely 

DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES SOURCE 

Federal and state- listed endangered or threatened species 

and their habitats are conserved and sustained. 

- Endangered Species Act

- Equivalent state protective 

legislation 

- NPS Management Policies 2006

- NPS 77, “Natural Resources 

Management Guidelines” 

Conserve the scenery, natural and cultural resources. - NRA Purpose 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 153

benefi cial, barely perceptible, and would aff ect 

a few individuals of sensitive species or have 

very localized impacts upon their habitat within 

Curecanti NRA or the proposed lands. For 

purposes of Section 7, for analysis of federally 

listed species, the determination would be may 

aff ect / not likely to adversely aff ect.

Moderate: The action would cause measurable 

eff ects on (1) a relatively moderate number 

of individuals within a sensitive species 

population; (2) the existing dynamics 

between multiple species (e.g., predator-prey, 

herbivore-forage, vegetation structure-wildlife 

breeding habitat); or (3) a relatively large 

habitat area or important habitat attributes 

within the NRA or proposed lands. A sensitive 

species population or habitat might deviate 

from normal levels under existing conditions, 

but would remain indefi nitely viable within the 

NRA. For purposes of Section 7, for analysis 

of federally listed species, the determination 

would be may aff ect / likely to adversely aff ect.

Major: The action would have impacts that 

would involve a disruption of habitat or 

breeding grounds of a sensitive species such 

that casualty or mortality would result in 

removal of individuals from the population 

and the species could be at risk of extirpation 

from the area. For purposes of Section 7, 

for analysis of federally listed species, the 

determination would be likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a species or adversely 

modify critical habitat. This would not 

necessarily constitute impairment unless 

the impact to the listed species or its habitat 

would be aff ected to the point that the NRA’s 

purpose could not be fulfi lled and the species 

could not be enjoyed by current and future 

generations of NRA visitors.

Short-term impacts are those that occur for one 

year or less during the plan implementation. 

Long-term eff ects extend beyond plan 

implementation and last longer than one year in 

terms of population, community, or designated 

critical habitat recovery.

Impacts of Alternative 1 – No Action

Analysis of Federal Species

As discussed in the Aff ected Environment 

chapter, most of the species mentioned by 

USFWS in their list of federally listed species 

in the vicinity of the NRA were not carried 

forward for analysis in this chapter due to a 

lack of occurrence of these species within the 

evaluated land units of the NRA. The only 

federally listed species carried forward for 

analysis is the bald eagle. 

Bald eagle. There would be no direct eff ect 

to bald eagles or their habitat within the NRA 

under Alternative 1. Protection for bald eagle 

within the NRA and other federally managed 

lands would continue. However, the loss 

and fragmentation of bald eagle habitat and 

hunting grounds adjacent to NRA lands due 

to development or other land use would 

likely continue and possibly increase. This 

would result in indirect long-term minor to 

moderate impacts to bald eagle activity within 

the NRA, and direct and indirect long-term 

moderate adverse impacts on proposed lands 

outside the NRA. Therefore, implementation 

of Alternative 1 may aff ect and would likely 

adversely aff ect bald eagle or its habitat within 

the NRA or surrounding proposed lands, 

particularly if development occurred at a high 

rate, as is possible in some areas of Land Units 

D (Iola Basin COA), E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa 

COA), and G (West-End COA).

Analysis of State Species

American peregrine falcon. There would be 

no direct impact to peregrine falcons or their 

habitat within the NRA under Alternative 

1. Protection for peregrine falcon habitat 

within the NRA and on other federally 

managed lands within the proposed lands 

would continue. However, the loss and 

fragmentation of habitat and hunting grounds 

due to development, or other land use 

adjacent to NRA lands would likely continue 

and possibly increase resulting in indirect 

long-term minor to moderate impacts to 

Peregrine Falcon use within the NRA. Since 

the falcon tends to use the canyons, and since 

the canyons are under federal protection, 

 NATURAL RESOURCES
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

154 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

there would probably be minor, or at most, 

moderate direct and indirect long-term 

adverse impacts to peregrine falcons on lands 

outside the NRA.

Colorado River cutthroat trout. No direct 

eff ect would occur to the Colorado River 

cutthroat trout within the NRA or other 

federally managed lands within the proposed 

lands. Degraded water quality outside of 

the NRA would potentially lead to minor 

to moderate adverse impacts to the species, 

both inside and outside the NRA. Baseline 

understanding of water quality conditions 

would continue through long-term 

cooperative monitoring eff orts including 

Basin-wide partnerships and cooperation 

with USGS.

Greater sandhill crane. There would be 

no direct impact to the greater sandhill 

crane or its habitat within the NRA under 

Alternative 1. Management for protection of 

this and other wildlife species would continue 

within the NRA and other federally managed 

lands. However, the loss and fragmentation 

of habitat adjacent to NRA lands due to 

development or other land use would likely 

continue and possibly increase, resulting in 

indirect long-term minor adverse impacts to 

greater sandhill crane use within the NRA, 

and direct and indirect long-term moderate 

adverse impacts outside of the NRA.

Gunnison Sage-grouse. There would be no 

direct impacts to Gunnison Sage-grouse or 

habitat within the NRA. Protection would 

continue on approximately 12,000 acres of 

Sage-grouse habitat within the NRA and on 

other federally managed lands. However, the 

fragmentation of habitat adjacent to these 

lands would likely continue and possibly 

increase, resulting in indirect long-term minor 

to moderate adverse impacts to Gunnison 

Sage-grouse use within the NRA.

On privately owned lands within the proposed 

lands, long-term moderate to major adverse 

impacts are possible on up to 1,700 acres of 

Sage-grouse habitat from loss of habitat due 

to exotic plant species invasion, development, 

or other adverse land uses. Habitat within 

the NRA is not adequate to sustain a viable 

population without support from resources 

that are available on adjacent habitat outside 

of the NRA. Localized minor to moderate 

benefi cial eff ects would occur through current 

cooperative eff orts with the Gunnison Sagegrouse Working Group and the Gunnison 

Sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan. 

Benefi ts would be seen on NRA lands and 

adjacent outside lands where cooperative 

eff orts are occurring.

Implementation of Alternative 1 may aff ect and 

would likely adversely aff ect Gunnison Sagegrouse or its habitat. Though moderate to 

major impacts are possible, continuing eff orts 

related to the Gunnison Sage-grouse Working 

Group would likely mitigate some of these 

impacts within the proposed lands.

Long-billed curlew. There would be no direct 

impact to the long-billed curlew or its habitat 

within the NRA from Alternative 1. Protection 

for long-billed curlew habitat within the NRA 

and other federally managed lands would 

continue. The loss and fragmentation of 

habitat due to development, or other land use 

adjacent to NRA lands would likely continue 

and possibly increase resulting in indirect 

long-term minor impacts to long-billed curlew 

use within the NRA and direct and indirect 

long-term minor adverse impacts on proposed 

lands.

Analysis of NRA Sensitive Species

Great blue heron. There would be no direct 

impact to the great blue heron or its habitat 

within the NRA from implementation of 

Alternative 1. Protection for great blue heron 

habitat within the NRA would continue. On 

private lands within the proposed lands, loss 

and fragmentation of habitat would likely 

continue and possibly increase, resulting in 

indirect long-term minor to major adverse 

impacts to great blue heron use within and 

outside of the NRA.

Within Land Unit C, direct and indirect longterm moderate to major adverse impacts are 

possible on lands from continued suppression 

of cottonwood tree establishment and 

disturbance of the rookeries by land use 

activities. Given the rarity of the rookeries in 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 155

the general area, these impacts could threaten 

the long-term viability of the great blue heron 

in Gunnison County.

Gunnison’s prairie dog. There would be 

no direct impact to the Gunnison’s prairie 

dog or its habitat within the NRA from 

implementation of Alternative 1. Protection 

for the species within the NRA would 

continue. On private lands within the 

proposed lands, loss and fragmentation of 

habitat would likely continue and possibly 

increase, resulting in indirect long-term 

minor to moderate adverse impacts to the 

Gunnison’s prairie dog and its habitat.

Sensitive Plants. Special status plant species 

of interest to this analysis include adobe thistle 

(Rocky Mountain thistle), Black Canyon gilia, 

Colorado desert parsley, Gunnison milkvetch, 

hanging garden Sullivantia, and skiff 

milkvetch. Within the NRA, no direct eff ects 

would occur to any special status plant species 

from implementation of Alternative 1. Within 

privately owned areas within the proposed 

lands, direct or indirect long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts could result from 

loss of individuals or populations related to 

development or other land use.

Cumulative Impacts

Adverse cumulative impacts to special status 

species include the continued existence of 

exotic fi sh species in rivers and tributaries 

and the eff ects on Colorado River cutthroat 

trout viability. Benefi cial management 

practices and conservation eff orts on federal 

lands and properties with conservation 

easements (outside the proposed lands) 

would minimize adverse impacts to special 

status species where applicable. Cooperative 

eff orts between agencies would also benefi t 

certain species. An example is the Gunnison 

Sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan 

that outlines the strategy of the Gunnison 

Sage-grouse Working Group to increase 

grouse populations in the Gunnison Basin. 

The management strategies and monitoring 

activities set forth by the cooperative group 

of federal, state, and county agencies and 

organizations would result in moderate to 

major benefi cial impacts to such species. The 

above actions to manage listed species on 

a regional basis in combination with other 

cumulative eff ects and with Alternative 1 

impacts, would result in minor to moderate 

adverse impacts to special status species in 

the region.

Conclusion

Implementation of Alternative 1 would not 

cause direct eff ects to any special status 

species or associated habitats within the 

NRA. However, loss and fragmentation 

of habitats would continue and possibly 

increase in private land units outside the 

NRA, impacting species and habitats 

within the proposed lands. Federal species 

that may be aff ected and would likely be 

adversely aff ected include the bald eagle. 

Likewise, state listed species including the 

American peregrine falcon, Colorado River 

cutthroat trout, greater sandhill crane, and 

Gunnison Sage-grouse, would experience 

minor to moderate adverse impacts to 

individuals or habitat within the proposed 

lands; while impacts to long-billed curlew 

would be minor. The great blue heron and 

Gunnison’s prairie dog, both NRA sensitive 

species, would also be adversely aff ected 

by indirect impacts from habitat alteration 

or disturbance. Impacts to heron would be 

moderate to major, while those to prairie 

dogs would be minor to moderate. Sensitive 

plant individuals or populations may be 

aff ected and could be lost due to activities 

outside the NRA, potentially resulting in 

minor to moderate adverse impacts to 

adobe thistle (Rocky Mountain thistle), 

Black Canyon gilia, Colorado desert parsley, 

Gunnison milkvetch, hanging garden 

Sullivantia, and skiff milkvetch.

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value contained 

within the NRA, whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation for Curecanti 

NRA; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the NRA, or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the NRA; or (3) identifi ed as a goal in the 

NRA’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, as a result 

of activities undertaken by NPS, visitors, 

 NATURAL RESOURCES
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

156 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

or concessioners, contractors, or others 

operating within the NRA, there would be no 

impairment of the NRA’s resources or values.

Impacts of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Analysis

There would be no direct impact to any 

federal, state, or NRA sensitive species or 

associated habitats from implementation 

of Alternative 2. Under low levels of 

participation by landowners in the COA 

in land protection plans, impacts could 

be similar to those described under 

Alternative 1. However, some participation 

in partnerships and use of land protection 

tools would be expected to yield direct 

and indirect minor to major long-term 

beneficial impacts to federal species such 

as bald eagle due to increased protection of 

habitat. The potential for environmentally 

insensitive development, or other high 

impact land use on private lands within the 

COA would decrease, reducing the loss and 

fragmentation of habitats for bald eagle, 

especially on Land Units D (Iola Basin 

COA), E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), and 

G (West-End COA). Federal special status 

species or their habitats may be affected, but 

are not likely to be adversely affected under 

Alternative 2.

State listed species such as the American 

peregrine falcon, Colorado River cutthroat 

trout, greater sandhill crane, Gunnison 

Sage-grouse, and long-billed curlew, would 

also benefi t from decreased habitat loss and 

fragmentation and increased conservation. 

Approximately 13,000 acres of Gunnison 

Sage-grouse habitat would be protected 

within the NRA; and an additional 1,700 acres 

of habitat would potentially be conserved 

on private property in Land Units C, D, and 

E through partnerships and use of resource 

conservation tools. These species and 

associated habitats would experience minor 

to moderate long-term benefi cial impacts 

under Alternative 2.

The NRA sensitive great blue heron and its 

habitat would likely experience minor to 

major benefi cial impacts under Alternative 2 

through potential long-term conservation of 

the heron rookery in Land Unit C (Gunnison 

River COA), and other riparian habitat in 

Land Unit D (Iola Basin COA). In addition, 

the Gunnison’s prairie dog would benefi t 

from conservation of COA Land Units C and 

D (Gunnison River and Iola Basin), as well as 

Land Unit H, which contain overall range for 

the species.

Sensitive plant species, including adobe thistle 

(Rocky Mountain thistle), Black Canyon gilia, 

Colorado desert parsley, Gunnison milkvetch, 

hanging garden Sullivantia, and skiff 

milkvetch, would likely experience minor to 

moderate benefi cial impacts under Alternative 

2 from reduced potential for loss of individuals 

or populations from development or other 

land use.

The intensity of benefi cial impacts on private 

COA lands would vary with the level of 

partnership and the types of conservation 

tools implemented. These benefi cial impacts 

would also carry over onto adjacent public 

lands within the NRA. 

Cumulative Impacts

Continued regional cooperative eff orts 

between federal, state, and local agencies 

would contribute moderate to major benefi cial 

impacts to certain species such as the 

Gunnison Sage-grouse. The contribution from 

Alternative 2 to cumulative eff ects would also 

be benefi cial, though some adverse impacts 

could still occur outside of the NRA and the 

proposed lands due to development and other 

land use activities. Overall, cumulative eff ects 

to special status species in the region would be 

minor to major benefi cial.

Conclusion

Implementation of Alternative 2 would 

benefi t special status wildlife species and 

therefore would have no eff ect on the bald 

eagle, Gunnison Sage-grouse, Colorado 

River cutthroat trout, American peregrine 

falcon, greater sandhill crane, long-billed 

curlew, great blue heron, or other sensitive 

species. Special status plant species would 

also experience benefi cial impacts. Through 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 157

 NATURAL RESOURCES

decreased potential for development and 

other land use activities that are detrimental 

to habitats, all special status species within 

the proposed lands would have opportunities 

for increased conservation and potential for 

populations to expand. Benefi ts would be 

greatest on Land Units D (Iola Basin COA), 

E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), and G (WestEnd COA), where development potential is 

currently the highest. However, resources on 

other private lands within the COA would 

benefi t as well. In addition, there are no 

immediate plans for developments or new 

recreational facilities that would aff ect these 

species. Future proposals would be evaluated 

using the NEPA process prior to project 

approval.

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value contained 

within the NRA, whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation for Curecanti 

NRA; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the NRA, or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the NRA; or (3) identifi ed as a goal in the 

NRA’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, as a result 

of activities undertaken by NPS, visitors, 

or concessioners, contractors, or others 

operating within the NRA, there would be no 

impairment of the NRA’s resources or values.

 NATURAL LIGHTSCAPE (NIGHT SKY)

Guiding Policies and Regulations

Current laws and policies require that certain 

desired conditions be achieved for natural 

lightscapes at Curecanti National Recreation 

Area. Refer to the following box for details.

Methodology

The analyses of impacts include lands within 

the NRA as well as within the larger area 

of proposed lands, as stated. The following 

impact thresholds were established to measure 

the relative changes in natural lightscapes as a 

result of the alternative actions.

Negligible: The impact would be barely 

detectable, would not occur in primary 

resources areas, or would aff ect few visitors.

Minor: The impact would be slight but 

detectable, would not occur in primary 

resource areas, or would aff ect few visitors.

Moderate: The impact would be readily 

apparent, would occur in primary resource 

areas, or would aff ect many visitors.

Major: The eff ect would be severely adverse 

or exceptionally benefi cial, would occur in 

primary resource areas, or would aff ect the 

majority of visitors.

DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR 

NATURAL LIGHTSCAPE SOURCE 

Artificial outdoor lighting will be limited to basic safety,

security, and operational requirements, and will be 

shielded when possible. NPS will coordinate with 

neighbors and local government agencies to find ways to 

minimize the intrusion of artificial light into the night 

scene in the NRA, in an effort to conserve this segment of 

the natural resource.

- NPS Management Policies 2006

- NRA Purpose 

Conserve the scenery, natural and cultural resources. - NRA Purpose 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

158 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Impacts of Alternative 1 – No Action 

Analysis

Except for Reclamation’s primary jurisdiction 

areas around the dams, natural lightscapes 

within the NRA would continue to be 

conserved through management policies 

that limit artifi cial light, especially in natural 

areas. Private portions of the proposed lands 

surrounding the NRA that remain in their 

current undeveloped condition would also 

continue to contribute to the existing high 

quality night sky surrounding the NRA.

Cooperation from neighbors and local 

government agencies would minimize the 

intrusion of artifi cial light from adjacent areas 

into the night scene in the NRA. There are 

currently greater restrictions pertaining to 

outdoor lighting within the Gunnison County 

 Land Use Resolution, and no substantial 

restrictions pertaining to lighting associated 

with development within Montrose County.

With the ever-increasing probability that 

privately owned portions of the proposed 

lands would eventually be developed, it is a 

reasonable assumption that more and more 

outdoor lights will be installed along with 

the developments. In general, a single light 

source may not be a signifi cant problem. 

However, the accumulative eff ect of additional 

development could result in long-term, minor 

to moderate, adverse impacts to the night sky, 

depending upon factors such as decisions by 

landowners, county land use regulations, and 

population growth.

 Land Units A (CO 92 COA), D (Iola Basin 

COA), E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), and 

G (West-End COA) would be more likely 

impacted by development in the near future. 

This is due to their accessibility from US 50, 

CO 92, and CO 149, and local roads such 

as Soap Creek Road; and to the existence 

of other development in the vicinity. Rapid 

expansion and commercial growth in 

Montrose and to a lesser extent Delta are a 

direct threat to Black Canyon. The terrain 

in the Montrose area does defl ect some 

of the light generated in the city at night. 

Black Canyon and Curecanti currently off er 

popular night sky programs several times 

through out the year and work with local 

astronomical societies to host star gatherings 

in the parks. Black Canyon and Curecanti are 

two of the darkest national parks measured in 

southwestern Colorado.

Scientifi c research regarding elements of 

night sky is on-going. As the NPS collects 

and analyzes data, that information will be 

shared with neighbors and local offi cials 

to develop complementary approaches to 

night sky conservation through a variety of 

environmentally friendly techniques in urban 

and residential site planning and design. 

Distance is the primary component in light 

pollution. Light diminishes to the negative 2.5 

power of distance, so that a town of 10,000 10 

miles away will appear 6x brighter than a town 

of 10,000 20 miles away. This principal makes 

the distance to specifi c areas of the park an 

important factor. 

Topography also plays an important role. A 

town like Gunnison at a high elevation will 

appear to be brighter than a town in a valley 

or obscured by mountains. A site down in a 

canyon will be darker than one up on the mesa. 

A third factor is the brightness of the town’s 

lights. There can be signifi cant gains or losses 

in environmental quality depending on how 

bright the lights a town chooses to install 

and whether those lights are shielded. Vail, 

Colorado for example, has very subdued lights 

and approximately 1,000 lumens per capita of 

installed outdoor lights. In contrast, Las Vegas 

has approximately 5,000 lumens per capita. 

Degradation of the night sky condition also 

depends on other factors such as the growth 

rate of the surrounding communities; types 

of industries; and the conservation eff orts 

employed to reduce night light. Given the 

residential growth within the state and the 

demonstrated increase statewide in light 

pollution, a threat does exist to the quality of 

night sky experienced in this region.

Night skies also play a role in defi ning 

wilderness characteristics found in places such 

as the Black Canyon Wilderness and nearby 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 159

USFS Wilderness areas. Much remains to 

be understood about the possible ecological 

disruption in these areas due to nocturnal 

habitat loss as a result of increased night light.

Cumulative Impacts

Conservation and planning activities occurring 

throughout the proposed lands within 

Gunnison and Montrose Counties could result 

in a variety of impacts to local and regional 

night sky resources. The Gunnison County 

Comprehensive Plan is expected to evaluate a 

wide range of factors in developing a strategy 

for growth in the Curecanti area. Eff orts 

from the Comprehensive Plan could result 

in long-term benefi cial impacts on night sky 

resources adjacent to the NRA by considering 

such resources in the development and 

implementation of recommendations.

Long-term management plans by agencies 

such as the U.S. Forest Service and BLM 

would continue to conserve night sky values. 

This would result in benefi cial impacts.

CDOT/FHWA highway modernization 

plans could influence development along 

the US 50 corridor, further affecting the 

highway corridor and its aesthetics. Such 

development could result in long-term, 

localized minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on the night sky resource.

The long-term minor to moderate adverse 

impacts to night sky values that could result 

from Alternative 1 from potential development 

and land use in the proposed lands 

surrounding the NRA, when combined with 

the potential adverse and benefi cial impacts 

of other regional planning and conservation 

eff orts, could result in cumulative long-term 

minor to major adverse impacts to natural 

lightscapes in the region.

Conclusion 

Except for Reclamation’s primary jurisdiction 

areas around the dams, night sky values 

within the NRA and on adjacent federal 

and state lands would continue to be 

conserved through federal and state land 

management activities. Private portions of the 

proposed lands that remain in their current 

undeveloped condition would also continue 

to contribute to the existing high-quality 

natural landscape in the area.

However, private portions of the proposed 

lands surrounding the NRA would 

continue to be increasingly subject to 

future development and other land uses in 

Alternative 1 that could interfere with night 

sky values within the NRA. Even with county 

regulations, this could result in long-term 

minor to moderate adverse impacts to the 

natural lightscape/night sky resource.

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value contained 

within the NRA, whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation for Curecanti 

NRA; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the NRA, or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the NRA; or (3) identifi ed as a goal in the 

NRA general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, as a result 

of activities undertaken by NPS, visitors, 

or concessioners, contractors, or others 

operating within the NRA, there would be no 

impairment of the NRA’s resources or values.

Impacts of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Analysis

As in Alternative 1, except for Reclamation’s 

primary jurisdiction areas around the 

dams, night sky values within the NRA and 

on other adjacent federal and state lands 

would continue to be conserved through 

implementation of federal and state land 

management plans. Thus impacts to natural 

lightscape resources on public lands would be 

the same in Alternatives 1 and 2.

On private portions of the COA, the 

availability of resource conservation tools 

to private landowners, and increased 

congressionally authorized eff orts on the 

part of NPS to conserve resources, would 

help maintain existing night sky quality. 

Should landowners implement resource 

tools such as conservation easements or 

fee simple acquisition, long-term minor to 

moderate benefi cial impacts could occur, 

 NATURAL RESOURCES
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

160 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

depending upon the degree of development or 

conservation. However, the availability of such 

tools would increase the likelihood that some 

or all of the resources within the COA would 

be conserved.

Some of the areas that have more potential 

for private development, and in turn, more 

potential for adverse impacts on night sky 

values, are located in Land Units A (CO 92 

COA), D (Iola Basin COA), E (Sapinero/Blue 

Mesa COA), and G (West-End COA). These 

areas have been identifi ed in Alternative 1, and 

include areas such as Sapinero Mesa, Soap 

Mesa, Blue Mesa, and Cimarron.

In general, there is expected to be a longterm minor to moderate benefi cial impact on 

night sky resources through implementation 

of Alternative 2. This would result from the 

creation of the COA and the authorization and 

ability of NPS to work in more meaningful 

partnerships with private landowners within 

the COA; increased cooperation between NPS 

and its neighbors; and the implementation 

of the tools for resource conservation. Also, 

working with local government, visible 

night sky improvement might occur with 

the implementation of a lighting protocol 

that reduces light emissions (NPS, Night Sky 

Quality Monitoring Report, Prepared by Chad 

Moore, November 8, 2006).

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts related to the actions 

in Alternative 2 would be more benefi cial 

than Alternative 1. Many local and regional 

planning and conservation activities would 

continue to result in long-term, minor to 

major benefi cial impacts to local and regional 

night sky values. Without cooperation of 

private landowners in the COA, the overall 

cumulative impact of Alternative 2 could be 

adverse, as in Alternative 1. However, with 

the cooperation of private landowners, the 

potentially benefi cial impacts associated with 

the resource conservation tools suggested 

in Alternative 2 could result in long-term, 

moderate, benefi cial, cumulative impacts. 

The overall impact of these combined eff orts 

of federal, state, and local agencies, as well as 

private landowners that conserve the natural 

lightscape resources on their land would be 

positive and widespread.

Conclusion

Some of the areas where there is more 

potential for development, and in turn, 

more potential for adverse impacts on 

natural lightscapes, are located on private 

property in Land Units A (CO 92 COA), 

C (Gunnison River COA), D (Iola Basin 

COA), E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), and 

G (West-End COA). Conservation of these 

areas would result in long-term minor to 

moderate benefi cial impacts to both local and 

NRA-wide lightscapes for NRA visitors and 

residents alike. The availability of resource 

conservation tools to private landowners, and 

congressionally authorized increased eff orts 

on the part of NPS to work in partnership 

with private landowners to conserve natural 

lightscapes within the COA, would help 

maintain existing night sky quality.

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value contained 

within the NRA, whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation for Curecanti 

NRA; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the NRA, or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the NRA; or (3) identifi ed as a goal in the 

NRA’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, as a result 

of activities undertaken by NPS, visitors, 

or concessioners, contractors, or others 

operating within the NRA, there would be no 

impairment of the NRA’s resources or values.

 NATURAL SOUNDSCAPE

Guiding Policies and Regulations

Current laws and policies require that certain 

desired conditions be achieved for natural 

soundscapes at Curecanti National Recreation 

Area. Refer to the following box for details.
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 161

Methodology

The analyses of impacts include lands within 

the NRA as well as within the larger area 

of proposed lands, as stated. The following 

impact thresholds were established to measure 

the relative changes in natural soundscapes as 

a result of the alternative actions.

Negligible: The impact would be barely 

detectable, would not occur in primary 

resources areas, or would aff ect few visitors.

Minor: The impact would be slight but 

detectable, would not occur in primary 

resource areas, or would aff ect few visitors.

Moderate: The impact would be readily 

apparent, would occur in primary resource 

areas, or would aff ect many visitors.

Major: The eff ect would be severely adverse 

or exceptionally benefi cial, would occur in 

primary resource areas, or would aff ect the 

majority of visitors.

Impacts of Alternative 1 – No Action 

Analysis

Except where motorized recreational 

vehicles and boats are authorized, 

and except for Reclamation’s primary 

jurisdiction areas around the dams, natural 

soundscape within the NRA would continue 

to be conserved through management 

policies that limit manmade sounds in 

certain areas. The locations within the NRA 

that currently offer the best opportunities 

for solitude and enjoyment of natural 

sounds would continue to do so. Private 

portions of the proposed lands surrounding 

the NRA that remain in their current 

undeveloped condition would also continue 

to contribute to the existing high quality of 

the soundscape surrounding the NRA.

Coordination with neighbors and local 

government agencies would minimize the 

intrusion of excessive noise from adjacent 

areas and activities into quiet areas of the 

NRA. However, there is an increasing 

probability that privately owned portions 

of the proposed lands would experience 

property development and other land uses 

that could interfere with natural ambient 

sound and overall soundscape values. 

Increased development would result in 

increased traffi c and other activities that 

could impact the soundscape of the region. 

This could result in long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts to the NRA’s 

natural soundscape depending upon factors 

such as decisions by landowners, county land 

use regulations, and population growth.

 Land Units A (CO 92 COA), D (Iola Basin 

COA), E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), and G 

(West-End COA) would be more likely to be 

impacted by development in the near future, 

and are therefore more likely to experience 

adverse impacts on the natural soundscape. 

This is due to their accessibility from US 50, 

CO 92, and CO 149, and local roads such as 

Soap Creek Road; and to the existence of 

other development in the vicinity.

DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR 

NATURAL SOUNDSCAPE SOURCE 

In those areas of the NRA where visitors have the 

opportunity to experience natural quiet and solitude,

recreational use is managed to preserve this condition. 

Noisier conditions are accepted along roads, in areas 

surrounding the dams and related Reclamation 

operations and facilities, and where motorized 

recreational pursuits, such as motor boating and 

snowmobiling are allowed. 

- NPS Management Policies 2006

- DO 47, “Sound Preservation and 

Noise Management” 

Conserve the scenery, natural and cultural resources. - NRA Purpose 

 NATURAL RESOURCES
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

162 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Cumulative Impacts

Conservation and planning activities occurring 

throughout the proposed lands and within 

Gunnison and Montrose Counties could result 

in a variety of impacts to local and regional 

soundscape values. The Gunnison County 

Comprehensive Plan is expected to evaluate a 

wide range of factors in developing a strategy 

for growth in the Curecanti area. Eff orts 

from the Comprehensive Plan could result in 

long-term benefi cial impacts on soundscape 

resources adjacent to the NRA by considering 

such resources in the development and 

implementation of recommendations.

Long-term management plans by agencies 

such as the U.S. Forest Service and BLM would 

continue to be in place. This would result in 

benefi cial impacts to the soundscape resource.

CDOT/FHWA highway modernization plans 

could infl uence development along the US 50 

corridor, further aff ecting the highway corridor 

and its aesthetics, including the soundscape. 

Such development could result in long-term, 

localized minor to moderate adverse impacts 

on the area’s natural soundscape.

The long-term minor to moderate adverse 

impacts to soundscape values that could result 

from potential development and land use in 

the proposed lands surrounding the NRA 

under Alternative 1, when combined with 

the potential adverse and benefi cial impacts 

of other regional planning and conservation 

eff orts, could result in cumulative long-term 

minor to moderate adverse impacts to natural 

soundscapes in the region.

Conclusion 

Except where motorized recreational vehicles 

and boats are authorized, and except for 

Reclamation’s primary jurisdiction areas 

around the dams, the soundscape within 

the NRA and on other adjacent federal and 

state lands would continue to be conserved 

through federal and state land management 

activities. Private portions of the proposed 

lands that remain in their current undeveloped 

condition would also continue to contribute to 

maintaining the natural soundscape in the area.

However, private portions of the proposed 

lands surrounding the NRA would 

continue to be increasingly subject to 

future development and other land uses 

in Alternative 1 that could interfere with 

soundscape values within the NRA. This 

could result in long-term, minor to moderate 

adverse impacts to natural soundscapes.

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value contained 

within the NRA, whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation for Curecanti 

NRA; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the NRA, or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the NRA; or (3) identifi ed as a goal in the 

NRA’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, as a result 

of activities undertaken by NPS, visitors, 

or concessioners, contractors, or others 

operating within the NRA, there would be no 

impairment of the NRA’s resources or values.

Impacts of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Analysis

As in Alternative 1, except where motorized 

recreational vehicles and boats are authorized, 

and except for Reclamation’s primary 

jurisdiction areas around the dams, natural 

soundscape values within the NRA and 

on other adjacent federal and state lands 

would continue to be conserved through 

implementation of federal and state land 

management plans. Thus impacts to such 

resources on public lands would be the same 

in Alternatives 1 and 2.

On private portions of the COA, the availability 

of resource conservation tools to private 

landowners, and increased congressionally 

authorized eff orts on the part of the National 

Park Service to conserve resources, would help 

maintain existing soundscape quality. Should 

landowners implement resource conservation 

tools such as conservation easements or 

fee simple acquisition, long-term minor to 

moderate benefi cial impacts could occur, 

depending upon the degree of development or 

conservation. However, the availability of such 

tools would increase the likelihood that some 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 163

 NATURAL RESOURCES

or all of the resources within the COA would be 

conserved, and the natural soundscapes would 

be preserved or enhanced.

Some of the areas that have more potential 

for private development, and in turn, more 

potential for adverse impacts on natural 

soundscapes, are located in Land Units A (CO 

92 COA), D (Iola Basin COA), E (Sapinero/

Blue Mesa COA), and G (West-End COA). 

These areas have been identifi ed in Alternative 

1, and include areas such as Sapinero Mesa, 

Soap Mesa, Blue Mesa, and Cimarron.

In general, there is expected to be a 

long-term minor to moderate benefi cial 

impact on soundscape resources through 

implementation of Alternative 2. This would 

result from the creation of the COA and the 

authorization and ability of the National 

Park Service to work in more meaningful 

partnerships with private landowners within 

the COA; increased cooperation between NPS 

and its neighbors; and the implementation of 

the tools for resource conservation.

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts related to the actions in 

Alternative 2 would be more benefi cial than 

Alternative 1. Many local and regional planning 

and conservation activities would continue to 

result in long-term, minor to major benefi cial 

impacts to local and regional soundscape 

values. Without cooperation of private 

landowners in the COA, the overall cumulative 

impact of Alternative 2 could be adverse, as in 

Alternative 1. However, with the cooperation 

of private landowners, the potentially 

benefi cial impacts associated with the resource 

conservation tools suggested in Alternative 2 

could result in long-term, moderate, benefi cial, 

cumulative impacts on the natural soundscape. 

The overall impact of these combined eff orts 

of federal, state, and local agencies, as well as 

private landowners that conserve the natural 

soundscape resources on their land, would be 

positive and widespread.

Conclusion

Some of the areas that have more potential for 

development, and in turn, more potential for 

adverse impacts on the natural soundscape, 

are located on private property in Land Units 

A (CO 92 COA), C (Gunnison River COA), 

D (Iola Basin COA), E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa 

COA), and G (West-End COA). Conservation 

of these areas would be benefi cial to both local 

and NRA-wide soundscapes for visitors and 

residents alike. The availability of resource 

conservation tools to private landowners, and 

congressionally authorized increased eff orts 

on the part of the National Park Service to 

work in partnership with private landowners 

to conserve natural soundscapes within the 

COA, would help maintain and/or enhance 

existing soundscape quality. This could result 

in long-term, minor to moderate benefi cial 

impacts to natural soundscapes.

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value contained 

within the NRA, whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation for Curecanti 

NRA; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the NRA, or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the NRA; or (3) identifi ed as a goal in the 

NRA’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, as a result 

of activities undertaken by NPS, visitors, 

or concessioners, contractors, or others 

operating within the NRA, there would be no 

impairment of the NRA’s resources or values.
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

164 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Guiding Policies and Regulations

Current laws and policies require that certain 

desired conditions be achieved for cultural 

resources at Curecanti National Recreation 

Area. Refer to the following box for details.

Methodology and Assumptions

In this assessment, impacts to cultural 

resources (archeological resources and 

historic structures) are described in terms of 

type, context, duration, and intensity, which 

is consistent with the CEQ regulations. These 

impact analyses are intended, however, to 

comply with the requirements of both the 

National Environmental Policy Act and Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

(NHPA). In accordance with the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations 

implementing Section 106 (36 CFR 800, 

“Protection of Historic Properties”), impacts 

to cultural resources were identifi ed and 

evaluated by (1) determining the area of 

potential eff ects; (2) identifying cultural 

resources present in the area of potential 

eff ects that were either listed on or eligible to 

be listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places; (3) applying the criteria of adverse 

eff ect to aff ected cultural resources either 

listed on or eligible to be listed on the National 

Register; and (4) considering ways to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse eff ects.

Under the Advisory Council’s regulations, 

a determination of either adverse eff ect

or no adverse eff ect must also be made for 

aff ected, National Register eligible cultural 

resources. An adverse eff ect occurs whenever 

an impact alters, directly or indirectly, any 

characteristic of a cultural resource that 

qualify it for inclusion on the National 

Register (e.g., diminishing the integrity of the 

DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR 

CULTURAL RESOURCES SOURCE 

Conserve the natural and historic objects within the NRA 

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. 

- NPS Organic Act of 1916 

Preserve, conserve, and encourage the continuation of the 

diverse traditional prehistoric, historic, ethnic, and folk 

cultural traditions that underlie and are a living 

expression of our American heritage. 

- National Historic Preservation 

Act 

Protect and preserve for American Indians access to sites,

use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to 

worship through ceremonials and traditional rites. 

- American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act 

Secure, for the present and future benefit of the American 

people, the protection of archeological resources and 

sites that are on public lands. 

- Archeological Resources 

Protection Act 

Accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian 

sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners; and avoid 

adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred 

sites. 

- Executive Order 13007 

The National Park Service must be respectful of these 

ethnographic resources, and carefully consider the effects 

that NPS actions may have on them. 

- NPS Management Policies 2006

Conserve the scenery, natural and cultural resources, and 

wildlife. 

- NRA Purpose 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 165

resource’s location, design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, or association). Adverse 

eff ects also include reasonably foreseeable 

eff ects caused by the Proposed Action 

that would occur later in time, be farther 

removed in distance or be cumulative (36 CFR 

800.5, “Assessment of Adverse Eff ects”). A 

determination of no adverse eff ect means there 

is an eff ect, but the eff ect would not diminish 

in any way the characteristics of the cultural 

resource that qualify it for inclusion on the 

National Register.

CEQ regulations and DO 12 also call for 

a discussion of the appropriateness of 

mitigation, as well as an analysis of how 

eff ective the mitigation would be in reducing 

the intensity of a potential impact (e.g., 

reducing the intensity of an impact from 

major to moderate or minor). Any resultant 

reduction in intensity of impact due to 

mitigation, however, is an estimate of the 

eff ectiveness of mitigation only under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. It does 

not suggest that the level of eff ect as defi ned 

by Section 106 is similarly reduced. Although 

adverse eff ects under Section 106 may be 

mitigated, the eff ect remains adverse.

Certain important research questions about 

human history can only be answered by the 

actual physical material of cultural resources. 

Archeological resources have the potential 

to answer, in whole or in part, such research 

questions. An archeological site(s) can be 

eligible to be listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places if the site(s) has yielded, or 

may be likely to yield, information important 

in prehistory or history. An archeological 

site(s) can be nominated to the National 

Register in one of three historic contexts or 

levels of signifi cance: local, state, or national 

(National Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply 

the National Register Criteria for Evaluation).

For purposes of analyzing impacts to 

archeological resources, thresholds of change 

for the intensity of an impact are based upon 

the potential of the site(s) to yield information 

important in prehistory or history, as well as the 

probable historic context of the aff ected site(s):

Negligible: The impact is at the lowest level 

of detection or barely measurable, with no 

perceptible consequences, either adverse or 

benefi cial, to archeological resources. For 

purposes of Section 106, the determination of 

eff ect would be no adverse eff ect.

Minor Adverse Impact: The impact would 

aff ect an historic structure, site, or district, or 

an archeological site with the potential to yield 

information important in prehistory or history. 

The historic context of the aff ected site(s) 

would be local. For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of eff ect would be adverse eff ect.

Minor Benefi cial Impact: A site would be 

preserved in its natural state. For purposes of 

Section 106, the determination of eff ect would 

be no adverse eff ect.

Moderate Adverse Impact: The impact would 

aff ect an archeological site with the potential 

to yield information important in prehistory 

or history. The historic context of the aff ected 

site would be statewide. For a National 

Register eligible or listed historic structure, or 

historic district, the impact is readily apparent, 

and/or changes a character-defi ning feature(s) 

of the resource to the extent that its National 

Register eligibility is jeopardized. For purposes 

of Section 106, the determination of eff ect 

would be adverse eff ect.

Moderate Benefi cial Impact: The site would 

be stabilized. For purposes of Section 106, 

the determination of effect would be no 

adverse effect.

Major Adverse Impact: The impact would 

aff ect an archeological site with the potential 

to yield important information about human 

history or prehistory. The historic context 

of the aff ected site would be national. The 

impact is severe or of exceptional benefi t for 

eligible or listed historic structures or historic 

districts. The impact changes a characterdefi ning feature of the resource, diminishing 

the integrity of a National Register eligible or 

listed resource to the extent that it is no longer 

eligible or listed on the National Register. For 

purposes of Section 106, the determination of 

eff ect would be adverse eff ect.

 CULTURAL RESOURCES
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

166 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Major Benefi cial Impact: Active intervention 

would be taken to preserve the site. For 

purposes of Section 106, the determination of 

eff ect would be no adverse eff ect.

Impacts of Alternative 1 – No Action 

Analysis

Under this alternative the area contained 

within the existing NRA would remain 

essentially unchanged, except for occasional 

future changes that Congress might 

authorize on a piece-by-piece basis. NPS 

would continue best management practices 

for cultural resources as agreed to with 

Reclamation, resulting in short and long-term 

direct, minor benefi cial impacts. Limited 

technical assistance would be available 

from NPS to private landowners interested 

in conserving cultural resource values on 

their private properties. The potential for 

development on lands outside the NRA, 

primarily on Land Units C (Gunnison River 

COA) and G (West-End COA), could result 

in indirect short and long-term, minor 

to moderate adverse impacts to cultural 

resources within the NRA by alterations to the 

scene or the context of the resource.

Continuing federal protection of the lands 

inside the NRA would continue to reduce the 

potential for illegal collection or damage to 

cultural resources but would have no eff ect on 

those resources outside the NRA.

Cumulative Impacts

Even with the potential for continued federal 

protection of lands within the NRA, activities 

on neighboring lands would still have the 

potential for indirect long-term minor to 

moderate adverse cumulative impacts. On 

a cumulative basis, potential impacts from 

illegal collecting or damaging NRA resources 

that are readily accessible from neighboring 

lands would likely occur with the advent of 

development on surrounding private lands.

Conclusion

Federal actions within the NRA would 

result in short and long-term direct minor 

benefi cial impacts. Potential development 

on Land Units C (Gunnison River COA) and 

G (West-End COA) could result in indirect 

minor to moderate adverse impacts to cultural 

resources within the NRA, by altering the 

scene or context of the resource.

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value contained 

within the NRA, whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation for Curecanti 

NRA; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the NRA, or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the NRA; or (3) identifi ed as a goal in the 

NRA’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, as a result 

of activities undertaken by NPS, visitors, 

or concessioners, contractors, or others 

operating within the NRA, there would be no 

impairment of the NRA’s resources or values.

Impacts of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Analysis

The negotiation of conservation easements 

and/or the addition of lands to the NRA would 

have short and long-term minor benefi cial 

impacts on cultural resources both within 

the NRA and on public and private lands 

neighboring the NRA. The same would be true 

of railroad features in Land Unit C (Gunnison 

River COA). Land Unit G (West-End COA) 

would realize a short and long-term minor 

benefi cial impact, both within the NRA as well 

as outside, with the increased conservation 

of the historic town-site and the railroad 

resources associated with that location.

Cumulative Impacts

On a cumulative basis, implementation of 

Alternative 2 could result in minor benefi cial 

impacts to those cultural resources both 

within and outside the proposed NRA 

boundary through additional federal 

management and access to federal assistance.

Conclusion

The direct short- and long-term minor 

benefi cial impact resulting from federal 

management practices within the NRA 

coupled with the benefi cial impacts associated 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 167

CULTURAL RESOURCES

with potential conservation easements and/or 

additions of private land to the NRA would 

result in direct short- and long-term minor 

benefi cial impacts inside and outside the 

proposed NRA boundary.

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value contained 

within the NRA, whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation for Curecanti 

NRA; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the NRA, or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the NRA; or (3) identifi ed as a goal in the 

NRA’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, as a result 

of activities undertaken by NPS, visitors, 

or concessioners, contractors, or others 

operating within the NRA, there would be no 

impairment of the NRA’s resources or values.

Section 106 Summary

This Environmental Impact Statement provides 

detailed descriptions of two alternatives 

(including a no-action alternative) and analyzes 

the potential impacts associated with possible 

implementation of each alternative.

Application of best federal land management 

practices to lands outside the NRA as 

described under Alternative 2 would improve 

conservation of cultural resources either by 

direct acquisition or landowner participation 

in conservation easements or other partnered 

arrangements. Common management 

practices could result in negligible to minor 

benefi ts (no adverse eff ect) for cultural 

resources both within and outside the 

proposed NRA boundary.

To help reduce impacts on cultural resources, 

resources would continue to be monitored 

on a regular basis. Vulnerable resources listed 

on or potentially eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places would have priority 

for conservation measures. The NRA staff 

would continue to actively work with tribes to 

conserve ethnographic resources and privacy 

for traditional activities. Appropriate resource 

management actions could include monitoring 

and site stabilization; and visitor management 

actions could include signing, ranger patrols, 

and interpretive messages.

In cases where it was determined there was 

a potential for adverse impacts (as defi ned in 

36 CFR 800) to cultural resources listed on 

or eligible for listing on the National Register 

of Historic Places, the National Park Service 

would coordinate with the State Historic 

Preservation Offi cer of Colorado to determine 

the level of eff ect on the property, and to 

determine what mitigation would be needed.

For example, because there is a potential of 

cultural resources existing on some land that 

may be used in exchange for private land 

within the COA, any parcel thus proposed 

would be evaluated for potential adverse 

eff ect prior to any such exchange. If a 

property is determined to contain any site 

or sites considered to be eligible for listing 

on the National Register of Historic Places, 

a protective action such as the following 

would be taken prior to any such conveyance: 

(1) the conveyance would be conditioned 

upon a preservation easement to ensure the 

continued protection of the resource; or (2) 

the parcel would be subdivided in such a way 

that any tracts containing eligible cultural 

resources would remain with NPS, and tracts 

without such resources could be used in 

exchange. Otherwise, the eff ort to exchange 

such a parcel would be terminated.

The NRA staff would continue to educate 

visitors regarding archeological and 

ethnographic site etiquette to provide longterm conservation for surface artifacts, 

architectural features, and traditional 

activities. If necessary, additional mitigation 

measures would be developed in consultation 

with the state historic preservation offi cer 

and the three American Indian tribes who 

are most affi liated with the NRA: Northern 

 Ute; Southern Ute; and Ute Mountain Ute. 

These three tribes will receive copies of this 

Environmental Impact Statement for review 

and comment. It will also be sent to the 

Colorado State Historic Preservation Offi cer 

and to the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation for review and comment as part 

of the Section 106 compliance process.
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

168 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5, implementing 

regulations of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (revised regulations eff ective 

January 2001), addressing the criteria of eff ect 

and adverse eff ect, the National Park Service 

fi nds that the implementation of the Proposed 

Action in the Curecanti Resource Protection 

Study, with identifi ed mitigation measures, 

would be benefi cial, and would not result in 

any new adverse eff ects (no adverse eff ect) to 

archeological or historic resources currently 

identifi ed as eligible for or listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places.

 VISITOR USE, UNDERSTANDING, 

AND ENJOYMENT

 RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

Guiding Policies and Regulations

Current laws and policies require that 

certain desired conditions be achieved for 

recreation opportunities at Curecanti National 

Recreation Area. Refer to the following box 

for details.

Methodology

This section analyzes the impacts of 

alternatives on recreation opportunities, 

including visitor use and enjoyment within 

the proposed lands. All available information 

on potential recreation opportunities was 

compiled. Where possible, map locations 

were consulted. Analyzed activities, including 

DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR 

RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES SOURCE 

Provide outstanding recreational opportunities. - NPS Organic Act of 1916 

- NRA Mission 

Visitors have opportunities to enjoy the NRA in ways that 

leave resources unimpaired for future generations. 

- NPS Organic Act of 1916 

- NPS Management Policies 2006 

Provide public recreational facilities on lands withdrawn 

or acquired for the development of Colorado River 

Storage Project and Uncompahgre Project, and allow for 

recreational use and enjoyment of Reclamation lands and 

water areas in a manner that is consistent with the 

projects’ purposes. 

- Reclamation law, as 

supplemented and amended 

Visitor facilities and services are provided for the safe and 

full use and enjoyment of the area for recreational 

purposes. 

- Memorandum of Agreement 

between NPS and Reclamation,

February 11, 1965 

Recreational uses are promoted and regulated. Basic 

visitor needs are met in keeping with NRA purposes. 

- NPS Organic Act of 1916 

- Title 36, Code of Federal 

Regulations 

- NPS Management Policies 2006 

Provide for the enjoyment of the scenery and the natural 

and historic objects and the wildlife therein. 

- NPS Organic Act of 1916 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 169

access for recreational use and potential 

overlook sites, could occur on many land 

units within the proposed lands, irrespective 

of ownership or managing agency. The 

analyses of impacts include lands within the 

NRA and lands within the proposed lands. 

Cumulative impacts include eff ects from the 

alternatives to lands outside of the proposed 

lands, as well as eff ects from unrelated 

actions to lands within the proposed lands. 

Impact intensities are as follows:

Negligible: Visitors would likely be unaware of 

any eff ects associated with implementation of the 

alternative. There would be no noticeable change 

in visitor use and experience or in any defi ned 

indicators of visitor satisfaction or behavior.

Minor: Changes in visitor use and/or 

enjoyment would be slight but detectable, but 

would not appreciably limit or enhance critical 

characteristics of the visitor experience. 

Visitor satisfaction would remain stable.

Moderate: Few critical characteristics of the 

desired visitor experience and enjoyment 

would change, and/or the number of 

participants engaging in an activity would 

be altered. The visitor would be aware of the 

eff ects associated with implementation of the 

alternative and would likely be able to express 

an opinion about changes. Visitor satisfaction 

would begin to either decline or increase as a 

direct result of the eff ect.

Major: Multiple critical characteristics of the 

desired visitor experience and enjoyment 

would change, and/or the number of 

participants engaging in an activity would 

be greatly reduced or increased. The visitor 

would be aware of the eff ects associated with 

implementation of the alternative and would 

likely express a strong opinion about the 

change. Visitor satisfaction would markedly 

decline or increase. The impact is severely 

adverse or exceptionally benefi cial, and/or 

would aff ect the majority of visitors.

Short-term recreation impacts are immediate 

and do not occur over multiple visitor seasons. 

Long-term impacts persist beyond one year or 

visitor season.

Because this topic does not evaluate the 

potential impacts on natural or cultural 

resources contained within the NRA, 

impairment is not evaluated.

Impacts of Alternative 1 – No Action

Analysis

Camping and Picnicking. Within the NRA, 

management of camping and picnicking 

activities would continue. Adverse 

impacts would include continued unmet 

recreation potential for certain types of 

camping activities. Continuation of existing 

management would result in no additional 

motorized restrictions or seasonal access to 

sensitive habitat areas, adversely impacting the 

recreational and visitor experience of some 

visitors and benefi ting others.

Direct and indirect long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts in non-NRA 

portions of the proposed lands are possible 

from the unrestricted motorized access by 

some visitors and resultant change to sensitive 

habitat areas.

Hiking/Backpacking/Sightseeing/

Backcountry Experience/and Other 

Recreational Activities. Land-based 

recreational activities including hiking, 

backpacking, other backcountry experiences, 

horseback riding, and cross-country 

skiing would continue within the NRA. In 

cooperation with private landowners, there 

is a potential to expand these activities 

into the COA surrounding the NRA, and 

perhaps continuing onto other public lands, 

thus providing a more comprehensive and 

wider range of recreational experiences. 

However, under Alternative 1, it is likely that 

certain types of development or other land 

uses would occur on these private lands at 

some time in the future that would eliminate 

opportunities for the expansion of these 

NRA land-based recreational activities. The 

potential loss of these opportunities would 

constitute a long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impact on recreation. This is most 

likely to occur in Land Unit A (CO 92 COA), 

where there is a moderate development 

potential, north and south of CO 92 and 

VISITOR USE, UNDERSTANDING, AND ENJOYMENT
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

170 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

 Morrow Point Reservoir, and at Black Mesa, 

Soap Mesa, and Soap Creek. It may also 

occur on Fitzpatrick Mesa, which has a low 

development potential.

Under Alternative 1, direct and indirect longterm minor to moderate adverse impacts 

would continue on COA lands outside the 

current NRA, due to illegal access into the 

NRA by visitors crossing private land, and 

to illegal trespassing onto private lands by 

recreational users of the NRA. Illegal trespass 

onto private lands within the COA occurs in 

Land Unit A, along CO 92, including Corral 

and Cottonwood creeks. In Land Unit D, 

trespass of hang gliders landing on private 

property occurs in the Willow Creek area. 

In Land Unit E, trespass across private land 

occurs in the Windy Point and Hunters 

Point areas for access to ice climbing along 

the Morrow Point canyon walls. In addition, 

continued occasional illegal landing of 

hang gliders on NRA lands would continue 

under this alternative, resulting in longterm minor to moderate adverse impacts to 

vegetative resources, due to off -road vehicle 

use associated with the hang-gliding. Under 

Alternative 1, it is likely that legal public access 

to some desired activities would continue 

to be unavailable, adversely impacting the 

recreational visitor experience and enjoyment 

of some, and benefi ting others.

Historic early season grazing would continue 

in the Long Gulch – Bear Trap Gulch area. 

Cattle would continue to cross the Crystal 

Trail, on their trek to the 30,000-acre USFS 

grazing allotment in this area. As cattle use 

in this area is only for a few days on a biannual basis, negligible to minor long-term 

adverse impacts on the visitor’s recreational 

experience is expected.

In general, especially related to sightseeing, 

which is an integral part of all recreational 

activities in the area, certain types of 

development and land use, such as high-density 

housing, high-rise buildings, large parking 

areas, utility towers, and mining operations, on 

private property within the COA surrounding 

the NRA, could have a long-term, major 

adverse impact on the scenic resources of the 

area. This could, in turn, have a long-term, 

major adverse impact on visitor experience and 

appreciation of the NRA, and on the overall 

enjoyment of the area. This is especially true 

for all those who drive along the roads and 

highways that wind through the NRA along 

the canyons of Morrow Point Reservoir, and 

the shores of Blue Mesa Reservoir; and for 

all those who ride the waters of Blue Mesa 

Reservoir. County land use regulations may 

mitigate the impacts somewhat. However, land 

use regulations in and of itself would not be as 

eff ective as other tools of resource conservation 

being recommended by this study under 

Alternative 2.

Fishing and Hunting. Fishing and hunting 

opportunities within the NRA would continue 

to occur on lands that are not in confl ict with 

other recreational use or facilities. Under 

Alternative 1, direct long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts would continue 

in private portions of the proposed lands 

as a result of trespass by visitors looking for 

increased fi shing access or hunting areas. 

This includes Land Units A (CO 92 COA), C 

(Gunnison River COA), D (Iola Basin COA), 

and E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA).

Water-Based Recreation. Within the 

NRA, opportunities for water-based 

recreation including swimming, water skiing, 

sailing, windsurfi ng and watercraft use 

would continue. Continuation of existing 

management would result in no direct impacts 

to those visitors who participate in waterbased recreation within the NRA.

Cumulative Impacts

Regionally, some recreation opportunities 

would experience minor to moderate 

short- to long-term adverse impacts 

from the continuation or increase in land 

use development, such as residential 

development, that would potentially result 

in the loss of access to new trail segments 

and scenic overlooks, and access to potential 

backcountry camping or hunting/fi shing 

areas. When combined with the impacts 

of Alternative 1, these land development 

activities would result in moderate long-term 

cumulative adverse impacts.
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 171

Conclusion

Unmet potential for certain types of landbased recreation on lands in the proposed 

lands surrounding the NRA would result in 

long-term negligible to moderate adverse 

impacts to the NRA visitor’s recreational 

experience and enjoyment. Long-term 

minor to moderate adverse impacts on the 

natural resources on non-NRA lands would 

be possible from the unrestricted motorized 

access by some visitors, and resultant change 

to sensitive habitat areas. Land Units A (CO 92 

COA) and C (Gunnison River COA) would be 

susceptible to long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts as a result of trespass by 

visitors, including illegal landing of hanggliders on NRA lands. Historic grazing would 

continue in Long Gulch – Bear Trap Gulch, 

and crossing of the Crystal Trail by cattle 

would result in long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on the visitor experience due 

to grazing use.

The potential for future development and other 

types of land use, such as high-density housing, 

high-rise buildings, large parking areas, utility 

towers, and mining operations on private lands 

surrounding the NRA, especially within the 

COA, could have a long-term major adverse 

impact on the scenic resources in the area. 

The scenic resource is considered to be a key 

resource for enjoyment of the NRA. Therefore, 

there could also be a long-term major adverse 

impact on the visitor enjoyment, experience, 

and appreciation of an otherwise nationally 

signifi cant and spectacular geological and 

natural landscape setting.

Impacts of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Analysis

Under Alternative 2, a COA would be 

established that would encompass private lands 

within the proposed lands. The NRA would 

be congressionally authorized to partner with 

landowners within the COA for the purpose 

of resource conservation and enhancing 

recreational opportunity. This would increase 

potential for diverse appropriate resource-based 

recreation opportunities; especially additional 

land-based activities such as day use and 

extended use activities. Alternative 2 would also 

provide connection to opportunities off ered 

on surrounding lands through participation by 

COA landowners in partnerships, including 

the potential for additional appropriate 

resource based commercial recreation support 

services. However, this would all be subject to 

the willingness of the private landowners to 

cooperate in such ventures. In addition, the 

 Proposed Action would include a net addition of 

10,040 acres to the NRA from federal and state 

agency transfers, for consideration of expanded 

land-based recreational opportunities.

Camping and Picnicking. Within the NRA, 

management of camping and picnicking 

activities would continue. In Land Unit B 

( Blue Mesa Reservoir Agency), USFS, and 

BLM lands from the existing NRA (north 

of Sapinero Basin) to the southern edge 

of the West Elk Wilderness Area would be 

transferred to NPS, including the Soap Creek 

Campground that is currently managed by 

the USFS. BLM has indicated a desire and 

expectation that the large parcel of their land 

in the Dillon Pinnacles area that would come 

under NPS management would continue to 

have only non-motorized access to protect 

wildlife, scenery, and other natural values. 

At this time, the National Park Service has 

no reason to believe otherwise. However, 

fi nal determination would be made via a new 

general management plan or implementation 

plan for the area; and BLM would be invited 

to participate in the planning process. The 

management of this area by one agency 

rather than by three would provide long-term 

moderate benefi ts to visitors, operational 

benefi ts to the agencies, because the area 

would be managed under the guidelines of 

only one agency, and that agency would be the 

sole presence or contact for visitors.

 Direct and indirect long-term adverse 

impacts are possible due to the 

change in front-country campground 

management. Some camping 

opportunities in undesignated sites 

might be lost because NPS would 

limit the area where dispersed 

camping could occur. However, 

in the Soap Creek Campground, 

VISITOR USE, UNDERSTANDING, AND ENJOYMENT
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

172 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

NPS would consider designating 

an area within and near the corrals 

for “open camping,” thus reducing 

the impact to users who prefer to 

camp in the vicinity of their horses. 

Although management of that 

campground would be transferred, 

NPS would allow most existing uses 

to continue, including use of the 

existing horse corrals, and overnight 

trailhead parking. This would result 

in a long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impact on campground users 

accustomed to current undesignated 

camping opportunities. However, 

there would also be long-term 

minor benefi cial impacts as a result 

of greater NPS presence, including 

increased law enforcement and 

campground maintenance.

 Transfer of lands from the USFS to NPS 

could also result in possible increased 

restrictions on motorized use, and 

seasonal access limitations to sensitive 

habitat areas in those lands. This could 

result in long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on visitor experience 

in formerly non-NRA public lands, 

depending on visitor expectations.

Hiking/Backpacking/Sightseeing/

Backcountry Experience/and Other 

Recreational Activities. Recreational activities 

including hiking, backpacking, sightseeing, other 

backcountry experiences, horseback riding, 

mountain biking, cross-country skiing, and 

other related activities would continue within 

the NRA, similar to Alternative 1. Existing nonmotorized trails on agency lands added to the 

NRA boundary would remain, and NPS would 

assume maintenance responsibilities of such 

trails. Potential acquired interests in private lands 

within the COA surrounding the NRA would 

provide opportunities to expand suitable landbased recreational opportunities and legal public 

access for hiking, backpacking, mountain biking, 

horseback riding, trails to scenic overlooks, ice 

climbing, and other activities.

Within Land Unit A (CO 92 COA), direct 

and indirect long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts would be possible from 

new trail and overlook development down 

the Corral Creek drainage to Morrow Point 

Reservoir, and on Soap Mesa; expansion 

of a trail segment to the Blue Mesa Dam 

overlook; and potential development of 

backcountry hiking trails and backcountry 

camping. Management of the Dillon 

Pinnacles ACEC would also benefit NPS and 

visitors because of its important recreation 

opportunities on the mesa above the 

pinnacles, and because it is a key component 

of the viewshed. Because of existing NPS 

recreation opportunities and presence in the 

area, impacts to NRA visitors would most 

likely be beneficial with the inclusion of the 

Dillon Pinnacles ACEC.

In Land Units C (Gunnison River COA), D 

(Iola Basin COA), and E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa 

COA) long-term minor to moderate benefi cial 

impacts would be possible from the potential 

of a new trail corridor along the south side 

of the Gunnison River, and new trails and 

scenic overlooks of Blue Mesa Reservoir and 

dam from Sapinero Mesa. There would also 

be the potential for a new hiking and crosscountry ski trail to new overlook points for 

the Curecanti Needle, Blue Creek Canyon and 

Chipeta Falls, as well as access for climbers for 

rock and ice climbing, from the south rim of 

Morrow Point canyon, within easy access of 

US 50. Direct and indirect short-term minor 

to moderate adverse impacts are also possible 

due to trail construction activity that could 

aff ect scenic resources and visitor experience.

In Land Unit D (Iola Basin COA), direct 

and indirect long-term benefi cial impacts 

would be possible if NPS acquired an interest 

in approximately 40 acres in the southern 

portion of this area, where hang gliding 

currently occurs. This would provide the 

opportunity for hang gliders that take off 

from Big Mesa to land on federal property, 

ensuring that access to landing areas is legal. 

This action would require that the NRA issue 

a special federal regulation, or transfer the 

land to BLM. At present, it is not legal to 

land on NRA managed land according to the 

federal code of regulations.
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 173

In Land Unit F (Gateview), the existing 

campground would be transferred from NPS 

management to BLM management. BLM 

has indicated that if they were to manage 

the campground, they may discontinue 

the chlorinated drinking water system, 

given its daily maintenance requirement, 

and have visitors haul in their own water 

from elsewhere, as is done at other BLM 

campgrounds in the area. This would result 

in a long term negligible to minor adverse 

impact for visitors to the site, especially those 

who might be expecting potable water to be 

available. In any case, advanced notifi cation 

would be available regarding the availability of 

water, or lack thereof.

In Land Unit H (West-End), historic early 

season grazing would continue in the Long 

Gulch – Bear Trap Gulch area. However, more 

of the land that is grazed in this allotment 

would remain under USFS administration. 

The corridor managed by NPS for the Crystal 

Trail would be considerably narrower than 

in Alternative 1, and agreements would allow 

for the continued use of cattle migration that 

use the USFS allotment. Impacts on the NRA 

visitor’s recreational experience would be 

the same as described under Alternative 1, 

negligible to minor long-term adverse.

Land uses such as development or other 

activities would likely be reduced on 

non-NRA land within the proposed lands 

if landowners willingly apply resource 

conservation tools and join in partnerships, 

resulting in potential expansion and 

enhancement of recreational opportunities 

for visitors and local users. This would 

result in direct and indirect long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts to 

visitor enjoyment.

In general, with respect to the scenic 

resource and its resultant effect on visitor 

enjoyment, there is expected to be a longterm major beneficial impact on visitor 

enjoyment and appreciation of the NRA, 

and on the overall enjoyment of the area 

by all who drive through the NRA, and ride 

the waters of Blue Mesa Reservoir, through 

implementation of Alternative 2. This would 

result from the creation of a COA, and the 

authorization and ability of NPS to work in 

more meaningful partnerships with private 

landowners within the COA, through the use 

of tools for resource conservation, to reduce 

or eliminate adverse impacts on scenery and 

other recreational resources.

Fishing and Hunting. As in Alternative 1, 

fishing and hunting opportunities within the 

NRA would continue to occur on lands that 

are not in conflict with other recreational 

use or facilities. However, under Alternative 

2, for Land Units A (CO 92 COA), C 

(Gunnison River COA), D (Iola Basin COA), 

and E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), possible 

acquired interests in adjacent private lands 

would provide opportunities to expand 

public access for fishing and hunting into 

more isolated and backcountry areas. 

This would result in long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts to both visitors 

and local residents, due to the increased 

access and opportunity for these activities, 

and reduction of potential trespass impacts 

on private land.

Water-Based Recreation. Water-based 

recreational activities including swimming, 

water skiing, sailing, windsurfi ng and 

watercraft use would continue within the 

NRA, similar to Alternative 1. There would be 

no direct impacts to visitors participating in 

such activities within the NRA.

Cumulative Impacts

Public land management activities and 

proposed planning outside of the COR, 

in combination with beneficial impacts of 

actions proposed in Alternative 2, would 

result in long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial cumulative impacts on land-based 

recreational opportunities. This would 

be due to the implementation of tools for 

resource conservation, and anticipated 

COA private landowner participation in 

conservation measures, which would result 

in types of land use and development or 

non-development that would be more 

compatible with NRA goals for expanded 

and enjoyable recreation.

VISITOR USE, UNDERSTANDING, AND ENJOYMENT
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

174 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Conclusion

Long-term negligible to moderate beneficial 

impacts to recreational opportunities and 

visitor enjoyment are expected to result 

from landowners’ willing participation in 

partnerships with NPS, and the use of tools 

for resource conservation. Intensity of 

impacts would be dependent on location, 

level of landowner participation, and types 

of tools implemented. Benefits would be 

greatest in those areas within the COA with 

the greatest potential for enhancement of 

trail connections, trail access to new scenic 

overlooks and backpacking camping areas, 

cross-county skiing, access to climbing 

areas, connectivity for mountain biking, 

and access to legal hang gliding landing 

areas. These areas include Land Units A 

(CO 92 COA), C (Gunnison River COA), 

D (Iola Basin COA), and E (Sapinero/

Blue Mesa COA). In any event, the extent 

of new recreational opportunities within 

the NRA would be ultimately determined 

by a new general management plan or 

implementation plan. As part of that 

planning process, the need and desire for 

such opportunities would be assessed 

through input from neighbors, NRA 

visitors, and the general public.

As in Alternative 1, there is a potential in 

Alternative 2 for long-term major adverse 

impacts on scenic resources, and the 

resultant long-term major adverse impact 

on visitor enjoyment and appreciation 

of the NRA and its surroundings due 

to incompatible development and land 

use, such as high-density housing, highrise buildings, large parking areas, utility 

towers, and mining operations, within the 

COA. This is because the actions proposed 

in this alternative would be on a volunteer 

or willing basis on the part of the private 

sector. However, if the actions proposed 

in Alternative 2 are implemented, and 

the tools and concepts of partnership, 

cooperation, and conservation are truly 

enacted, then there would be long-term 

major beneficial impacts on the scenic 

resources. This would result in a longterm major beneficial impact on visitor 

enjoyment, experience, and appreciation of 

the NRA and its surroundings.

 INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATIONAL 

OPPORTUNITIES

Guiding Policies and Regulations

Current laws and policies require that 

certain desired conditions be achieved for 

interpretation and educational opportunities 

at Curecanti National Recreation Area. Refer 

to the following box for details.

Methodology

This section analyzes the impacts of 

alternatives on interpretation and 

educational opportunities, including 

existing and/or potential scenic overlooks 

and visitor/interpretive facilities within the 

proposed lands. All available information 

on potential interpretive and educational 

opportunities was compiled. Where 

possible, NRA programs, websites, and 

DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR INTERPRETATION 

AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 

SOURCE 

Visitors have opportunities to enjoy the NRA in ways that 

leave resources unimpaired for future generations. 

- NPS Organic Act of 1916 

- NPS Management Policies 2006

Every park will develop an interpretive and educational 

program that is grounded in (1) park resources, (2) themes 

related to the park’s legislative history and significance,

and (3) park and Servicewide mission goals.

- NPS Management Policies 2006

Provide for public use, understanding, and enjoyment. - NRA Purpose 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 175

map locations were consulted. Analyzed 

activities, including access for potential 

overlook sites and night sky viewing could 

occur on many land units within the 

proposed lands, irrespective of ownership 

or managing agency. The analyses of 

impacts include lands within the NRA and 

the proposed lands. Cumulative impacts 

include effects from the alternatives to 

lands outside of the proposed lands, as 

well as effects from unrelated actions to 

lands within the proposed lands. Impact 

intensities are as follows:

Negligible: Visitors would likely be unaware of 

any eff ects associated with implementation of 

the alternative. There would be no noticeable 

change in interpretive/educational programs 

or material, or in any defi ned indicators of 

visitor satisfaction or behavior.

Minor: Changes in interpretative/educational 

experience would be slight but detectable, 

but would not appreciably limit or enhance 

critical characteristics of visitor understanding 

and appreciation of the NRA’s resources and 

recreational opportunities. Visitor satisfaction 

would remain stable.

Moderate: Few critical characteristics of visitor 

understanding and appreciation would change 

and/or the number of participants engaging 

in an interpretive/educational activity would 

be altered. The visitor would be aware of the 

eff ects associated with implementation of the 

alternative and would likely be able to express 

an opinion about changes. Visitor satisfaction 

would begin to either decline or increase as a 

direct result of the eff ect.

Major: Multiple critical characteristics of 

visitor understanding and appreciation 

would change and/or the number of 

participants engaging in an interpretive/

educational activity would be greatly 

reduced or increased. The visitor would 

be aware of the effects associated with 

implementation of the alternative and would 

likely express a strong opinion about the 

change. Visitor satisfaction would markedly 

decline or increase. The impact is severely 

adverse or exceptionally beneficial, and/or 

would affect the majority of visitors.

Short-term interpretive/educational impacts 

are immediate and do not occur over multiple 

visitor seasons. Long-term impacts persist 

beyond one year or visitor season.

Because this topic does not evaluate the 

potential impacts on natural or cultural 

resources contained within the NRA, 

impairment is not evaluated.

Impacts of Alternative 1 – No Action

Analysis

Within the NRA, interpretive services and 

educational programs would continue 

as currently managed. Land Units C 

(Gunnison River COA) and E (Sapinero/Blue 

Mesa COA) have moderate to very high 

development potential. These lands would 

be most susceptible to alteration of the 

landscape should these areas be developed, 

resulting in long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts related to continued unmet 

potential for interpretation of historic 

uses and some unique natural landscapes. 

These land units would provide potential 

opportunities to interpret new resource 

areas; however, this would not prevent 

the NRA from continuing interpretation 

of similar viewsheds and resource areas 

currently within the NRA.

Cumulative Impacts

Regionally, potential interpretive and 

educational opportunities would experience 

negligible to minor short- to long-term 

adverse impacts from the continuation or 

increase in land use development, such 

as residential development, that would 

potentially result in the loss of access to 

new trail segments and scenic overlooks 

to resource areas not covered within NRA 

lands. When combined with the impacts of 

Alternative 1, these land development activities 

would result in negligible to minor long-term 

cumulative adverse impacts.

Conclusion 

Within the NRA, interpretive services and 

educational programs would continue as 

currently managed. Adjacent non-NRA land 

VISITOR USE, UNDERSTANDING, AND ENJOYMENT
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

176 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

units ( Land Units C [Gunnison River COA] 

and E [Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA]) would 

have long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts due to their moderate to high land 

development potential. The NRA would not 

be prevented from interpretation of similar 

viewsheds and resource areas currently within 

the NRA.

Impacts of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Analysis

Under Alternative 2, NPS would be 

congressionally authorized to partner with 

landowners within the COA for the purpose 

of interpretive and educational enhancement. 

This would increase potential for diverse 

appropriate resource based interpretive 

opportunities; especially additional land based 

activities such as new visitor facilities and 

interpretive overlooks. Alternative 2 would 

also provide connection to opportunities 

off ered on surrounding lands in the 

proposed lands through participation by 

COA landowners in partnerships, including 

the potential for joint-agency visitor and 

interpretive facilities.

Impacts to interpretive resources are detailed 

below. Impact intensities would vary with level 

of participation by landowners in resource 

conservation activities and the types of 

tools implemented (technical assistance and 

agreements vs. conservation easements and 

acquisition). In addition, the potential for 

development based on ease of access, existing 

development in the area, and viewshed also 

factors into prediction of impact intensity. 

Resources within land units with highest 

potential for development would gain the 

most benefi ts from landowner use of resource 

conservation tools.

Within the NRA, interpretive services and 

educational programs would continue as 

currently managed. In Land Units A (CO 92 

COA) and E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), 

there would be the opportunity to off er 

interpretation of adjacent land areas and 

geologic formations from vantage points that 

are currently not accessible to visitors. This 

would include a potential close-up westward 

view of the Curecanti Needle from the south 

rim of Morrow Point canyon, with relatively 

easy trail access from U.S 50. This would be 

a long-term minor to moderate benefi cial 

impact, off ering increased interpretive 

opportunities to visitors and local users.

 Land Units B ( Blue Mesa Reservoir Agency) 

and C (Gunnison River COA) would provide 

potential for interpretive opportunities 

associated with a long distance trail 

connection to Riverway and Gunnison, along 

with connections to other trail segments at 

Cooper Ranch and Neversink. These areas 

along the river also provide unique interpretive 

and educational opportunities for Americans 

with Disabilities Act (ADA) access, school 

programs, and night sky viewing, resulting 

in long-term moderate benefi cial impacts. In 

addition, Land Unit B, which includes Forest 

Service and BLM lands from the existing NRA 

(north of Sapinero Basin) to the southern 

edge of the West Elk Wilderness Area, would 

be transferred to NPS. The management of 

this area by NPS would probably provide 

long-term negligible to minor benefi ts for 

interpretation and educational services to 

visitors, by drawing upon that agency’s more 

established and comprehensive interpretive 

program in the Curecanti area.

In Land Unit E, the Blue Mesa area 

(Hunters Point) would provide the potential 

opportunity for a new visitor center facility 

with direct access for visitors from US 50. This 

would increase opportunities for development 

of a joint-agency managed facility, centrally 

located for linking agency lands, as well as the 

ability to draw more water and land-based 

visitors from the highway. This would result 

in a long-term moderate to major benefi t to 

visitor understanding and appreciation of the 

resources and recreational potential in the 

overall Curecanti area, and to the ability of 

the various government agencies in the area to 

relay their messages to the public.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts for interpretation and 

education would be similar to Alternative 1, except 

land development and federal land management 

activities and proposed planning outside of the 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 177

 SCENIC RESOURCES

proposed lands, in combination with decreased 

impacts of Alternative 2 would result in minor 

to moderate benefi cial cumulative impacts. 

These benefi ts would be due to COA landowner 

and joint-agency participation in enhanced 

interpretive and educational opportunities, 

and would depend on the types of resource 

conservation tools implemented.

Conclusion

Beneficial impacts to interpretive and 

educational opportunities would result 

from landowners’ use of resource 

conservation tools and partnerships 

as part of the COA. Benefits would be 

greatest in those areas with the potential 

for trail access to new scenic overlooks 

including Land Units A (CO 92 COA) and 

E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA). This would 

also incorporate new or improved access 

to unique geologic formations such as the 

Curecanti Needle, resulting in long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts. 

 Land Units B ( Blue Mesa Reservoir 

Agency) and C (Gunnison River COA) 

could provide interpretive opportunities 

associated with a potential long distance 

trail connection to Riverway and Gunnison, 

and opportunities for ADA access, school 

programs, and night sky viewing, resulting 

in long-term moderate beneficial impacts 

on understanding and appreciation.

Land Unit E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA) 

would provide opportunity for a potential 

joint-agency managed visitor center facility 

with direct access for visitors from US 

50, resulting in a long-term moderate to 

major benefi t for visitor understanding and 

appreciation of the area’s resources.

 SCENIC RESOURCES 

Guiding Policies and Regulations

Current laws and policies require that certain 

desired conditions be achieved for scenic 

resources at Curecanti National Recreation 

Area. Refer to the following box for details.

Methodology

A computer-generated viewshed analysis 

(Digital Elevation Model) was created that 

illustrates what can be seen from US 50, CO 

92, CO 149, and from the centerline of Blue 

Mesa Reservoir and its arms. The computergenerated analysis identifi ed everything that 

can be seen in three layers defi ned as follows: 

 Foreground (0 – 1/2 mile from the 

observer), where details such as plant 

types can be discerned, development 

is most apparent, and all changes are 

immediately perceived.

 Middle ground (1/2 – 3 miles), where 

diff erent stands of trees (coniferous 

and deciduous) can be identifi ed, 

development is noticed, and changes 

to forms are noticed.

 Background (3 miles and beyond), 

where ridgelines and horizon lines 

defi ne the limit; and the visual impact 

of development is not as critical, except 

DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR 

SCENIC RESOURCES SOURCE 

NPS will monitor land use proposals and changes to 

adjacent lands, and their potential impacts on NRA 

resources and values, engaging constructively with the 

broader community to encourage compatible adjacent 

land uses and appropriate mitigation. 

- NPS Management Policies 2006

Conserve the scenery, natural, and cultural resources. - NPS Organic Act of 1916 

- NRA Purpose 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

178 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

where the landscape is altered to such a 

magnitude as to disrupt the scene (for 

example, multi-home developments, 

and clear cutting of vegetation).

For the RPS, primarily the viewsheds up to 3 

miles played a key role in the resource analysis.

Areas with exceptional scenic vistas and 

potential new overlook points were identifi ed 

through site assessments performed by NPS 

staff and a Photo Assessment Workshop 

carried out by local resident volunteers. The 

Photo Assessment Workshop was conducted 

by 11 volunteer citizen photographers, who 

took nearly 300 photographs of scenic and 

other resources that were defi ned within seven 

categories of importance related to scenic 

views, conservation of critical resources, 

and other issues. Some of the key views that 

they identifi ed are described in the Aff ected 

Environment. Potential impacts to these views 

identifi ed by area residents were considered 

more adverse than other area views.

The following impact thresholds were 

established in order to measure the relative 

changes in scenic resources (overall, localized, 

short-term and long-term, cumulatively, 

benefi cial and adverse) as a result of the 

alternative actions:

Negligible: An action that would introduce 

(adverse) or prevent (benefi t) only the 

perception of some additional movement by 

cars or by people walking, on bicycles, or on 

horseback. The change to the viewshed would 

be so small or localized that it would have no 

measurable or perceptible consequence to the 

visitor’s enjoyment of the view.

Minor: An action that would introduce or 

prevent perceptible human-made additions 

within the viewshed. These actions would 

include structures that aff ect a relatively small 

portion of the viewshed, either the foreground, 

middle ground, or background, and have barely 

perceptible visual consequences to the visitor’s 

enjoyment of the view.

Moderate: An action that would either 

introduce or prevent perceptible human-made 

additions within the viewshed. These actions 

would include facilities, parking, and other 

human-made structures that would aff ect a 

moderate portion of the viewshed. This might 

include the foreground and middle ground, or 

the foreground and background. These actions 

would not completely alter the viewshed, but 

would be a perceptible visual addition to the 

existing conditions.

Major: An action that would introduce or 

prevent multiple and drastic human-made 

additions that aff ect the entire or major part 

of the viewshed as seen by the visitor. These 

actions would include building architecture 

and site planning that does not “fi t in” to the 

natural scene; and major facilities, such as 

high-density housing, high-rise buildings, 

utility towers, mining operations, and large 

parking areas, that would alter to a great 

extent the foreground, middle ground, and/or 

background of the existing viewshed.

Impacts are short-term when temporary in 

nature such as temporary construction or 

other human-made facilities that would be 

removed within a year of placement. Longterm impacts occur when permanent humanmade additions or intrusions occur within 

the viewshed. Permanent change involves an 

intrusion that lasts for one or more years.

Impacts of Alternative 1 – No Action 

Analysis

Scenic resources within the NRA and 

on other adjacent federal and state lands 

would continue to be protected through 

implementation of federal and state land 

management plans. Important scenic features, 

such as the Dillon Pinnacles, Curecanti 

Needle, areas adjacent to Blue Mesa 

Reservoir, Morrow Point Reservoir, and 

 Crystal Reservoir, and other features have 

been identifi ed and would remain protected, 

resulting in long-term, major, benefi cial 

impacts to scenic resources on public lands. 

Private lands within the COA surrounding the 

NRA that remain in their current undeveloped 

condition would also continue to contribute 

to the existing high quality natural landscape 

surrounding the NRA.
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 179

However, there is an increasing probability 

that private lands within the COA would 

experience development and other land 

uses that are incompatible with the goals 

and objectives of the NRA. This could 

result in long-term, major, adverse impacts 

to the scenic resource, depending upon 

factors such as decisions by landowners, 

county land use regulations, and population 

growth. The degree of impact would depend 

upon the type of development or land use; 

whether development remains localized 

within a few areas, or becomes increasingly 

widespread over time; and whether it occurs 

in the foreground, middle ground, and/or 

background of the viewer.

 Land Units A (CO 92 COA), D (Iola Basin 

COA), E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), and G 

(West-End COA) containing features such 

as Sapinero Mesa, Blue Mesa, the canyon 

walls that rim Morrow Point and Crystal 

Reservoirs, the Curecanti Needle, Soap 

Mesa, and Willow Creek, would be more 

likely to be impacted by development in the 

near future. This is due to their accessibility 

from US 50, CO 92, and CO 149, and local 

roads such as Soap Creek Road; and to 

the existence of other development in the 

vicinity. Many of these areas have been 

identifi ed by local residents as natural areas 

that represent important scenic resources in 

Montrose and Gunnison Counties. In many 

cases, the areas are representative of the 

spectacular geological setting that contributes 

to the NRA’s national signifi cance.

Sapinero Mesa, where lands have been 

subdivided, are for sale, and a cell tower has 

been proposed; and areas along US 50 such 

as Cimarron, Windy Point, and Hunters 

Point, that provide opportunities for easy 

access, are the most logical candidates for 

development in the foreseeable future. 

Sapinero Mesa and the US 50 corridor are 

seen from a variety of locations within the 

NRA. The development of these areas would 

adversely impact natural scenic resources 

from numerous locations within the NRA, 

such as the surface of Blue Mesa Reservoir, 

Sapinero and Dillon Pinnacles Overlooks, 

Soap Creek Road, Lake Fork Campground 

and Marina, and Elk Creek Campground. 

The CO 92 corridor, Fitzpatrick Mesa, and 

Soap Mesa are expected to experience 

increased development that would impact 

scenic resources from NRA locations such 

as a variety of overlooks along CO 92, the 

US 50 corridor, Ponderosa Campground, 

McIntyre Gulch, and the surface of Blue 

Mesa Reservoir.

Private lands on the eastern end of the NRA 

where US 50 runs along the Gunnison River 

through riparian areas and a small canyon 

before opening up onto Iola Basin on Blue 

Mesa Reservoir, if developed, could also result 

in minor to major adverse impacts to scenic 

resources for NRA visitors, local residents, 

and others driving through the area. These 

lands are part of Land Units C (Gunnison 

River COA) and D (Iola Basin COA). Visitors 

recreating in this area at locations such as 

Coopers Ranch, Neversink, and Beaver Creek, 

and fi rst entering the NRA on the east, would 

be potentially impacted by views of new 

development or incompatible land uses.

The southern portion of Spring Gulch, in 

Land Unit G (West-End COA), would be 

another concern if development occurred. 

Although the likelihood is low in the near 

future, because of its proximity to drives 

and overlooks within the National Park, 

development would likely result in a minor 

adverse impact.

In general, development and other types of 

land use, such as high-density housing, highrise buildings, utility towers, and mining 

operations, on private property within the 

COA surrounding the NRA, could have a 

long-term, major, adverse impact on the scenic 

resources of the area. This is especially true in 

the lands surrounding Blue Mesa Reservoir, 

and the eastern stretches of Morrow Point 

Reservoir. County zoning regulations may 

mitigate the impacts somewhat. However, 

zoning in and of itself would not be as eff ective 

as other tools of resource conservation being 

recommended by this study.

 SCENIC RESOURCES
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

180 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Cumulative Impacts

Other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable conservation and planning 

activities occurring throughout the proposed 

lands and with Gunnison and Montrose 

Counties could result in a variety of impacts 

to local and regional scenic resources. 

The Gunnison County Comprehensive 

Plan is expected to evaluate a wide range 

of factors in developing a strategy to deal 

with growth in the Curecanti area. Eff orts 

from the Comprehensive Plan could result 

in long-term benefi cial impacts on scenic 

resources adjacent to the NRA by considering 

such resources in the development and 

implementation of recommendations, 

including the possibility of establishing a 

Special Geographic Area to recognize the 

unique scenic attributes of the NRA.

Long-term management plans by agencies 

such as the U.S. Forest Service and BLM 

would continue to protect important scenic 

vistas, such as the West Elk Mountains and the 

San Juan Mountains, which are visible in the 

background from within the NRA. This would 

result in benefi cial impacts. Local, state, and 

national conservation groups and land trusts 

could continue to work with landowners in 

the vicinity, to protect conservation values 

via purchase or donations of conservation 

easements or land. This would further 

conserve important resources, such as scenic 

vistas, and result in long-term benefi ts.

CDOT/FHWA highway modernization plans 

could infl uence development along the US 50 

corridor, further aff ecting the highway corridor 

and its aesthetics. Such development could 

result in long-term, localized minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on the scenic resource.

The long-term major adverse impacts to scenic 

resources that could result from Alternative 

1 from potential development and land use 

in the COA surrounding the NRA, when 

combined with the potential adverse and 

benefi cial impacts of other regional planning 

and conservation eff orts, could result in 

cumulative long-term minor to major adverse 

impacts. However, these cumulative impacts 

represent more of a regional perspective. 

Inevitably, there would be areas encouraged 

for development that could substantially 

adversely aff ect local scenic resources on a 

cumulative basis.

Conclusion 

Scenic resources within the NRA and on 

other adjacent federal and state lands would 

continue to be conserved through federal and 

state land management activities. Important 

scenic features such as the Dillon Pinnacles 

and Curecanti Needle would be protected, 

resulting in long-term major benefi cial impacts 

on scenic resources. Private lands within the 

COA that remain in their current undeveloped 

condition would also continue to contribute to 

the existing high quality natural landscape in 

the area.

However, private lands in the COA 

surrounding the NRA proposed for 

Alternative 2 would continue to be 

increasingly subject to future development and 

other land uses in Alternative 1 that might be 

incompatible with NRA goals and objectives. 

This could result in long-term major adverse 

impacts to the scenic resource, depending 

upon factors such as decisions by landowners, 

county land use regulations, and population 

growth. The degree of impact would depend 

upon type of development and land use; 

whether development remains localized 

within a few areas, or becomes increasingly 

widespread over time; and whether it would 

occur in the foreground, middle ground, and/

or background of the viewer.

Future development and other types of land 

use, such as high-density housing, high-rise 

buildings, large parking areas, utility towers, 

and mining operations on private lands in 

the COA could result in a long-term major 

adverse impact on the spectacular geological 

and natural landscape setting, which can 

be seen from the NRA, and which has been 

determined to be a key resource for visitor 

enjoyment of the NRA.

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value contained 

within the NRA, whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 181

in the establishing legislation for Curecanti 

NRA; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the NRA, or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the NRA; or (3) identifi ed as a goal in the 

NRA’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, as a result 

of activities undertaken by NPS, visitors, 

or concessioners, contractors, or others 

operating within the NRA, there would be no 

impairment of the NRA’s resources or values.

Impacts of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Analysis

As in Alternative 1, scenic resources within the 

NRA and on other adjacent federal and state 

lands would continue to be protected through 

implementation of federal and state land 

management plans. Thus impacts to scenic 

resources on public lands would be the same 

in Alternatives 1 and 2.

On private lands within the COA, the 

availability of resource conservation tools 

to private landowners, and increased 

congressionally authorized eff orts on the 

part of the National Park Service to conserve 

viewsheds and scenic features in partnership 

with neighbors, would help maintain existing 

scenic resources. Should landowners 

implement tools such as conservation 

easements or fee simple acquisition, long-term 

minor to major benefi cial impacts could occur, 

depending upon the degree of development or 

conservation. However, the availability of such 

tools would increase the likelihood that some 

or all of the scenic resources within the COA 

would be conserved.

Some of the more important scenic areas and 

those more vulnerable to development are 

located in Land Units A (CO 92 COA), D (Iola 

Basin COA), E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), 

and G (West-End COA). These areas have 

been identifi ed in Alternative 1, and include 

areas such as Sapinero Mesa, Soap Mesa, Blue 

Mesa, and Cimarron.

As noted in Alternative 1, there is a high 

probability that Sapinero Mesa could be 

developed within the next 5 years, as it is 

currently being marketed. It is in the heart 

of one of the most scenic and visible areas 

of the NRA --- Sapinero Basin on Blue Mesa 

Reservoir. It can be seen from US 50, from 

the NRA lands on the northern side of Blue 

Mesa Reservoir, from the surface of the 

reservoir, from Soap Creek Road, from a 

number of overlooks within the NRA, and 

from potential overlooks within the COA. 

Should a conservation easement or acquisition 

for conservation purposes be applied to this 

area, a long-term moderate to major benefi cial 

impact would be achieved. Conservation of 

areas such as the Sapinero parcel is important 

to maintaining a high degree of visitor 

enjoyment.

Another area that would benefi t from 

conservation is Land Unit C (Gunnison River 

COA) on the eastern edge of the NRA. This 

area borders the Gunnison River and US 

50 and contributes to the initial NRA entry 

experience for visitors and residents alike. 

The cottonwoods, meandering river, and local 

agrarian scene, if conserved, would continue 

to provide a long-term moderate to major 

benefi cial impact to the scenic resource for 

NRA visitors, local residents, and all others 

who drive along US 50. Another important 

riparian area is along Willow Creek in Land 

Unit D (Iola Basin COA). If conserved, it could 

benefi t the scenic resources along the CO 149 

corridor leading into the NRA from the south.

During the course of the RPS, a variety of 

potential overlooks were identifi ed within the 

COA that would provide spectacular views of 

the NRA, and other area resources and scenic 

features. These potential overlooks would be 

located in the following land units:

 Land Unit A, along CO 92, where 

visitors could view Crystal and 

Morrow Point Reservoirs

 Land Unit A, on top of Soap Mesa, 

where visitors could view Blue Mesa 

Reservoir and its environs, and the 

Uncompahgre Plateau to the south

 Land Unit E, on top of Sapinero Mesa, 

that would provide views of Blue Mesa 

Reservoir and its environs, Soap Mesa, 

the West Elk Mountains, the Sawatch 

Range, and the Continental Divide

 SCENIC RESOURCES
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

182 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

 Land Unit E, near Windy Point, where 

visitors could view the Curecanti 

Needle from a location in relatively 

close proximity to US 50, the primary 

transportation corridor.

If landowners were willing, and some 

form of easement or fee simple acquisition 

could be established, the opportunity to 

provide spectacular overlooks off ering 

new perspectives would result in long-term 

moderate to major benefi cial impacts to 

visitor enjoyment and appreciation of the 

NRA and its surroundings. If the areas are not 

conserved and/or acquired, the opportunity 

would be lost.

In general, there is expected to be a long-term 

major benefi cial impact on scenic resources 

through implementation of Alternative 2. This 

would result from the creation of a COA and 

the authorization and ability of the National 

Park Service to work in more meaningful 

partnerships with private landowners within 

the COA; increased cooperation between NPS 

and its neighbors; and the implementation of 

the tools for resource conservation.

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts related to the actions 

in Alternative 2 would be more benefi cial 

than Alternative 1. Many local and regional 

planning and conservation activities would 

continue to result in long-term, minor to 

major benefi cial impacts to local and regional 

scenic resources. Without cooperation of 

private landowners in the COA, the overall 

cumulative impact of Alternative 2 could be 

adverse, as in Alternative 1. However, with 

the cooperation of private landowners, these 

regional scenic impacts, when combined with 

the potentially benefi cial impacts associated 

with the resource conservation tools suggested 

in Alternative 2, could result in long-term, 

major, benefi cial, cumulative impacts. The 

overall impact of these combined eff orts of 

federal, state, and local agencies, as well as 

private landowners that conserve the scenic 

resources on their land, would be benefi cial 

and widespread.

Conclusion

Some of the more important scenic areas, and 

those more prone to be adversely impacted 

by potential development, are located on 

private property in Land Units A (CO 92 

COA), C (Gunnison River COA), D (Iola Basin 

COA), E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), and 

G (West-End COA). Conservation of these 

areas would be benefi cial to both local and 

NRA-wide viewsheds and individual scenic 

features, for visitors and residents alike. The 

availability of resource conservation tools 

to private landowners, and congressionally 

authorized increased eff orts on the part of the 

National Park Service to work in partnership 

with private landowners to conserve 

viewsheds and scenic resources within the 

COA, would help maintain existing scenic 

resources. The degree to which viewsheds 

and individual scenic features on private 

lands within the COA would be conserved 

is highly dependent upon the willingness 

and cooperation of landowners. Should 

landowners implement resource conservation 

tools such as conservation easements or fee 

simple acquisition, long-term major benefi cial 

impacts to the scenic resources would occur.

As in Alternative 1, there is a potential 

in Alternative 2 for adverse impacts on 

scenic resources, due to certain types of 

development and land use, such as highdensity housing, high-rise buildings, large 

parking areas, utility towers, and mining 

operations within the COA surrounding the 

NRA. This would occur if private landowners 

choose not to take advantage of the tools for 

resource conservation that are available, and 

if they choose to develop, or otherwise use 

their lands for purposes that are incompatible 

with NRA goals and objectives. This is because 

the actions proposed in Alternative 2 would 

be on a volunteer or willing basis on the part 

of the private sector. However, if the actions 

proposed in Alternative 2 are implemented, 

and the tools and concepts of partnership, 

cooperation, and conservation are truly 

enacted on behalf of both NPS and private 

landowners, then the spectacular natural open 

scenery in the area could be conserved, and 

perhaps enhanced. This would result in long-
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 183

REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS

term major benefi cial impacts on the scenic 

resource, the preservation of which is essential 

to the enjoyment of the NRA by visitors and 

residents alike.

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value contained 

within the NRA, whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed 

in the establishing legislation for Curecanti 

NRA; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the NRA, or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the NRA; or (3) identifi ed as a goal in the 

NRA’s general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents, as a result 

of activities undertaken by NPS, visitors, 

or concessioners, contractors, or others 

operating within the NRA, there would be no 

impairment of the NRA’s resources or values.

 REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

CHARACTERISTICS

 ECONOMICS

Guiding Policies and Regulations

Current laws and policies require that certain 

desired conditions be achieved related to 

economics at Curecanti National Recreation 

Area. Refer to the following box for details.

Methodology

The potential impact to economic and social 

characteristics of the towns and counties of 

Gunnison and Montrose were considered in 

this analysis. Concerns covered by this section 

include eff ects on local economic conditions 

such as employment, county revenues, 

and quality of life. Because of the range of 

potential actions in the RPS, most of which are 

dependent on individual landowner desires, 

a qualitative approach was undertaken. 

Impacts were determined via discussions with 

county offi cials during agency workshops 

and through research on the potential 

eff ects of preservation of open space, and 

resource conservation mechanisms, such as 

conservation easements, on the local economy 

of rural mountain communities.

The area of analysis is within the counties 

of Gunnison and Montrose. Slightly more 

emphasis is placed on Gunnison County 

because most of the NRA and surrounding 

proposed lands occurs within Gunnison County.

Impact thresholds that measure the change 

in social and economic conditions within 

the counties as a result of each alternative 

are as follows.

Negligible: Eff ects to socioeconomic conditions 

would be below or at the level of detection. 

No noticeable change in any defi ned 

socioeconomic indicators would occur.

DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR 

ECONOMICS SOURCE 

Curecanti National Recreation Area is managed as part of 

a greater ecological, social, economic, and cultural system.

- NPS Management Policies 2006

The National Park Service works cooperatively with 

others to anticipate, avoid, and resolve potential conflicts;

to conserve NRA resources; and address mutual interests 

in the quality of life for community residents. Regional 

cooperation involves federal, state, and local agencies,

affiliated tribes, neighboring landowners, and all other 

concerned parties. 

- NPS Management Policies 2006

Curecanti National Recreation Area increases its 

managerial resources through initiatives and support 

from other agencies, organizations, and individuals. 

- NRA Mission Goal 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

184 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Minor: Eff ects to socioeconomic conditions 

would be slight but somewhat noticeable or 

detectable by county/city government 

or residents.

Moderate: Eff ects to socioeconomic 

conditions would be readily apparent by 

county/city government and residents and 

result in changes to socioeconomic conditions 

on a local scale.

Major: Eff ects to socioeconomic conditions 

would be readily apparent by county/city 

governments and residents, resulting in 

demonstrable changes to socioeconomic 

conditions in the region.

Short-term eff ects would be less than one year 

in duration – for example, occurring during 

one tourist season. Long-term eff ects would 

be more than one year in duration.

Because this topic evaluates the potential impact 

to social and economic conditions within the 

counties and does not involve resources within 

the NRA, impairment is not evaluated.

Impacts of Alternative 1 – No Action

Analysis

In Alternative 1, it is assumed for purposes 

of analysis that existing private lands remain 

in their current condition or are developed. 

Because funding and authorization would not 

be available through NPS for implementation 

of resource conservation tools, conservation 

on private property in the COA surrounding 

the NRA (as described for Alternative 2) is 

expected to be minimal.

Economic Conditions. Existing economic 

conditions and trends would most likely 

continue assuming private lands remained in 

their current state. Employment in existing 

industrial sectors such as Wholesale/Retail 

and Services would continue to be major 

contributors to regional economic health. The 

portion of total personal income attributable 

to non-labor income would remain at 30 to 

40%, or potentially increase based on past 

trends. Negligible benefi cial impacts would 

result because employees, businesses, and 

county governments are already achieving 

these economic conditions.

In contrast, if lands were developed by private 

landowners in areas such as Sapinero and 

Blue Mesa, some new stimulus could be 

provided within sectors such as Wholesale/

Retail, Services, and Construction through 

expenditures and employment associated 

with construction-related activity and new 

residents. Over the next 5 to 10 years, this 

stimulus would be limited, resulting in shortterm minor to long-term negligible benefi cial 

impacts within the local Gunnison economy.

Such development could also provide 

additional opportunities for those individuals 

with non-labor income such as retirees to 

purchase a home or business resulting in some 

additional benefi cial impacts.

NRA Contribution to Regional Economy. 

The NRA would continue to benefi cially 

impact the local economy through visitor 

expenditures, as well as through expenditures 

related to NRA operations and employees 

living within the community. Visitation 

could be adversely impacted if private lands 

identifi ed within the proposed lands were 

developed and began to aff ect the values 

that visitors relied upon for a positive visitor 

experience, such as high-quality scenic vistas. 

Depending upon the degree of development 

that occurred in the near future, the longterm adverse impact could be negligible to 

minor over the life of this plan, but could be 

substantially greater if development trends 

continued into the future.

Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Other 

Impacts to Regional Revenues. NPS would 

acquire no private lands through fee simple 

acquisition in the proposed lands, resulting in 

no impact to PILT payments. PILT payments 

would be dependent upon congressional 

funding of the program, but would most likely 

remain at current levels or increase slightly 

each year depending upon the Consumer 

Price Index and other factors.

County revenues could increase if existing 

private lands that are currently subdivided 

and for sale were purchased and developed in 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 185

the near future. Such purchases would result 

in additional property taxes to the county 

and would be dependent upon the assessed 

value of the land. Residential or commercial 

development of lands within areas such as 

Land Unit E, containing Sapinero Mesa, US 

50, Hunters Point and Windy Point, would 

most likely result in long-term negligible to 

minor benefi cial impacts to county revenues, 

depending upon the amount of development. 

Off setting some of the benefi cial gains in 

property taxes could be increased costs 

related to county infrastructure, such as water, 

utilities, road maintenance, and schools.

Quality of Life. Quality of life would be 

maintained if private lands within the 

proposed lands remained within their current 

condition. However, if lands were subdivided 

and some development ensued in the near 

future, values related to natural vistas and 

open space that Gunnison County residents 

identifi ed as important could begin to erode 

resulting in long-term, negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on residents. These could 

substantially increase if development trends 

continue into the future.

Cumulative Impacts

Other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable planning and resource 

conservation activities occurring throughout 

the proposed lands and with Gunnison and 

Montrose Counties could result in a variety 

of economic impacts. The Gunnison County 

Comprehensive Plan could result in long-term 

minor to moderate benefi cial impacts on the 

regional economy by limiting development 

to areas that would not impact regional 

environmental and scenic resources.

Local, state, and national conservation groups 

and land trusts could continue to acquire 

conservation easements or private lands within 

Gunnison and Montrose Counties, further 

conserving important resource values such 

as wildlife habitat, and preserving quality of 

life attributes, but also adversely impacting 

county revenues. Similarly, future acquisitions 

of private lands by other agencies such as USFS 

and BLM could decrease regional revenue from 

property taxes. These activities could result in 

long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts 

on county revenues and long-term minor 

benefi cial impacts on quality of life.

CDOT/FHWA highway modernization 

plans could further encourage development 

along the US 50 corridor, encouraging local 

economic development. These plans could 

result in long-term negligible to minor 

benefi cial economic impacts.

The long-term impacts, both benefi cial and 

adverse, that would result from Alternative 1 

when combined with the economic impacts of 

other planning and conservation eff orts such as 

the Gunnison County Comprehensive Plan and 

other land preservation activities would result 

in negligible to minor benefi cial cumulative 

impacts in the long-term. Many of the potential 

cumulative adverse impacts to the regional 

tax base would most likely be off set by the 

benefi cial cumulative impacts associated with 

increased visitation and visitor spending and 

enhanced quality of life for area residents.

Conclusion

Economic conditions within the county 

would remain unchanged assuming private 

lands within the proposed lands remained in 

existing conditions and all other factors such 

as NRA visitation, visitor expenditures, and 

payments-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILT) remained at 

current levels.

If private lands were developed, 

expenditures and employment associated 

with construction-related activity and new 

residents could result in short-term minor to 

long-term negligible benefi cial impacts within 

the local economy. Increased development 

would also result in long-term negligible to 

minor benefi cial impacts to county revenues 

through increased property taxes, although 

associated infrastructure costs could off set 

some of this benefi t.

Conversely, development that eroded scenic 

or other key resource values could create longterm negligible to minor adverse impacts to 

visitation in the NRA and to the quality of life 

currently enjoyed by area residents. Overall, 

the long-term benefi cial impacts associated 

REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

186 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

with localized development could be off set or 

exceeded by the adverse impacts that could 

result from increased development in sensitive 

resource areas.

Impacts of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Analysis

Economic Conditions. The predominant two 

industries in both Gunnison and Montrose 

Counties are wholesale/retail, and services, 

with approximately 50% to 55% of employees 

in both counties working in these sectors. 

Growth in these industries over the past several 

decades, particularly in Gunnison County, 

has been largely associated with increasing 

recreation and tourism ( Wilderness Society 

1999). The Government and Construction 

sectors are also important with a combined 

total of approximately 20% of employees. Thus, 

services to visitors are an important part of the 

economy, as are jobs associated with federal 

land management agencies.

Retirees and households with investment 

income (non-income labor) account for 

approximately 30% to 40% of total personal 

income within the Gunnison and Montrose 

Counties and have contributed to substantial 

income growth (greater than 25%) in both 

counties since 1970. In contrast, extractive 

industries such as Agricultural Services, 

Forestry, Fishing and Other only accounted 

for approximately 0.4% and 1.1% of new total 

personal income over the same period. Selfemployed individuals also grew by 292% and 

150% between 1970 and 1997 in Gunnison 

and Montrose Counties, respectively, and 

represented approximately 25% of total 

jobs in 1997 ( Wilderness Society 1999). 

For retirees, households with investment 

income, and the self-employed, the choice 

of a community is based on quality of life 

indicators such as scenic resources and 

recreational amenities. There are some areas 

in the private sector along the US 50 corridor 

through the NRA that are outside the COA, 

such as near the Lake Fork bridge, where 

sensitive development that could provide an 

economic stimulus would also be compatible 

with the NRA’s goals and objectives of 

resource conservation.

As indicated in the “ Scenic Resources” 

section of the Aff ected Environment chapter, 

the National Park Service determined via 

a visitor survey conducted at the NRA in 

the summer of 1998, that visitors consider 

scenic resources to be very important to their 

sense of enjoyment of the NRA. Research 

also indicates that communities near natural 

areas receive positive economic eff ects as a 

result of their proximity to the environmental 

attributes that areas, such as the Curecanti 

area, contain. A study of 113 rural counties 

in the western United States discovered that 

the presence of natural areas was positively 

correlated with growth in population, income, 

and employment. From 1969 to 1996, positive 

and signifi cant correlation was discovered 

among employment, per capita income, and 

population growth rates and the percentage 

of land designated as wilderness. When the 

land designation was expanded to include 

designated wilderness, national parks and 

monuments, and wilderness study areas, the 

correlation between amenities and measures 

of growth was even stronger (Loomis and 

Richardson 2002).

Based on the previous evidence, the 

preservation of natural, cultural, recreational, 

and scenic resources through implementation 

of conservation tools would most likely 

contribute to maintaining or increasing 

regional economic health from sustaining 

or encouraging further growth in Retail and 

Service industries and in non-labor income in 

both counties. Improving regional economic 

conditions would result in long-term minor 

to moderate benefi cial impacts to the local 

economy, depending upon the degree of 

resource conservation.

NRA Contribution to Regional Economy. 

NRA-induced factors that aff ect the local 

economy include visitor numbers, visitor 

spending, and employee and operational 

expenditures. The potential for conservation 

of key resource values in areas surrounding 

the NRA could maintain existing levels or 

encourage additional visitation by providing 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 187

REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS

new recreational opportunities and 

maintaining the relatively untouched and 

undeveloped appearance of the Curecanti 

area in comparison to other national and 

state parks and recreation areas. Increased 

visitation would result in additional spending 

within the local economy that would range 

between $36.74 per day for a local day user, to 

$172.48 per day for visiting parties staying in a 

motel outside the NRA. This would increase 

sales and tax revenues, as well as jobs, within 

the counties. Additional visitor spending 

would result in long-term negligible to minor 

benefi cial impacts on the regional economy.

Under Alternative 2, hunting and fi shing 

would continue within the NRA, and the 

number of acres supporting public hunting 

could potentially expand. Benefi cial impacts 

associated with conservation of fi sh and wildlife 

habitat are substantial. CDOW estimates that 

non-resident hunters and anglers contribute 

30% of all hunting and fi shing activity days in 

Colorado. In 2002, all hunters and anglers spent 

$23 million in Gunnison County, and created 

another $17.6 million in secondary spending. 

Total economic contribution in Gunnison 

County supported about 540 jobs. In Montrose 

County, the fi gures were $13.4 million and $10.2 

million, respectively, with 310 jobs supported 

( Colorado Division of Wildlife 2004).The 

addition of an employee to the NPS staff to 

implement and sustain the Proposed Action’s 

recommendations would provide an additional 

salary of approximately $80,000 per year, 

resulting in some increased local spending. 

A second additional full time equivalent 

employee (FTE) would eventually be needed 

for resource and visitor management and 

protection, interpretation, construction and 

maintenance, and administration associated 

with newly acquired interests in land. This 

translates to a salary of approximately $80,000 

per year, resulting in additional local spending. 

This would provide stimulus within the local 

economy, resulting in long-term negligible to 

minor benefi cial impacts.

Payments In Lieu of Taxes and Other 

Impacts to Regional Revenues. The degree 

of impact upon county revenues from the 

implementation of the resource conservation 

program of Alternative 2 would depend upon 

the number of acres that were conserved 

by each type of tool. The two tools with 

the greatest potential for adverse impacts 

on revenues are fee simple acquisition and 

conservation easements. They are the focus 

of discussion within this section. A more 

defi nitive assessment of the impacts on county 

revenues will be made at the time a land 

protection plan is prepared.

Fee Simple Acquisition – There would be a loss 

of revenue related to property taxes on lands 

purchased by NPS within the authorized COA. 

This loss of revenue may be partially mitigated 

by an increased “Payments in Lieu of Taxes 

(PILT)” from the federal government to the 

counties involved. When the government 

acquires a fee interest in land, two payments 

are made to the county that received the 

tax payments while the land was in private 

ownership to compensate for the loss:

 One (1) % of the fair market value of 

the property acquired, but not greater 

than the previous year’s real estate tax 

payment. This payment continues for 

the fi rst fi ve years; and, 

 An entitlement payment that was based 

on $1.99 per acre of eligible land in 

2002. This payment is made indefi nitely 

from the time the title is transferred to 

the government. The fi gure can change 

from year to year, as it is adjusted for 

infl ationary changes in the Consumer 

Price Index (NPS 2002c).

Research on the eff ects of federal land 

acquisition and PILT payments on the regional 

economy indicates a variety of outcomes. 

Some researchers indicate that the impact 

of federal land ownership on the local tax 

base is a complicated issue that requires the 

evaluation of multiple factors. No universal 

conclusions may be drawn because of these 

factors (Bodine and Koontz 2003). Other 

researchers indicate that, because of the way 

PILT payments are calculated, a county’s 

PILT payment would not necessarily increase 

if federal land ownership within a county 

also increases. Counties with low population 

densities and large acreages of federally 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

188 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

owned land may not realize increases in PILT, 

particularly if they are already at the payment 

ceiling (Espy and Owusu-Edusei 2002).

Because PILT payments may not fully 

compensate for the lost property tax revenue, 

long-term, negligible to moderate adverse 

impacts to the regional economy could occur. 

However, property tax revenue losses could 

be off set over time by an increase in tourism 

associated with expansion of the NRA (Espy 

and Owusu-Edusei 2002; Seidl and Weiler 

2001) and decreased infrastructure costs 

(TPL 1999). Open space typically generates 

more local tax revenue than the cost of public 

services it requires. Residential development 

requires services, such as water, sewer, 

schools, and other types of infrastructure that 

is not required with preserved public lands.

Those landowners receiving payments for 

their properties would provide some stimulus 

within the local economy through additional 

purchases resulting in some additional shortterm benefi cial impacts.

Conservation Easements – Most conservation 

easements conserve open space and protect 

land from development and from activities that 

may damage important resource attributes such 

as wildlife habitat, riparian areas, and scenic 

values. The degree to which a conservation 

easement aff ects property taxes is variable and 

depends upon the classifi cation of the land 

and the restrictions that are imposed through 

the conservation easement. If a property is 

valued as agricultural land, it would continue 

to be valued as agricultural upon creation of 

a conservation easement. For a conservation 

easement on vacant land, the assessor’s offi ce 

closely examines the restrictions placed on 

the property before determining the value. 

Generally, a conservation easement that allows 

limited development on a small parcel may not 

noticeably reduce the taxable value of

the land. However, a conservation easement 

that prohibits any development on a parcel 

that would otherwise be highly developable 

may substantially reduce the assessed 

value (TPL 1999).

Conservation easements within the proposed 

lands would most likely have a long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impact on regional 

revenues, because much of the private 

property, particularly on the north side in 

 Land Units A (CO 92 COA) and G (West-End 

COA), is agricultural or vacant. Conservation 

easements would potentially have less of an 

eff ect on these types of properties. More 

developable areas, such as Sapinero Mesa, 

could add conservation easements to preserve 

important resource or scenic areas, while 

permitting development that is compatible 

with NRA goals and objectives in areas that are 

unobtrusive, allowing the county to continue 

to receive some tax revenues.

Quality of Life. The preservation of important 

resource values through resource conservation 

tools would continue to support the quality of 

life important to many of the residents within 

the two counties, particularly Gunnison, 

resulting in long-term negligible to moderate 

benefi ts depending upon the areas and acres 

conserved. Ecosystem service values - those 

things provided by nature that man would 

otherwise need to provide for himself- such 

as air and water fi ltration, climate regulation, 

maintenance of biodiversity, scenic beauty, 

and other benefi ts would also continue to be 

maintained and increased, resulting in further 

long-term benefi ts ( Wilderness Society 2002).

In contrast, some residents could be 

concerned that increasing conservation 

activities could attract too many people and 

change the rural character of the counties. 

Increasing local population could result in 

some long-term minor adverse impacts that 

could slowly change the character of the two 

counties. However, comprehensive planning 

activities being undertaken by Gunnison 

County might minimize or control some of 

these potential eff ects.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts would generally be the 

same as Alternative 1, except the actions 

of Alternative 2 in combination with other 

planning and land conservation activities 

would result in minor to moderate benefi cial 

cumulative impacts in the long-term. The 

combination of resource conservation eff orts 

in Alternative 2 with other area conservation 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 189

REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS

eff orts, such as work done by land trusts and 

conservation agencies, would result in greater 

cumulative conservation of key resource 

values, and associated economic benefi ts.

Conclusion

The implementation of resource conservation 

tools would most likely maintain or improve 

regional economic health by encouraging 

growth in the retail and service industries, in 

non-labor total personal income, and in visitor 

spending resulting in long-term minor to 

moderate benefi cial impacts. If land is acquired, 

or conserved via conservation easements, longterm negligible to moderate adverse impacts 

to county revenues could occur, depending 

upon the conservation method and the land 

classifi cation of the property. Any losses in 

tax revenue could be off set by the spending of 

long-term residents, and by the decreased need 

for provision of infrastructure associated with 

preserved open space.

 PRIVATE LAND USE WITHIN THE 

NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Guiding Policies and Regulations

Current laws and policies encourage NPS to 

work cooperatively with owners of interests 

(such as rights-of-way, water rights, access 

rights, and oil/gas/mineral rights) within 

the NRA in order to help achieve desired 

conditions related to private land use within the 

NRA boundary. Refer to the following box for 

details.

DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR 

PRIVATE LAND USE WITHIN THE NRA SOURCE 

Requests from owners to extract oil, gas, and/or mineral 

rights are reviewed and permitted according to the 

subordination of the development of such rights to 

Reclamation's project as specified in the land purchase

contracts and deeds. 

- Reclamation law, as 

supplemented and amended 

- Legal documents, such as 

warranty deeds and mineral 

leases, authorizing the right to 

extract oil, gas, and/or minerals. 

Requests from owners to extract oil, gas, and/or mineral 

rights are reviewed, and permitted or denied, according 

to law and NPS policy. If denied, and if the owner is 

willing, NPS will seek to acquire the mineral interest. If 

permitted, NPS will require such measures as will mitigate 

impacts to NRA resources. 

- NPS Management Policies 2006

- 36 CFR Part 9, Subpart B (for 

nonfederal oil and gas) 

- 36 CFR Part 5 and 36 CFR 1.6 (for 

other nonfederal mineral 

interests) 

Good relations are maintained with owners of interests 

(such as rights-of-way, water rights, access rights, and oil/

gas/mineral rights) within the NRA. The NRA is managed 

proactively to resolve external issues and concerns and to 

ensure that NRA values are not compromised. 

- NPS Management Policies 2006

The National Park Service works cooperatively with 

others to anticipate, avoid, and resolve potential conflicts;

to conserve NRA resources; and address mutual interests 

in the quality of life for community residents. 

- NPS Management Policies 2006
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

190 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Methodology

This section analyzes the impacts of the 

alternatives on owners of oil, gas, and/or other 

mineral rights within the NRA. All of the 

surface lands and waters within the NRA are 

owned by the federal government. However, 

throughout the NRA, there exist retained 

oil, gas, and/or other sub-surface mineral 

rights on land that has been acquired by the 

government. This situation, where one party 

owns the surface of the land and another party 

owns the subsurface minerals is known as a 

“split estate.” All available information on land 

that has mineral rights held by a party other 

than the federal government within the NRA 

was collected. 

Actions described in both Alternatives 1 and 

2 relate primarily to lands, both private and 

public, outside the existing NRA, rather than 

to lands within the NRA. Therefore, neither 

alternative would have very much impact on 

owners of mineral rights within the NRA. 

However, any such impact would be measured 

by the following thresholds. 

Negligible: The impact is barely detectable 

and would aff ect few private owners of 

mineral rights.

Minor: The impact is slight, but detectable, 

and would aff ect a minority of private owners 

of mineral rights.

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent 

and would affect many private owners of 

mineral rights.

Major: The impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally benefi cial and would aff ect the 

majority of private owners of mineral rights.

Short-term eff ects would be less than one year 

in duration. Long-term eff ects would be more 

than one year in duration.

Because this topic evaluates the potential 

impact to owners of mineral rights, and does 

not assess impacts on resources within the 

NRA, impairment is not evaluated.

Impacts of Alternative 1 – No Action

Analysis

Of the roughly 60 mineral interests reserved 

within the boundaries of the NRA, only 

one is in operation. The Dickerson Pit is a 

privately owned mineral materials site that has 

existed since 1927. The current operator of 

the site, Gunnison Gravel and Earthmoving, 

mines and removes decomposed granite 

and related materials from an area west of 

US 50, the primary access road through the 

NRA, east of Blue Mesa Reservoir along the 

Gunnison River. A Plan of Operations, with an 

accompanying environmental assessment, was 

complete by the NRA resulting in the issuance 

of a special use permit allowing an expansion 

of the site to a maximum 33.16 acres, subject 

to the exclusion of a portion of the area that 

contains signifi cant cultural resources.

In the event that owners of any of the other 

interests reserved areas choose to conduct 

mineral development within the NRA, they 

would do so in conformance with applicable 

laws and guidelines. 

Under Alternative 1, there would be no change 

to existing land use policy and guidelines 

regarding reserved mineral rights. NPS would 

continue to work cooperatively with owners 

of such rights through a permitting process 

to allow the owner to exercise those rights 

while minimizing adverse impacts on NRA 

resources or visitor enjoyment. Therefore, 

there would be no impact on people or groups 

holding mineral rights within the NRA. 

Cumulative Impacts

Over the present and reasonably foreseeable 

future there are no know projects that would 

aff ect the opportunity for owners of mineral 

rights on acquired land within the NRA. Longterm NRA activities, combined with regional 

activities, would result in long-term negligible 

minor impacts to owners of mineral rights. 

Conclusion

Because private owners of oil, gas, and/or 

other mineral rights on government-acquired 

lands would be able to continue to exercise 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 191

REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS

their rights as provided for under law and 

policy, there would no adverse impacts to the 

control they have over their mineral rights. 

Impacts of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Analysis

In Alternative 2, the analysis of the situation 

regarding owners of mineral rights within 

the NRA is the same as for Alternative 1. 

As with Alternative 1, there would be no 

change to existing land use policy and 

guidelines regarding reserved mineral rights 

under Alternative 2. NPS would continue 

to work cooperatively with owners of 

such rights through a permitting process 

to allow the owner to exercise those rights 

while minimizing adverse impacts on NRA 

resources or visitor enjoyment. However, 

under Alternative 2, there would be more 

programmatic funding and authorization 

to pursue greater incentives for resource 

conservation that might provide a greater 

opportunity for fi nancial benefi t to the owner 

of the mineral rights, while more closely 

meeting NPS resource conservation goals and 

objectives. Thus, Alternative 2 could provide 

a minor long term benefi cial impact for the 

owner of the mineral rights. 

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts to owners of mineral 

rights within the NRA would be similar to 

those described in Alternative 1. However, 

due to greater potential for the availability of 

resource conservation incentives in working 

with NPS under Alternative 2, cumulative 

impacts have the potential to be more 

benefi cial to the owner of those rights than 

under Alternative 1.

Conclusion

As with Alternative 1, because owners of oil, 

gas, and/or other mineral rights on acquired 

lands would be able to continue to exercise 

their rights as provided for under law and 

policy, there would be no adverse impacts 

to the control they have over their mineral 

rights. However, with the potential for NPS 

to provide more resource conservation 

incentives under Alternative 2, it would be 

more benefi cial to the owner of mineral rights 

than Alternative 1. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

192 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

 NEIGHBORING PRIVATE LANDS 

AND LANDOWNERS WITHIN THE 

 PROPOSED LANDS

Guiding Policies and Regulations

Current laws and policies encourage NPS to 

work cooperatively with neighbors and local 

governments in order to help achieve desired 

conditions and identify mutual interests. Refer 

to the following box for details.

Methodology

Concerns identifi ed by private landowners 

within the proposed lands were considered 

in this analysis. Potential eff ects on private 

landowners in both alternatives would be the 

direct result of individual landowner decisions 

to accomplish one of the following scenarios: 

(1) maintain their property in its existing 

condition; (2) conserve resource attributes 

through a method available from a private 

conservation organization or an agency, such 

as the National Park Service; or (3) develop all, 

or portions of, their property subject to county 

land use regulations. Essentially, landowners 

have the freedom to choose their own course 

of action despite which RPS alternative is 

implemented. Thus, this analysis focuses on 

some of the perceived or subjective eff ects that 

landowners identifi ed during the landowner 

workshops and that were identifi ed by the 

National Park Service during agency and 

public workshops. It also addresses potential 

changes to land use patterns and property 

values, should landowners make decisions 

to develop or conserve properties. Another 

aspect evaluated was the potential resolution 

of issues related to private encroachment onto 

government land, most commonly caused by 

inadvertent actions or an incorrect survey.

Impact thresholds that measure the intensity 

of impacts on owners of private land within 

the COA from actions in the two alternatives 

are as follows:

Negligible: The impact is barely detectable and 

would aff ect few private landowners and/or 

other non-governmental neighbors.

Minor: The impact is slight, but detectable, and 

would aff ect a minority of private landowners 

and/or other non-governmental neighbors.

DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR NEIGHBORING 

PRIVATE LANDS AND LANDOWNERS 

WITHIN THE PROPOSED LANDS 

SOURCE 

Good relations are maintained with adjacent landowners,

surrounding communities, and private and public groups 

that affect, and are affected by, Curecanti National 

Recreation Area. The NRA is managed proactively to 

resolve external issues and concerns and to ensure that 

NRA values are not compromised. 

- NPS Management Policies 2006

The National Park Service works cooperatively with 

others to anticipate, avoid, and resolve potential conflicts;

to conserve NRA resources; and, address mutual interests 

in the quality of life for community residents. Regional 

cooperation involves federal, state, and local agencies,

affiliated tribes, neighboring landowners, and all other 

concerned parties. 

- NPS Management Policies 2006

Curecanti National Recreation Area increases its 

managerial resources through initiatives and support 

from other agencies, organizations, and individuals. 

- NRA Mission Goal 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 193

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent 

and would aff ect many private landowners or 

other non-governmental neighbors.

Major: The impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally benefi cial and would aff ect the 

majority of private landowners and/or other 

non-governmental neighbors.

Short-term eff ects would be less than one year 

in duration. Long-term eff ects would be more 

than one year in duration.

Because this topic evaluates the potential 

impact to landowners and does not involve 

resources within the NRA, impairment is 

not evaluated.

Impacts of Alternative 1 – No Action

Analysis

In this alternative, the private lands within 

the proposed lands would not be identifi ed 

as a COA, and the ability of NPS to work 

with landowners to conserve important 

resource attributes would consist only of 

limited technical assistance. Private lands 

within the proposed lands would most likely 

remain in their current condition, unless a 

landowner chose to develop the property or 

pursue a conservation easement with a private 

organization. Because landowners would 

continue to have the freedom to manage their 

properties, within the limits of Gunnison 

and Montrose County land use regulations, 

there would be no impact to private property 

owners from the NRA.

The ability of the National Park Service to 

assist landowners in preserving important 

resources would be limited, as the NRA 

would have no available funding to purchase 

conservation easements or pursue fee simple 

acquisition, and would have limited funds to 

partner on projects with adjacent landowners. 

NPS would have to make requests to Congress 

to acquire easements or lands, and to make 

additions to the NRA on a case-by-case 

basis. This process would result in longterm moderate to major adverse impacts to 

landowners who were interested in pursuing 

some form of land conservation with the 

National Park Service.

Some changes in land use and property values 

within the proposed lands would most likely 

occur over the next 5 to 10 years as some lands 

are sold, subdivided, and developed. Areas 

most likely to face increasing pressure from 

residential and/or commercial development 

include areas along US 50, such as Sapinero 

Mesa, Hunters Point, Windy Point, and 

Cimarron ( Land Units E and G) because of 

easy accessibility, existing development in 

the area, and potential landowner interest 

in selling their property. Although property 

values may increase, there is no assurance 

of that, as other factors can aff ect property 

values (consider the oil shale bust of the 

1980’s, for example). As noted in the Aff ected 

Environment, the assessed value of properties 

in mountain communities such as Gunnison 

County has increased annually. These changes 

in land use and property values could be either 

adverse or benefi cial to landowners depending 

upon the preferences of each landowner and 

the location of the property.

Under Alternative 1, there would be no change 

to existing grazing allotments. Therefore, 

there would be no impact on people who hold 

grazing permits.

Under Alternative 1, NPS would rely on the 

authorities and the assistance of Reclamation 

to correct boundary issues, such as those 

where encroachment exists or where problems 

have been caused by previous inaccurate or 

incorrect surveys. Also, in conjunction with 

Reclamation, NPS would seek to acquire, 

preferably in fee simple interest, and include 

within the NRA, that portion of the Iola Basin 

high pool in Blue Mesa Reservoir that now lies 

outside the NRA.”

Cumulative Impacts

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

non-NPS planning and resource conservation 

activities occurring throughout the proposed 

lands, and with Gunnison and Montrose 

Counties, could result in a variety of impacts 

to area landowners. The Gunnison County 

Comprehensive Plan could result in impacts 

REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

194 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

to landowners by limiting development to 

areas that could either adversely or benefi cially 

impact private land values in the proposed 

lands. In general, planning activities in both 

Gunnison and Montrose Counties would result 

in long-term adverse to benefi cial cumulative 

impacts on landowners, depending upon 

the eff ects of planning eff orts on location of 

development and resulting land values, as well 

as the preferences of landowners for open 

space vs. development.

Local, state, and national conservation groups 

and land trusts could continue to negotiate 

for acquisition of conservation easements and 

private lands within Gunnison and Montrose 

Counties, providing additional opportunities 

for landowners to negotiate the most suitable 

agreement, while maintaining their private 

property rights. These opportunities would 

result in long-term minor to major benefi cial 

impacts to landowners.

With respect to NPS activities, the relatively 

limited resource conservation opportunities 

aff orded by Alternative 1, when combined with 

the impacts of other land preservation activities, 

would result in long-term negligible to minor 

benefi cial cumulative impacts on landowners.

Conclusion

Because landowners would continue to have 

the freedom to manage their properties within 

the limits of county land use regulations, 

there would be no adverse impacts to 

the control they have over their property 

due to NPS actions. However, the NRA’s 

ability to assist landowners to conserve 

important resources would be limited, since 

funding would be unavailable to purchase 

conservation easements or to pursue fee 

simple acquisition without congressional 

approval and appropriation. This would 

result in moderate to major adverse impacts 

to landowners who are interested in working 

in partnership with NPS towards enhanced 

resource conservation. Changes in land use 

and property values would most likely occur, 

but would range from adverse to benefi cial, 

depending on landowner preferences.

Impacts of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Analysis

This alternative identifi es a COA consisting 

of private lands adjacent to the proposed 

NRA boundary, in which NPS would be 

authorized to negotiate resource conservation 

mechanisms with landowners. It is anticipated 

that some funding would be appropriated to 

implement these mechanisms after legislation 

authorizes establishment of the NRA under 

Alternative 2. Landowners with private 

property within the COA would be under no 

obligation to partner or negotiate with NPS, 

nor would NPS have any authority to utilize 

condemnation or other measures not in 

partnership and cooperation with landowners. 

Because landowners would continue to have 

full private property rights, there would be no 

impacts from Alternative 2 on property rights 

of landowners.

Some landowners would benefi t from the 

availability of resource conservation tools 

and NPS funding to conserve resource 

characteristics on their property. With 

congressional authorization, and subject 

to competing demands from other NPS 

units, there would be more opportunity for 

funds to be made available for acquisition 

of fee title or conservation easements from 

willing landowners in the COA. Depending 

upon the type of agreement, easement or 

purchase negotiated between a landowner 

and the National Park Service, a variety of 

benefi ts could accrue to landowners. When 

landowners place conservation easements on 

their properties, they voluntarily limit their 

ability, as well as that of subsequent owners, 

to develop all, or portions of, their properties. 

They thereby permanently preserve open 

space, agricultural, scenic, or other resource 

values. A landowner may become eligible 

for certain tax benefi ts by donating these 

relinquished rights and by meeting specifi c 

conditions outlined in the Internal Revenue 

Code (IRC). These benefi ts include reductions 

in federal and state income taxes and estate 

and inheritance taxes. Landowners could 

also negotiate fee simple acquisition with 

NPS, whereby NPS would purchase a 

landowner’s property for the appraised 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 195

value. The availability of these conservation 

opportunities, tax benefi ts, and purchase 

options could result in long-term minor to 

major benefi ts to interested landowners, 

depending upon the tool employed, 

negotiated specifi cs, and the number of 

landowners that choose to participate.

Other landowners believe that the creation of 

the COA could impede their private property 

rights simply due to its existence and the stated 

interest of NPS in the resources on their lands. 

Some landowners perceive that the COA would 

be a target area for acquisition and that a future 

administration could authorize condemnation 

despite landowner sentiment.

Land use patterns and property values would 

most likely remain similar to Alternative 1, 

although there would be a greater likelihood 

that conservation values on private properties 

would be preserved via resource conservation 

mechanisms, and less development would 

occur. Private property values would most 

likely continue to increase. Similar to 

Alternative 1, the impact on landowners would 

range from adverse to benefi cial depending 

upon landowner preferences and the location 

of their property relative to conserved areas 

and development.

 Grazing on private lands within the COA 

would be unaff ected by Alternative 2. Grazing 

permits for allotments that include federal 

land within the NRA would continue to be 

renewed at the request of the permit holder.

Under Alternative 2, NPS would utilize its 

own authority to make minor adjustments 

to the proposed boundary, or may request 

clarifi cation of such authority through 

legislation. This would enable NPS to work 

with landowners to correct boundary and 

encroachment issues now known to exist, 

or that may be identifi ed in the future, due 

to factors such as previous inaccurate or 

incorrect surveys. Also, in conjunction with 

Reclamation, NPS would seek to acquire, 

preferably in fee simple interest, and include 

within the NRA, that portion of the Iola Basin 

high pool in Blue Mesa Reservoir that now lies 

outside the NRA.

Cumulative Impacts

Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

non-NPS planning and resource conservation 

activities occurring throughout the proposed 

lands and with Gunnison and Montrose 

Counties could result in a variety of impacts 

to area landowners. The Gunnison County 

Comprehensive Plan could result in impacts 

to landowners by limiting development 

to areas that could either adversely or 

benefi cially impact private land values in 

the proposed lands. In general, planning 

activities in both Gunnison and Montrose 

Counties would result in long-term adverse to 

benefi cial cumulative impacts on landowners, 

depending upon the eff ects of planning eff orts 

on location of development and resulting 

land values, as well as the preferences of 

landowners for open space vs. development.

Local, state, and national conservation groups 

and land trusts could continue to negotiate 

for acquisition of conservation easements and 

private lands within Gunnison and Montrose 

Counties, providing additional opportunities 

for landowners to negotiate the most suitable 

agreement, while maintaining their private 

property rights. These opportunities would 

result in long-term minor to major benefi cial 

impacts to landowners.

With respect to NPS activities, resource 

conservation opportunities afforded 

by Alternative 2, when combined with 

the impacts of other land preservation 

activities, would result in long-term 

moderate to major beneficial cumulative 

impacts on landowners.

Conclusion

 Landowners would be under no obligation 

to negotiate with NPS, nor would NPS have 

any condemnation or other authority to 

take private lands within the COA without 

full consent of and compensation to the 

landowner. Because landowners would 

continue to have full private property 

rights within the limits of county land use 

regulations, there would be no adverse 

impacts to the control they have over 

their property as a result of NPS actions. 

REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

196 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

However, the availability of a full range of 

resource conservation opportunities and 

tax benefits could result in long-term minor 

to major benefits to interested landowners. 

Changes in land use and property values 

would most likely occur, but would range 

from adverse to beneficial depending upon 

landowner preferences.

 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, 

RECLAMATION, AND OTHER

NEIGHBORING AGENCY MANAGEMENT

AND OPERATIONS

Guiding Policies and Regulations

Current laws and policies encourage NPS to 

work cooperatively with neighboring agencies 

in order to help achieve desired conditions 

related to management and operation issues. 

Refer to the following box for details.

Methodology

NPS, Reclamation, and Other Neighboring 

Agency Management and Operations, for 

the purpose of this analysis, refers to all 

administrative management and operations 

considerations, and the adequacy of staffi ng 

levels and operational budgets, in order to 

adequately manage the agency’s lands and 

accomplish its mandated goals within the 

proposed lands. Workshops were held with 

representatives from each of the federal, state, 

and county agencies with land management 

responsibilities within the overall proposed 

lands. More specifi cally, each land unit 

was discussed in detail, including existing 

operations and potential operational and 

management impacts, if the Proposed Action 

alternative were implemented.

The area of analysis was two-fold: regional, 

encompassing the overall proposed lands; and 

site-specifi c by individual land unit. For impacts 

on NPS management and operations, both 

agency transfer lands and the potential addition 

of private lands to the NRA were considered. 

For impacts on neighboring federal and state 

DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR NPS, RECLAMATION,

AND OTHER NEIGHBORING AGENCY 

MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS 

SOURCE 

In the spirit of partnership, the National Park Service 

seeks opportunities for cooperative management 

agreements with federal, state, and local agencies that 

would allow for more effective and efficient management 

of Curecanti National Recreation Area. 

- NPS Management Policies 2006

- National Parks Omnibus 

Management Act of 1998, Section 

802 

Possible conflicts between alternatives and land use plans,

policies, or controls for the area concerned (including 

those of federal, state, and local governments, and Indian 

tribes) and the extent to which the NRA would reconcile 

the conflict are identified in environmental documents. 

- National Environmental Policy 

Act 

NPS works cooperatively with others to anticipate, avoid,

and resolve potential conflicts; to conserve NRA 

resources; and address mutual interests in the quality of 

life for community residents. Regional cooperation 

involves federal, state, and local agencies, affiliated tribes,

neighboring landowners, and all other concerned parties. 

- NPS Management Policies 2006

Manage the area as a part of the greater riverine 

ecosystem, coordinating with other land management 

agencies. 

- NRA Mission 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 197

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RECLAMATION, AND OTHER NEIGHBORING AGENCY MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

agency management and operations, only the 

federal and state land transfers were assessed. 

Private lands acquired for the NRA would not 

have management and operational impacts on 

the neighboring agencies.

Impact thresholds that measure the relative 

change in agency operations as a result of each 

alternative are as follows.

Negligible: NRA, or other agency operations, 

would not be aff ected, or the action would 

not have a noticeable or appreciable eff ect on 

operations.

Minor: Eff ects would be noticeable, but would 

be of a magnitude that would not result in an 

appreciable or measurable change to NRA or 

other agency operations.

Moderate: Eff ects would be readily apparent 

and would result in a substantial change in 

NRA, or other, agency operations that would 

be noticeable to staff and the public.

Major: Eff ects would be readily apparent 

and would result in a substantial change in 

NRA, or other, agency operations that would 

be noticeable to staff and the public, and 

would be markedly diff erent from existing 

operations.

Short-term eff ects would only occur during 

one operating year. Long-term eff ects would 

persist beyond the initial transfer of lands 

between agencies or beyond one operating 

year.

Because this topic does not evaluate the 

potential impacts on natural or cultural 

resources contained within the NRA, 

impairment is not evaluated.

Impacts of Alternative 1 – No Action 

Analysis

NPS, and other agency operations, would 

remain the same as described in the Aff ected 

Environment. No federal land transfers would 

occur. The management responsibilities 

and maintenance operations of each 

individual agency would be executed with 

existing staff and budget. However, ongoing 

management and staff labor costs would be 

incurred by NPS to address public requests 

for information related to the toolbox for 

resource conservation. Potential development 

of private lands in the vicinity of the NRA, 

such as in Land Units A (CO 92 COA), E 

(Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), and G (WestEnd COA), where private lands are adjacent 

to US 50, could also result in additional staff 

time if commercial development congregated 

visitors in areas throughout the NRA or along 

the roadway. This would probably result in 

resource issues that would have to be resolved, 

and additional maintenance costs. Additional 

staff needs could result in long-term, minor 

adverse impacts to the NRA operating budget.

The Bureau of Reclamation and Western 

Area Power Administration would continue 

their responsibilities within and adjacent 

to the national recreation area, including 

construction, operation, maintenance, 

replacements, and additions; and they 

and their assigns would continue to have 

unrestricted access to their lands and land 

interests, water and water interests, and 

facilities; consistent with Reclamation law, 

and other applicable laws and regulations. 

Reclamation, Western, and the National Park 

Service would consult with each other as 

necessary and appropriate. Thus, there would 

be no adverse impacts to Reclamation and 

Western responsibilities under Alternative 1.

Existing permits, such as grazing, would 

continue in their current state. Grazing within 

the NRA would continue to be administered 

in cooperation with the current administering 

agency (BLM or USFS).

Areas where the boundary between the 

NRA and other agency lands is diffi cult 

to identify would continue to cause some 

ongoing confusion for agencies and the public, 

resulting in a long-term, negligible adverse 

impact. One example of such an area is in 

Land Unit B, where the boundary is irregular, 

bending around BLM and CDOW lands in 

a number of locations. Another example is 

at Dry Creek, where NPS facilities occur on 

CDOW land under an agreement.
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

198 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

The existing condition requires Reclamation 

to develop, negotiate, implement, and 

maintain local agreements with at least two 

land management agencies (NPS and BLM) 

for its lands within and adjacent to the NRA. 

This activity and the associated personnel and 

costs for coordinating management on these 

lands create a minor long-term expense for all 

three agencies.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts to agency operations 

would not result from implementation of 

Alternative 1.

Conclusion

The ongoing requests for information 

related to resource conservation on adjacent 

private lands and potential resource and 

visitor use impacts associated with potential 

development of private lands adjacent to the 

NRA would result in long-term minor adverse 

impacts to NRA operations.

Impacts of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Analysis

National Park Service. It is expected that 

implementation of Alternative 2 would occur 

over a number of years into the future. It 

would require the following additional eff orts 

of NRA staff :

 Perform as NRA liaison with 

private landowners, adjacent land 

management agencies, county 

planners and offi cials, and other 

neighbors and stakeholders

 Write and implement a land 

protection plan

 Work with private landowners to 

implement the tools of resource 

conservation, including negotiations 

leading to acquiring interests in land

 Coordinate land appraisals and 

environmental assessments

 Implement boundary surveys, marking 

and posting, and fencing

 Write grant proposals

 Monitor conservation easements

 Provide and/or coordinate technical 

assistance to neighboring private 

landowners in the areas of natural, 

historical, and archeological 

resource conservation and 

enhancement, especially preserving 

and improving natural habitat, and 

conserving water quality; planning, 

siting, and design considerations for 

development; and protecting life and 

property from wildfire

 Coordinate the Joint Agency 

Management Eff ort

 Coordinate the development and 

execution of an implementation plan 

for new lands.

In addition, as more interests in land are 

acquired over time, there would be an 

increasing requirement for NRA staff in the 

following areas of operations.

 To monitor and conserve the natural 

and cultural resources on those lands

 To administer grazing permits that 

exist on lands transferred to the NRA

 To provide for additional recreational 

and interpretive opportunities, and the 

safety of visitors

 To construct and maintain the 

necessary and appropriate facilities for 

resource conservation and visitor use, 

such as fencing and trails

 To provide administrative support for 

technical assistance to neighbors.

If funding is not provided for additional staff 

to perform the above duties, Alternative 2 

would have a long-term, major, adverse impact 

on NPS operations. However, if additional 

staff is available to perform these duties, 

there is expected to be a long-term moderate 

benefi cial impact to NPS operations, due 

to enhanced cooperation from landowners 

and other neighbors in the realm of resource 

conservation. It is for these reasons that this 

study recommends an increase in the NRA’s 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 199

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RECLAMATION, AND OTHER NEIGHBORING AGENCY MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

base funding to hire additional employees 

to accomplish these tasks. Ultimately, two 

additional full-time equivalent employees 

(FTE) would be needed to fully implement 

the proposed action. This is discussed in more 

detail in the section on “Estimated Costs, 

Staffi ng Requirements, and Implementation 

Strategy” for Alternative 2 in the Alternatives, 

Including the Proposed Action chapter.

A potential of 10,040 net acres of land from 

other federal and state land management 

agencies would be transferred by Congress to 

NPS in Land Units B ( Blue Mesa Reservoir 

Agency), F (Gateview Agency), and H (WestEnd Agency) for inclusion in the NRA upon 

approval of the Proposed Action. Into the near 

and distant future, up to 24,300 additional 

acres in private land within the COA could 

be potentially acquired or managed via 

conservation easements or other conservation 

tools if private landowners were willing to 

sell their lands or execute such agreements. 

The most likely scenario is that a relatively 

small percentage of these lands would 

be so managed. Current thinking is that 

approximately one tenth (2,400 acres) would 

eventually be acquired in fee simple, and 

included within the NRA; and approximately 

one third (8,100 acres) would eventually 

come under conservation easements. One 

reason is that to the greatest extent possible, 

NPS would pursue tools of a partnership 

nature with willing landowners, conservation 

organizations, land trusts, and other agencies, 

that would result in the least amount of 

cost to the government, while still satisfying 

resource conservation goals and objectives, as 

well as landowner goals and objectives. The 

potential impacts on the National Park Service 

of federal and state land transfers and the 

inclusion of private lands within the COA are 

discussed in two separate sections below.

1. Federal and State Land Transfers - Land 

transfers between other agencies and NPS 

would simplify existing boundaries between 

agencies and improve NPS operations in 

site-specifi c areas, resulting in long-term 

negligible to minor benefi cial impacts. 

Additions of federally owned lands or 

facilities could result in long-term adverse 

negligible to minor impacts to site-specifi c 

NPS operations and staffi ng, unless additional 

staff was authorized. The potential transfer 

of the Gateview facilities (recommended for 

BLM administration) would, in part, off set 

this workload. Still, it is expected that some 

staff would be needed to perform additional 

maintenance services, visitor and resource 

protection, and resource management duties 

due to the addition of lands.

 Land Unit B: Blue Mesa 

Reservoir Agency

o USFS and BLM lands from the 

existing NRA (north of Sapinero 

Basin) to the southern edge of 

the West Elk Wilderness Area 

would be transferred to the 

National Park Service, including 

the Soap Creek Campground 

that is currently managed by the 

USFS. The management of the 

area by one agency rather than by 

three would provide long-term, 

moderate benefits to visitors, 

because the area would be 

managed under the guidelines of 

only one agency, and that agency 

would be the sole presence or 

contact for visitors. Furthermore, 

management by one agency rather 

than by three would provide for 

overall operational efficiencies.

o Because of the NPS existing 

presence along the Soap Creek 

Arm and Soap Creek Road, the 

National Park Service would be 

able to easily manage this area, 

including the road, the Soap 

Creek campground, and area 

resources, with only long-term, 

negligible to minor impacts to 

NRA operations. The existing 

campground concession 

permit would be transferred to 

the National Park Service, or 

terminated. If terminated, it would 

result in some adverse impacts 

to existing concessioners. USFS 

would need to amend the existing 

outfi tter permit, and NPS would 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

200 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

need to issue a Commercial Use 

Authorization to the same outfi tter, 

refl ecting changes brought about 

by transfer of agency lands. 

o Haystack Cave, an archeological 

site now managed by BLM, but 

adjacent to NPS facilities and 

headquarters at Elk Creek, would 

receive a heightened level of 

protection and scientifi c activity, 

because NPS rangers and resources 

staff work in the vicinity more 

frequently than BLM personnel. 

o Some USFS land now being 

managed within the NRA would 

be excluded from the NRA. These 

consist of two parcels (shown 

as Tract 8 and Tract 9 on the 

Alternative 2 map) that sit west of 

the Soap Creek Road. By letting 

USFS administer these parcels, the 

road in this vicinity would become 

the proposed boundary between 

NPS and USFS, which would 

provide some effi ciency for both 

agencies in administering the land. 

o BLM lands in the eastern portion of 

this land unit would remain in their 

current, undeveloped condition 

and would continue to be managed 

for critical winter range and other 

wildlife habitat values. 

o Under Alternative 2, the National 

Park Service would receive 

authorization to facilitate land 

exchanges with CDOW that 

would improve operations and 

management effi ciencies for both 

organizations. All such transfers 

would be subject to CDOW 

approval. These lands would 

continue to be managed for critical 

winter range and other wildlife 

habitat values. CDOW would 

benefi t by consolidating lands in 

the Centennial State Wildlife Area 

and/or Sapinero State Wildlife Area. 

NPS would benefi t by including 

what are now CDOW isolated 

parcels within the proposed NRA 

boundary. This includes land in Dry 

Creek, East Elk Creek, and Beaver 

Creek. Currently, NPS facilities exist 

under agreement on the Dry Creek 

CDOW parcel, and East Elk Creek 

facilities are accessed via a road that 

crosses CDOW land. Simplifi cation 

of the northern NRA boundary in 

this land unit for easy recognition 

by agency personnel and the public 

would also contribute to this 

benefi cial impact.

 Land Unit F: Gateview Agency

o Because the Gateview 

Campground and historic 

resources in the area are a distance 

from other facilities within the 

NRA, the transfer of these facilities 

to BLM would result in a longterm benefi cial impact to NRA 

operations. Minor benefi cial 

eff ects related to maintenance costs 

would occur in this area because 

the water system would no longer 

be maintained and tested, nor 

the restroom facilities cleaned by 

NPS staff on a regular basis. These 

functions would be transferred to 

BLM. The National Park Service 

would continue to pump the pit 

toilets at the campground and 

maintain the road to the area under 

an agreement with BLM.

 Land Unit H: West-End Agency

o Although the transfer of lands from 

BLM and USFS to NPS that is 

proposed throughout this land unit 

would result in some operational 

and administrative effi ciencies 

for the National Park Service, the 

net result would be long-term 

minor adverse impacts on NPS 

operations, if the recommended 

additional staff were not provided 

to accommodate the additional 

management responsibilities that 

would ensue. There would be 

more land to patrol, and more 

wildlife and grazing to manage. 

Furthermore, although the 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 201

BLM lands to be transferred are 

contiguous with the existing NRA, 

some are isolated parcels with 

diffi cult access.

o Some of the transferred lands, 

upon revocation of Reclamation’s 

withdrawl, could be available for 

future NPS land exchanges that 

would help conserve the viewshed 

in the vicinity of Morrow Point or 

Crystal Reservoirs.

 All Agency Land Units (B, F and H)

o Grazing

 USFS lands proposed for 

transfer to the National Park 

Service along CO 92 include 

acreage in the vicinity of 

the Long Gulch – Bear Trap 

area. Due to the large 30,000 

acre grazing allotment in 

and adjacent to this area, the 

proposed NRA boundary 

was adjusted from an earlier 

proposal to ensure that the 

vast majority of the grazing 

allotment remains outside 

the NRA. NPS also reduced 

the width of the Crystal 

Trail corridor to minimize 

this impact. USFS would 

continue to manage the 

grazing allotment, and NPS 

and USFS would enter into a 

new agreement to refl ect the 

new situation. Thus, negligible 

impacts would occur to USFS 

grazing allotment permittees, 

as the USFS would continue to 

manage this large, early season 

grazing allotment on those 

lands lying outside the NRA.

 BLM grazing allotments would 

be administered via agreement 

with the involved agencies. The 

likely scenario for most grazing 

is that allotments would consist 

of land outside and within the 

NRA. Grazing would be allowed 

to continue where authorized 

under existing permits, 

unless the permittee requests 

a voluntary termination. 

Arrangements for managing 

grazing would be worked out 

on a case-by-case basis, and 

documented in an agreement 

with the involved agencies. In 

cases where an allotment still 

contains a signifi cant amount 

of BLM land, it is expected 

that the BLM would continue 

managing that allotment; and 

in cases where little or no 

BLM land is in the allotment, 

NPS would likely manage 

the allotment, or through 

agreement, contract with the 

BLM to manage the allotment. 

Refer to Table 15, which appears 

later in this section, for a 

listing of identifi ed allotments, 

and potential management 

scenarios. This activity would 

result in negligible to minor, 

long-term adverse impacts 

to NPS from additional 

management responsibilities, 

if the recommended additional 

staff were not provided. As 

noted earlier, there would be no 

impact to grazing permittees.

o Mining Activity

 There are no known, active 

mineral claims or leases 

on the lands proposed for 

transfer to NPS.

 Transferred federal and 

acquired state lands added 

to the NRA would be 

administered under the laws, 

regulations, and policies for 

units of the national park 

system. However, for clarity, 

it is recommended that when 

Congress introduces legislation 

to establish the NRA, that 

language be included to, 

except for valid existing rights, 

withdraw all such lands from all 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RECLAMATION, AND OTHER NEIGHBORING AGENCY MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

202 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

forms of entry, appropriation, 

or disposal under the public 

land laws; location, entry, and 

patent under the mining laws; 

and from disposition under all 

laws relating to mineral and 

geothermal leasing, and all 

amendments thereto. 

 In the event a parcel contains 

a “split estate,” whereas the 

surface would be transferred 

to NPS, but the mineral estate 

would remain in private 

ownership, NPS will manage 

such mineral estates according 

to NPS Management Policies 

2006: “The Park Service may 

approve operations associated 

with nonfederal oil and gas 

interests under the standards 

and procedures in 36 CFR Part 

9, Subpart B. If an operator’s 

plan fails to meet the approved 

standards of these regulations, 

the Park Service generally has 

authority to deny the operation 

and may initiate acquisition. 

Operations associated with 

nonfederal mineral interests, 

other than oil and gas, are 

subject to the requirements of 

36 CFR Part 5, “Commercial 

and Private Operations,” and 

36 CFR 1.6. The Service must 

determine that operations 

associated with these mineral 

interests would not adversely 

impact “public health and 

safety, environmental or 

scenic values, natural or 

cultural resources, scientifi c 

research, implementation or 

management responsibilities, 

proper allocation and use of 

facilities, or the avoidance 

of confl ict among visitor use 

activities ....” If the impacts 

from the operation on the 

resource cannot be suffi ciently 

mitigated to meet this standard, 

the Park Service may seek to 

acquire the mineral interest.”

2. Private Lands within the COA – Private lands 

within the COA occur in Land Units A (CO 92 

COA), C (Gunnison River COA), D (Iola 

Basin COA), E (Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA) 

and G (West-End COA). If a land-owner were 

willing, and funding is available from Congress, 

resources on any private parcel within these 

units could be conserved with various tools, 

such as general agreements, conservation 

easements, and fee simple acquisition.

Impacts on NPS management and operations 

from the implementation of the available 

conservation tools would depend upon 

considerations such as the interest that the 

National Park Service acquired in a piece of 

property, whether NPS would assume some 

degree of management responsibility, and the 

location of the property relative to existing 

access. Many of these types of issues would 

be evaluated in a suitability and feasibility 

analysis, as required by the NPS boundary 

adjustment criteria, prior to the completion of 

any agreement between a landowner and NPS 

(see the discussion of boundary adjustment 

criteria in the Alternatives chapter, in the 

section on Development of Alternatives). 

Conservation easements and land acquisition 

would result in added responsibilities to 

NRA staff of resource monitoring, resource 

management, and/or visitor protection. 

Depending on the extent and location of 

the land involved, this would result in longterm minor to major adverse impacts on 

NPS fi eld operations, if additional funding 

were not provided. However, if additional 

staff is available to perform these duties, 

there is expected to be a long-term moderate 

benefi cial impact to NPS operations. This 

is why Alternative 2 recommends hiring 

additional staff .

Under Alternative 2, if land within the COA 

is acquired, NPS could adjust the proposed 

NRA boundary to include the acquisition 

without additional congressional action, 

resulting in reduced staff work, and short-term 

minor to moderate benefi cial impacts to NPS 

operations. New NRA legislation, a revised 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 203

agreement between Reclamation and NPS, 

and streamlining, or potential elimination, of 

other agreements among various agencies, 

would provide a long-term, minor, benefi cial 

impact to agency operations, by reducing 

associated personnel and costs for managing 

the lands and agreements.

There would be a long-term minor to moderate 

benefi cial impact on NPS ability to meet 

its mission, due to appropriately worded 

legislation for the NRA, improved wording in 

a new MOA with Reclamation, and increased 

consultation and cooperation between NPS 

and other agencies, including Reclamation. This 

improvement in consultation and cooperation 

among the agencies is already happening, 

through the Joint Agency Management Eff ort, 

which is integral to the RPS.

Bureau of Reclamation. As with Alternative 

1, the Bureau of Reclamation and Western 

Area Power Administration would continue 

their responsibilities within and adjacent 

to the national recreation area, including 

construction, operation, maintenance, 

replacements, and additions; and they 

and their assigns would continue to have 

unrestricted access to their lands and land 

interests, water and water interests, and 

facilities; consistent with Reclamation law, 

and other applicable laws and regulations. 

Formal establishment of the NRA would not 

amend or supplement existing Reclamation 

law applicable to the Aspinall Unit or the 

 Uncompahgre Project. Reclamation, Western, 

and the National Park Service would consult 

with each other as necessary and appropriate. 

Thus, there would be no adverse impacts to 

Reclamation and Western responsibilities 

under Alternative 2.

Reclamation would continue to hold 

underlying administrative jurisdiction on 

41,860 acres within the proposed NRA 

boundary. The National Park Service would 

cooperate with Reclamation as a continuing 

partner of the Aspinall Unit, overseeing 

recreation, resource management, recreation 

facility construction and maintenance, 

interpretation, education, and resource 

and visitor protection. At the same time, 

Reclamation would continue to operate the 

dams, power plants, reservoir fl ow operations, 

and have access to the same, unimpeded by 

NPS operations. As a result, there would be 

no impact to Reclamation operations from 

NPS activities, or from conservation activities 

within the adjacent COA.

Although the National Park Service manages 

recreation and certain other resources 

on Reclamation lands and land interests 

within the NRA in accordance with the 1965 

Memorandum of Agreement with Reclamation, 

new interests acquired by NPS in private lands 

would not fall under this agreement, with 

one exception. If private lands near Willow 

Creek (Land Unit D) were acquired, the land 

area within and adjacent to the high pool of 

 Blue Mesa Reservoir would be managed for 

Reclamation and NPS purposes.

It is anticipated that additional work would be 

required to redraft the 1965 Memorandum of 

Agreement to restate and update information 

pertinent to legislation that might be passed to 

formally establish the NRA. Also, Reclamation 

may conduct future reviews of land it 

administers to determine which parcels, if 

any, it would recommend for revocation 

of withdrawal. Upon agreement with the 

National Park Service, NPS would assume full 

administrative authority over any lands (within 

the Alternative 2 proposed boundary) so 

revoked. This workload is expected to result 

in a negligible to minor adverse impact to 

Reclamation, as this work would likely occur 

in any case.

Bureau of Land Management. A total of 

5,840 acres of BLM land would be transferred 

to the National Park Service in Land Units B 

( Blue Mesa Reservoir Agency), F (Gateview 

Agency), and H (West-End Agency), resulting 

in long-term negligible to minor benefi cial 

impacts to BLM operations in site-specifi c 

areas because of fewer maintenance and other 

operational obligations. 

 Land Unit B ( Blue Mesa Reservoir 

Agency). The impact of transferring the 

Dillon Pinnacles ACEC and portions 

of the West Antelope ACEC to NPS 

would be negligible to minor benefi cial 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RECLAMATION, AND OTHER NEIGHBORING AGENCY MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

204 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

because NPS would manage the area 

with similar emphasis on recreation 

and wildlife habitat, and the BLM 

currently has limited presence in the 

area. BLM would also receive minor 

operational benefi ts from rescinding 

some of its responsibility for managing 

local cultural resources, as well as for 

some of the BLM lands north of the 

Dickerson gravel pit. A defi ned NRA 

boundary and presence could prevent 

some existing trespass issues.

 Land Unit D (Iola Basin COA).

The potential acquisition of private 

properties in the vicinity of Willow 

Creek could result in additional longterm, negligible to minor adverse 

operational impacts to BLM, if the 

land were transferred to allow BLM 

to manage local hang gliding activities. 

NPS could sustain similar impacts if 

the lands were acquired and remained 

in NPS management.

 Land Unit F (Gateview Agency).

Actions at Gateview will depend 

upon determination by Reclamation 

as to whether or not to relinquish 

and recommend revocation of the 

withdrawal on 120 acres of land in the 

Gateview area. Should the revocation be 

approved, this study would recommend 

that Tract 10 be excluded from the 

NRA and transferred to BLM for 

administration and management. In the 

interim, NPS could seek to enter into 

an agreement with BLM to allow BLM 

to manage that portion of the NRA. 

Since BLM already has a presence in the 

area, this would result in only a longterm, negligible adverse impact to BLM 

operations. Maintenance of existing 

facilities within the campground, such 

as the pit toilets, would be added to the 

existing BLM maintenance schedule. 

However, under BLM management, the 

potable water system would probably be 

discontinued, given its daily maintenance 

requirement; and visitors would be 

asked to haul in their own water from 

elsewhere, just as they do in BLM’s other 

campgrounds in the area. NPS would 

most likely continue to pump toilets and 

maintain the road to the campground. 

However, should those commitments be 

relinquished, operational impacts to the 

BLM could increase.

 Land Unit H (West-End Agency).

Actions pertaining to Tract 1 will depend 

upon determination by Reclamation 

as to whether or not to relinquish 

and recommend revocation of the 

withdrawal on 680 acres of land west 

of Cimarron. Should the revocation be 

approved, this study would recommend 

that Tract 1 be excluded from the 

NRA and transferred to BLM for 

administration and management. In the 

interim, NPS could seek to enter into 

an agreement with BLM to allow BLM 

to manage that portion of the NRA. 

Negligible benefi cial impacts to BLM 

would occur with transfer of lands 

on the western end of the proposed 

lands because existing management 

costs are minimal. Much of the area is 

inaccessible and in rugged terrain.

 Grazing. Several of the parcels of land 

proposed for transfer from BLM to the 

NRA contain grazing allotments. In 

some cases, the allotments already occur 

on existing parcels within the NRA. In 

most cases, the result of the transfer of 

land from BLM to the NRA would result 

in a particular allotment containing 

land both within and outside the NRA. 

 Grazing would be allowed to continue 

where authorized under existing 

permits, unless the permittee requests 

a voluntary termination. Arrangements 

for managing grazing would be worked 

out on a case-by-case basis, and 

documented in an agreement with the 

involved agencies. In cases where an 

allotment still contains a signifi cant 

amount of BLM land, it is expected that 

BLM would continue managing that 

allotment; and in cases where little or 

no BLM land is in the allotment, NPS 

would likely manage the allotment, 

or through agreement, contract with 

BLM to manage the allotment. Refer 

to Table 15, which follows, for a listing 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 205

of identifi ed allotments, and potential 

management scenarios. This activity 

would result in negligible to minor, 

long-term adverse impacts to NPS 

operations from additional management 

responsibilities, if the recommended 

additional staff were not provided. As 

noted earlier, there would be no impact 

to grazing permittees.

Colorado Department of Transportation 

/ Federal Highway Administration. The 

National Park Service would continue to 

cooperate and coordinate with CDOT/FHWA 

regarding maintenance and construction 

activities and traveler enhancements that 

occur on and along US 50, CO 92, and CO 

149. NPS would likely seek to enter into an 

agreement with CDOT/FHWA in order to 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RECLAMATION, AND OTHER NEIGHBORING AGENCY MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

TABLE 15: BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT GRAZING ALLOTMENTS WITHIN THE CURRENT AND 

PROPOSED NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Allotment Composition and 

Management under Alternative 1 

(No Action) 1

Allotment Composition and 

Management under Alternative 2 

(the Proposed Action) Allotment 2

Name 

General 

Location 

BLM NPS Private Manage

d by BLM NPS Private Managed by 

Beaver 

Creek 

N of Gunnison 

River Canyon 98% 3

 2% 0% BLM 97% 3 3% 0% BLM 

Big Willow W of Gateview 40% 2% 58% BLM 40% 2% 58% BLM 

Blue Creek W of Blue Creek 6% 13% 81% BLM 2% 17% 81% NPS 

Dead Horse N of Crystal 

Dam 17% 12% 71% BLM 14% 15% 71% BLM 

Fitzpatrick 

Mesa 

S of Morrow Pt. 

Reservoir 36% 0% 64% BLM 0% 36% 64% NPS 

Highway S of Morrow Pt. 

Reservoir 78% 0% 22% BLM 0% 78% 22% NPS 

Iola Iola and Kezar 

Basins 82% 5% 13% BLM 82% 5% 13% BLM 

North 

Cimarron 

N of Morrow Pt. 

Reservoir 0% 6% 94% BLM 0% 6% 94% NPS 

Pine Mesa S of Blue Mesa 

Dam 0% 90% 10% BLM 0% 90% 10% NPS 

Rawhide / 

Coffee Pot 

W of Crystal 

Reservoir 28% 20% 52% BLM 27% 21% 52% BLM 

Round 

Corral Crk 

S of Morrow Pt. 

Reservoir 36% 9% 55% BLM 0% 45% 55% NPS 

Round 

Corral Sprg 

S of Morrow Pt. 

Reservoir 9% 18% 73% BLM 0% 27% 73% NPS 

Sapinero 

Mesa 

S of Sapinero 

Basin 42% 26% 32% BLM 42% 26% 32% BLM 

Spring 

Gulch 

NE of Crystal 

Dam 5% 42% 53% BLM 2% 45% 53% NPS 

Steuben 

Creek 

N of Lake City 

Bridge 90% 1% 9% BLM 90% 1% 9% BLM 

Stevens 

Creek N of Iola Basin 97% 3

 3% 0% BLM 95% 3 4% 0% BLM 

Ten Mile 

Springs E of Gateview 88% 2% 10% BLM 87% 3% 10% BLM 

Windy Point E of Blue Creek 0% 31% 69% BLM 0% 32% 68% NPS 

1 Under Alternative 1, all allotments continue to be managed by BLM under interagency agreement. 2 The proposed management under Alternative 2 is a likely scenario, subject to a new interagency agreement. 3 Allotment includes state (CDOW) lands. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

206 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

identify operation and waste and fi ll storage 

issues that could be mutually agreed upon to 

minimize the impact of highway maintenance 

and construction operations on Curecanti 

resources and the visitor experience.

In the vicinity of the East Cimarron day-use 

area, NPS would seek to remedy a boundary 

issue where some of the NPS facilities lie 

outside the NRA boundary within the CDOT 

right-of-way. The National Park Service 

would either enter into an agreement with 

CDOT to recognize the issue and address how 

future maintenance of the facilities outside 

the NRA would occur, or would work with 

CDOT to accomplish a mutually agreed upon 

adjustment of the proposed boundary, so that 

it includes all NPS facilities at East Cimarron.

Potential conservation projects, such as 

conservation easements, would provide 

benefi ts to travelers on the West Elk Loop 

Scenic and Historic Byway, especially along 

CO 92 above Morrow Point and Crystal 

Reservoirs. Resource conservation objectives 

identifi ed in the byway’s corridor management 

plan would more likely be achieved with the 

establishment of the COA.

Colorado Division of Wildlife. The northern 

boundary of the NRA in Land Unit B ( Blue 

Mesa Reservoir Agency) would be simplifi ed 

in the vicinity of Dry Gulch Campground and 

East Elk Group Campsite by the inclusion 

of 140 acres of CDOW property, resulting in 

negligible to minor benefi cial impacts to CDOW 

because of increased administrative effi ciency. 

After authorization, NPS would work with 

CDOW and BLM to identify lands that could 

be exchanged for the land to be included in the 

NRA. Such an exchange would need to meet the 

requirements of the Pittman-Robertson Act of 

1937, and other laws and policies of the federal 

and state agencies involved. The National Park 

Service would not modify the manner in which 

the land to be included is presently managed. The 

land received in exchange would help CDOW 

consolidate ownership within the State Wildlife 

Areas adjacent to the NRA, where now some 

federal public lands are interspersed within the 

CDOW land. This would result in administrative 

effi ciencies for NPS, BLM, and CDOW, and a 

clearer understanding by the public of where the 

proposed NRA boundary is located.

U.S. Forest Service. A net of 2,885 acres of Forest 

Service land would be transferred to NPS in Land 

Units B and H, resulting in long-term minor to 

moderate benefi cial impacts to Forest Service 

operations in site-specifi c areas because of fewer 

maintenance and other operational obligations.

 Land Unit B: Blue Mesa Reservoir.

As noted earlier in the NPS section, the 

transfer to the National Park Service 

of Forest Service land and the Soap 

Creek Campground in the vicinity of 

Soap Creek and West Elk Creek Arms 

would result in long-term, moderate 

benefi cial impacts to both the Forest 

Service and NPS from consolidation 

of operations. Forest Service would 

no longer maintain the campground 

or Soap Creek Road, benefi cially 

impacting their operational budget. 

NPS would assume responsibility for 

road maintenance, in cooperation with 

USFS and Gunnison County. The road 

would become the proposed boundary 

between NPS and USFS land in this 

vicinity, clarifying responsibilities for 

staff , and understanding of the location 

of Forest Service lands and NRA lands 

for the public.

 Land Unit H: West-End. Lands long 

managed by NPS under an agreement 

with USFS would be transferred to 

NPS in the vicinity the Long Gulch / 

Bear Trap area, and would include the 

strip of land containing the Crystal 

Trail. Additional lands, primarily 

consisting of drainages and cliff s into 

the canyon, would also be included, as 

mutually agreed upon by NPS, USFS, 

and members of the grazing pool for 

that grazing allotment. As in the past, 

NPS would manage the trails and 

recreational opportunities. NPS and 

USFS would still need an agreement 

pertaining to grazing within the NRA, 

but the situation would remain very 

similar to the current situation. Thus, 

negligible impacts would occur to 

grazing allotment permittees, as the 
 FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 207

easements by private trusts and public agencies. 

Such transfers or acquisitions can result in minor 

adverse impacts to agency operations budgets in 

the short and long-term. When combined with 

the negligible to minor adverse impacts associated 

with actions proposed in Alternative 2 of the 

Curecanti RPS, long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts could occur to federal agency 

budgets, such as that of the National Park Service, 

if additional operational funds are not provided to 

meet management needs created by acquisitions 

and transfers.

Conclusion

If funding is not provided to hire the necessary 

staff that would be needed to perform the 

additional offi ce and fi eld duties that would 

be required to implement Alternative 2, there 

would be a long-term major adverse impact on 

NPS operations. If additional staff is available 

to perform these duties, there is expected to 

be a long-term moderate benefi cial impact to 

NPS operations, due to enhanced cooperation 

from landowners and other neighbors in 

the realm of resource conservation. It is for 

these reasons that this study recommends an 

increase in the NRA’s base funding to hire 

a suffi cient number of full-time-equivalent 

(FTE) employees to accomplish these tasks, 

and to make Alternative 2 become a reality.

Land transfers between the National Park 

Service and other agencies would simplify 

existing boundaries between agencies and 

improve NPS operations in site-specifi c areas, 

resulting in long-term negligible to minor 

benefi cial impacts to NPS.

Other agencies, such as USFS, BLM, and 

CDOW would experience negligible to 

moderate benefi cial impacts to operations, 

depending upon the location and change 

in agency responsibility associated with the 

land transfer. In some locations, long-term 

negligible adverse impacts could occur to 

existing maintenance schedules, where an 

agency would assume new responsibilities. 

Reclamation and Western responsibilities 

would continue to be a priority within the 

NRA; therefore, there would be no impacts to 

their operations.

Forest Service would continue to 

manage this large early season grazing 

allotment on those lands lying outside 

the NRA, and the cattle would still have 

access to cross the trail corridor has 

they have done in the past. This action 

would result in long-term negligible 

to minor benefi cial operational and 

administrative effi ciencies for the 

National Park Service.

As both national park system and national 

forest system units have boundaries that are 

generally legislatively established, it would be 

necessary, through legislation, to modify the 

boundary of the Gunnison National Forest, 

for those areas aff ected, should Alternative 

2 actions pertaining to land transfers be 

implemented.

Western Area Power Administration. 

Western would continue to have 

uninterrupted access to transmission 

lines, access roads, and related facilities 

for the purposes of reconstruction, repair, 

maintenance, and operation activities. 

Resource conservation activities proposed 

within Alternative 2 would not impede 

the replacement of poles, structures, or 

conductors, preclude vegetation management, 

or prevent road maintenance and 

improvements. Western’s easements across 

lands within the COA would be unaff ected. 

Therefore, there would be no impacts to 

Western’s operations by implementation of 

this alternative.

Cumulative Impacts

Other federal planning and management 

activities within or adjacent to the NRA have 

involved agency land transfers and other 

operational commitments in the past and could 

require additional transfers and operational 

commitments in the future. Some of these actions 

include the recent designation and expansion of 

the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, 

the expansion of the Gunnison Gorge National 

Conservation Area, additions of wilderness in 

Black Canyon and Gunnison Gorge, potential 

expansion of the West Elk Wilderness Area 

into the administrative areas of three diff erent 

agencies, and ongoing acquisition of conservation 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RECLAMATION, AND OTHER NEIGHBORING AGENCY MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

208 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

All agencies should realize a long-term minor 

to moderate benefi cial impact to operations 

due to appropriate wording in new NRA 

legislation; improved wording in a new MOA 

between Reclamation and NPS; and increased 

consultation and cooperation among all 

agencies through the Joint Agency Management 

Eff ort, which is integral to the RPS.

 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Unavoidable adverse impacts are impacts that 

cannot be avoided and cannot be mitigated, 

and therefore would remain throughout the 

duration of the action. The following list 

describes potential adverse impacts related to 

the alternatives being considered.

Private lands within the COA would continue 

to be subject to future development and 

other land uses that might be incompatible 

with NRA goals and objectives. As described 

under Alternative 1, the following resources 

could experience adverse cumulative impacts: 

wildlife, natural lightscape, natural soundscape, 

cultural, and scenic. Alternative 1 could 

also compromise recreational, economic, 

interpretation, and educational opportunities.

Both Alternative 1 and 2 could result in 

disturbance and degradation to geological 

and paleontological resources. These impacts 

would, in the long term, decrease under 

Alternative 2 with landowner participation in 

resource conservation activities.

Displacement of native vegetation communities 

by noxious weeds would be minimized under 

Alternative 2 with additional emphasis on the 

 Joint Agency Management Eff ort (JAME) and 

landowner conservation partnerships.

 LOSS IN LONG-TERM AVAILABILITY OR

PRODUCTIVITY TO ACHIEVE SHORTTERM GAIN

As noted above, some resources would 

be degraded, to some extent, through 

implementation of Alternatives 1 and 2. All 

resources identifi ed above would experience 

potential long-term loss under Alternative 

1. Where landowners participate in the 

implementation of resource conservation tools 

and partnerships under Alternative 2, intensity 

of adverse impacts would be lessened, and 

benefi cial impacts would be increased.

 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

Irreversible commitments of resources are 

those that cannot be reversed, except perhaps 

in the extreme long term. This would include, 

for example, the consumption or destruction 

of nonrenewable resources such as minerals 

or the extinction of a species.

Irretrievable commitments of resources 

are those that are lost for a period of 

time, as a resource is devoted to a use that 

simultaneously precludes other uses. For 

example, if facilities are developed in a forest, 

the timber productivity of the developed land 

is lost for as long as the facilities remain.

By extension, some soils, vegetation, wildlife 

habitat, scenic resources, and cultural 

resources would be permanently damaged 

within the NRA by development of the private 

lands within the COA. This would be an 

irreversible commitment of such resources 

because it is unlikely that development would 

later be abandoned and reclaimed.

Construction activities that might eventually 

result from approval of the Proposed Action, 

such as the construction of new trails, would 

require fossil fuels, labor, and construction 

materials such as wood, aggregate, and 

bituminous materials. These materials are not 

in short supply, and their use would not have 

an adverse eff ect on the continued availability 

of these resources. Resultant construction 

would also require an irreversible 

commitment, or expenditure, of funds.

FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 209

 CONSULTATION AND 

COORDINATION

 INTRODUCTION

It was recognized early in the project that a 

successful outcome would depend on intense 

public involvement. The goal of the public 

involvement strategy was to obtain projectrelated information and resource data, agency 

input, and local support for conservation of 

the natural, cultural, recreational, and scenic 

resources within and surrounding Curecanti 

National Recreation Area (NRA). Therefore, 

several meetings and discussions were held 

throughout the study process with federal, 

state, and county agencies and elected offi cials; 

 American Indian tribes; the general public, 

park users, private landowners; and other 

stakeholders. This was accomplished through 

briefi ngs, meetings, workshops, and open 

houses; three newsletters; and continual 

communication via telephone, e-mail, regular 

mail, fax, and the Internet.

The public has had several opportunities to 

provide ideas and get questions answered 

regarding the study. During four phases of the 

project the study team made special eff orts to 

reach out to the public and to agency offi cials 

to exchange information and seek comment, 

including (1) the initial gathering of information 

on interests and concerns to address in the 

study (scoping); (2) the primary gathering and 

analysis of resource data and information; 

(3) the development of alternatives; and 

(4) the assessment of impacts of proposed 

management actions on the environment.

Due to the relationship between NPS and 

Reclamation in managing their respective 

interests and facilities within the recreation 

area, Reclamation is a cooperating agency with 

NPS on the environmental impact statement 

(EIS) for the Resource Protection Study (RPS). 

Therefore, a Reclamation employee has been 

a full member of the study team throughout 

the project. He has attended many of the 

meetings, open houses, and workshops; has 

been kept fully informed of the project’s 

status and fi ndings; and has made signifi cant 

contributions throughout the process. 

Shortly before the RPS began, Gunnison 

County initiated an eff ort, called the 

 Curecanti Area Conservation Study, 

or CACS (initially called the Curecanti 

Area Conservation Plan), to make 

recommendations which would help 

conserve the natural, cultural, recreational 

and scenic resources surrounding the NRA 

that are important to county residents and 

area visitors. County staff consulted with 

the NPS Rivers, Trails and Conservation 

Assistance program staff in order to identify 

what resources might be important and 

what tools the county might have available 

to achieve conservation goals. During 

the fi rst few years of the RPS process, the 

CACS and RPS were conducted in parallel, 

sharing information. Eventually, the CACS 

eff ort was absorbed by the county’s new 

eff ort in producing a comprehensive plan, 

also known as a master plan. Although the 

county has completed two components of 

the comprehensive plan (one for the Crested 

Butte to Gunnison corridor, and one for the 

area around Marble), it has not yet begun 

the planning process for the U.S. 50 corridor. 

In the interim, long-range planning staff 

have expressed a continued interest in the 

RPS, and the possibility of incorporating 

components of the RPS recommendations 

into that portion of the comprehensive plan 

that would include the Curecanti area.

The key milestones of consultation and 

coordination during the project are listed 

below. In addition to the cited milestones, 

there have been continual informal meetings 

and other instances of communication, 

consultation, and coordination with others to 

acquire resource data and further information 

leading to the production of the Draft, then 

Final, RPS/EIS, and to answer questions 

regarding the RPS. Details of the listed 

milestone briefi ngs, meetings, and open 

houses, and their fi ndings, are contained in 

trip reports, which are available at the NRA.

CHAPTER 5 – INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

210 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

The following abbreviations are relevant in the 

ensuing discussion:

 BLM = Bureau of Land Management

 CACS = Gunnison County’s Curecanti 

Area Conservation Study

 CDOW = Colorado Division of 

 Wildlife

 CREDA = Colorado River Energy 

Distributors Association

 EIS = Environmental Impact Statement

 GIS = Geographic Information System

 JAME = Joint Agency Management 

Eff ort

 LUR = Gunnison County’s Land Use 

Resolution

 NPS = National Park Service

 NRA = Curecanti National Recreation 

Area

 PBR = Preliminary Boundary 

Recommendation for NRA

 Reclamation = Bureau of Reclamation

 RPS = Curecanti NRA Resource 

Protection Study

 RTCA = Rivers, Trails and 

Conservation Assistance Program 

(NPS)

 USFS = U.S. Forest Service

 USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

 UVWUA = Uncompahgre Valley Water 

Users Association

 Western = Western Area Power 

Administration.

 NOTICE OF INTENT

A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for 

the RPS at Curecanti NRA, Montrose and 

Gunnison Counties, Colorado, was published 

in the Federal Register on May 3, 2000, 

Volume 65, Number 86.

 CONSULTATION WITH AGENCIES AND

ELECTED OFFICIALS

The Bureau of Reclamation has participated 

in the development of this document, and 

of the various alternatives. In addition, the 

following agencies have been briefed on 

numerous occasions throughout the study, 

have provided input into the development of 

the Proposed Action, and in some cases have 

submitted letters in support of the concepts 

and proposed land transfers recommended in 

the Proposed Action, as seen elsewhere in this 

chapter.

 Bureau of Land Management area 

managers and the state director

 Colorado Division of Wildlife local 

and regional managers

 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and 

Gunnison National Forests

 Western Area Power Administration 

staff from Denver and Salt Lake City

 Staff of the following elected U.S. 

congressional offi cials:

o Senator Wayne Allard

o Former Senator Ben Nighthorse 

Campbell

o Former Representative Scott 

McInnis

o Representative John Salazar 

o Senator Ken Salazar.

Gunnison and Montrose County offi cials 

and planning staff have expressed interest 

in the project. Gunnison County planners 

are considering incorporating study data 

and recommendations into the component 

of the county’s comprehensive master plan 

that will deal with the portion of the county 

that includes the Curecanti area. To date, the 

county offi cials that have been briefed on 

the Proposed Action generally support the 

concepts and proposed land transfers being 

recommended.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 211

Additional consultation and briefi ngs will 

occur as recommendations to Congress are 

prepared.

Following is a list of meetings that were held 

with agencies and elected offi cials:

 March 29, 2000: Project scoping 

meeting with BLM, CDOW, City 

of Gunnison, Gunnison County, 

 Montrose County, and USFS.

 Week of May 1, 2000: Project scoping 

meetings with BLM, Gunnison County 

offi cials, and Montrose County offi cials.

 October 31, 2000: Meeting with 

Reclamation and UVWUA in 

Montrose to discuss their interests. 

 December 4, 2000: Meeting with 

 Gunnison County planner at the 

Montrose Public Lands Center to 

discuss issues common to the RPS 

and CACS.

 December 5, 2000: Meeting with 

 Montrose County CommissionerElect in Montrose to discuss issues of 

mutual concern between Montrose 

County and NPS.

 December 6, 2000: Meeting with 

 Gunnison County Commissioner 

at Elk Creek (NRA headquarters) 

to discuss issues of mutual concern 

between Gunnison County and NPS.

 May 3, 2001: Meeting with Reclamation 

in Grand Junction to brief staff on the 

status of the RPS and discuss issues of 

mutual concern.

 June and July, 2001: Meetings with 

adjacent land management agencies 

and others, including BLM, CDOW, 

CREDA, Gunnison County, USFS, and 

Western, to present the progress of the 

RPS; obtain feedback, understanding, 

and buy-in from the agencies before 

discussing the project any further 

with private landowners and other 

stakeholders; and to plan for on-going 

coordination with the agencies. 

 September 18, 2001: Meeting with 

Colorado state offi cials in Denver to 

present the status of the RPS, obtain 

their comments, and explore the 

possibility of the state’s involvement in 

the JAME.

 October 17, 2001: Meeting with staff of 

U.S. Representative Scott McInnis in 

Washington, D.C. to present the status 

of the RPS, receive input, and evaluate 

the reaction to initial proposals. 

(NOTE: Additional meetings had been 

scheduled on Thursday afternoon, 

October 18, with the staff s of Senator 

Wayne Allard and Senator Ben 

Nighthorse Campbell. However, these 

meetings were cancelled due to offi ce 

closures as a result of the anthrax 

situation in the capitol area.) 

 December 12, 2001: Meeting with 

 Gunnison County offi cials in Gunnison 

to discuss issues of mutual concern to 

both the RPS and the CACS.

 January 10-11, 2002: Meetings with 

State Representatives and Senator Ben 

Nighthorse Campbell’s staff in the 

Denver area, to present the status of 

the RPS in advance of the next round 

of meetings with the general public 

and aff ected landowners, and to obtain 

their feedback; and with CDOW, the 

 Trust for Public Land, and USFWS in 

the Denver area to obtain information 

relating to landowner incentives for 

resource and species protection. 

 March 20, 2002: Meeting with 

 Gunnison County offi cials at Elk 

Creek to discuss the RPS-related 

topics of a preliminary new boundary 

recommendation for the NRA, the 

JAME concept, the LUR, and the 

CACS; and to determine the county’s 

level of support for the RPS.

 April 30, 2002: Meeting with Gunnison 

County Planners at Elk Creek to 

strategize partnership eff orts between 

NPS and Gunnison County regarding 

the RPS and the county’s upcoming 

master plan.

 May 1, 2002: Meeting with Montrose 

County Planner in Montrose to discuss 

CONSULTATION WITH AGENCIES AND ELECTED OFFICIALS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

212 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

 Montrose County’s interests and 

involvement in the RPS, including its 

relationship to the county’s new Master 

Plan, which was adopted in 2001.

 June 13, 2002: Meeting with 

BLM, CDOW, Gunnison County, 

Reclamation, Southern Ute Indian 

Tribe, Uncompahgre Plateau Project, 

USFS, and Western at Elk Creek 

to share preliminary fi ndings of 

the RPS, and explore inter-agency 

means of protecting natural, cultural, 

recreational, and scenic resources 

surrounding the NRA. This was the 

initial meeting of what has become 

the Joint Agency Management Eff ort 

(JAME), which meets periodically to 

try and resolve area-wide resource 

management problems on an issue-byissue basis. 

 September 5, 2002: Meeting with 

 Gunnison County planners to discuss 

ways in which NPS and the county can 

work more closely together on issues 

involving the RPS and the county’s 

master plan. 

 February 12, 2003: Meeting with 

 Gunnison County planner in Gunnison 

to prepare for upcoming landowner 

meetings for the RPS, in which the 

county planner was involved.

 Week of March 17, 2003: Meetings 

with state elected offi cials in Denver, 

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell’s 

staff in Fort Collins, and State 

government offi cials in Denver, to brief 

them on the status of the RPS and its 

alternatives, and to receive comments 

and concerns, in advance of upcoming 

meetings with landowners.

 Week of March 24, 2003: Meetings with 

congressional staff in Montrose, and 

 Montrose County planner in Montrose, 

to brief them on the status of the RPS 

and its alternatives, and to receive 

comments and concerns, in advance of 

upcoming meetings with landowners.

 May 21, 2003: Meeting with Senator 

Wayne Allard’s staff in Englewood, to 

brief them on the status of the RPS 

and its alternatives, and to receive 

comments and concerns, in advance of 

upcoming meetings with landowners.

 Morning of June 26, 2003: Meeting 

with Assistant Secretary of the 

Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

in Washington, D.C., to present and 

receive comments on the preliminary 

alternatives of the RPS.

 Afternoon of June 26, 2003: Meeting 

with representatives from the 

offi ces of Senator Ben Nighthorse 

Campbell, Senator Wayne Allard, 

and Representative Scott McInnis 

in Washington, D.C., to present 

and receive comments on the RPS 

preliminary alternatives.

 September 24, 2003: Meeting with 

 Montrose County offi cials in Montrose 

to review the RPS preliminary 

alternatives and receive comments.

 November 25, 2003: Meeting in 

Crawford and fi eld trip to grazing 

site with USFS, several members of 

the Black Mesa Grazing Pool, and a 

representative from U.S. Representative 

Scott McInnis’ offi ce to explain the 

goals and objectives of the RPS, and to 

receive input regarding potential aff ects 

on the recommendation pertaining to a 

long-established grazing permit issued 

by the USFS. As a result of the meeting, 

an agreement was reached to redraw the 

proposed boundary line in the vicinity 

of Long Gulch/Bear Trap area along 

Colorado State Highway 92 to reduce the 

potential impact to grazing permittees.

 December 11, 2003: Meeting with BLM, 

CDOW, Gunnison County, USFS, 

and Western at Elk Creek to assess 

impacts of proposed actions in the 

RPS, especially as they aff ect other 

agencies and the local socio-economic 

environment. NOTE: The Reclamation 

representative attended Impacts 

Workshop sessions with the NRA staff 

earlier in the week.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 213

 Week of December 15, 2003: Meetings 

with federal and state offi cials, and 

private property owners, in the 

Curecanti area, including on-site visits 

to the park, to explore partnership 

opportunities with the private sector 

to conserve resources surrounding the 

NRA and adjacent to Black Canyon of 

the Gunnison National Park.

 March 1, 2004: Meeting with Colorado 

Department of Natural Resources in 

Denver to provide an update on the 

RPS, present the proposed action, and 

receive comments.

 May 26, 2005: Meeting at Elk Creek 

with agencies who reviewed the April 

28, 2005 multi-agency review version 

of the Draft RPS/EIS, including 

BLM, CDOW, and Natural Resources 

Conservation Service of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, for review 

and comment on the document.

 June 3, 2005: Meeting with USFS at 

their offi ce in Delta to discuss their 

comments on the April 28, 2005 multiagency review version of the Draft 

RPS/EIS.

 August 3, 2005: Meeting in Crawford, 

and on-site visit with USFS, to redraw 

the proposed NRA boundary line in 

the vicinity of Long Gulch/Bear Trap 

area along CO 92.

 August 31, 2005: Meeting with 

Reclamation at their offi ce in Grand 

Junction to address their comments on 

the April 28, 2005 multi-agency review 

version of the Draft RPS/EIS.

 September 1, 2005: Guided 

congressional staff ers from Grand 

Junction on a fi eld trip to Black 

Canyon of the Gunnison National Park 

and Curecanti National Recreation 

Area. Participants included Richard 

Baca (offi ce of U.S. Representative 

John Salazar), Trudy Kareus (offi ce of 

U.S. Senator Ken Salazar), and Derek 

Wagner (offi ce of U.S. Senator Wayne 

Allard). Provided briefi ng on the status 

of the Draft Resource Protection Study 

and answered questions.

 November 7, 2005: Meeting with 

congressional staff ers at their offi ce 

in Grand Junction, including Richard 

Baca (offi ce of U.S. Representative 

John Salazar), and Trudy Kareus (offi ce 

of U.S. Senator Ken Salazar), to brief 

them in more detail on the RPS.

 November 21, 2005: Meeting with 

new Gunnison County Long Range 

Planner at his offi ce to brief him on the 

status of the Draft Resource Protection 

Study, and to obtain his comments. 

 November 22, 2005: Meeting with 

CDOW at their offi ce in Gunnison to 

address their comments on the April 

28, 2005 multi-agency review version 

of the Draft RPS/EIS.

 July 24, 2006: Meeting with Gunnison 

County Long Range Planner, 

 Gunnison County Commissioner, 

and Southeast Regional Director from 

the offi ce of U.S. Representative John 

Salazar, at the county offi ce building 

in Gunnison, to brief them on the 

status of the study, and to obtain their 

comments in preparation for fi nalizing 

the Draft RPS/EIS.

 July 25, 2006 (Morning): Meeting with 

 Montrose County Land Use Director, 

and Montrose County Manager, at the 

county offi ce building in Montrose, 

to brief them on the status of the 

study, and to obtain their comments 

in preparation for fi nalizing the Draft 

RPS/EIS.

 July 25, 2006 (Afternoon): Meeting 

with BLM offi cials, including 

Gunnison Field Offi ce Manager and 

Montrose Field Offi ce Manager, 

at Elk Creek, to brief them on the 

status of the study, and to obtain their 

comments in preparation for fi nalizing 

the Draft RPS/EIS.

 August 10, 2006: Meeting with Montrose 

BLM staff , including Gunnison Field 

Offi ce Manager, Associate Field Offi ce 

CONSULTATION WITH AGENCIES AND ELECTED OFFICIALS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

214 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Manager, and Realty Specialist, to 

discuss follow-up questions and issues 

from the July 25 meeting.

 September 22, 2006: Telephone 

call between NPS Intermountain 

Regional Director Mike Snyder, 

and Reclamation Upper Colorado 

Regional Director Rick Gold; and 

follow-up call from Reclamation 

to NPS on September 25, 2006; 

wherein agreement was reached 

with regards to the following 

wording in the Draft RPS/EIS:

o For both alternatives in the 

Draft RPS/EIS, the Bureau of 

Reclamation and Western Area 

Power Administration would 

continue their administrative 

jurisdiction and responsibilities 

within and adjacent to the 

national recreation area, 

including construction, 

operation, maintenance, 

replacement, and additions, 

consistent with Reclamation law, 

and other applicable laws and 

regulations. Formal establishment 

of the area as an NRA under 

Alternative 2 would not amend or 

supplement existing Reclamation 

law applicable to the Aspinall 

Unit or the Uncompahgre 

Project. Reclamation, Western, 

and the National Park Service 

would consult with each other 

as necessary and appropriate. 

Thus, there would be no adverse 

impacts to Reclamation and 

Western responsibilities under 

either alternative.

 June 27, 2007: Meeting with 

congressional staff ers at their offi ce 

in Grand Junction, including Richard 

Baca (offi ce of U.S. Representative 

John Salazar), Trudy Kareus (offi ce 

of U.S. Senator Ken Salazar), and 

Brian Meinhart (offi ce of U.S. Senator 

Wayne Allard), to brief them on the 

recommendations in the Draft RPS/

EIS.

 MEETINGS WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC, 

PARK VISITORS, PRIVATE LANDOWNERS, 

AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

 Week of May 1, 2000: Project scoping 

meetings with private landowners.

 May 24, 2000: Public open house in 

Gunnison for joint project scoping for 

RPS and CACS.

 September 26, 2000: Kick-off 

meeting in Montrose for Citizen 

 Photographic Assessment.

 December 5, 2000: Public open house 

in Montrose to present the results of 

the Citizen Photographic Assessment 

to the Montrose community.

 December 6, 2000: Public open house 

in Gunnison to present the results of 

the Citizen Photographic Assessment 

to the Gunnison community.

 March 5-7, 2002: Two focus group 

workshops in Gunnison and Montrose, 

and three public open houses in 

Gunnison, Hotchkiss, and Montrose, 

to solicit more ideas from the public 

on the unmet potential of landbased and reservoir tributary-based 

recreation and resource education in 

areas within and surrounding the NRA. 

Recommendations for necessary and 

appropriate facilities, and concerns 

about protection of natural, cultural, 

and scenic resources were also solicited.

 March 27, 2003: Meeting with Club 20 

President in Grand Junction to inform 

him of the goals and objectives and 

progress of the RPS, and invite his 

participation if he so desired.

 May 28-29, and June 2-5, 2003: 

Meetings with private landowners in 

Crawford, Montrose, and Gunnison 

to discuss the RPS. Following is a 

summary of the meetings:

o It was decided early on to off er 

opportunities for potentially 

aff ected landowners to meet with 

members of the study team prior 

to fi nalizing the alternatives. The 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 215

landowners who would be most 

aff ected are those within the 

 Conservation Opportunity Area 

(COA). This represented a total of 

91 diff erent landowners, whether 

individuals, groups, partnerships, 

etc. Rather than try to meet with 

all 91 landowners individually, and 

rather than meet with everyone 

all at once, it was decided to 

divide the landowners into 6 

groups, and conduct a separate 

meeting for each group, trying to 

keep each group size between 10 

and 20 people. The groups were 

determined by six geographical 

areas surrounding the NRA. 

Thus, each meeting consisted of 

“neighbors.”

o Prior to the meetings, invitations 

under Gunnison County’s 

letterhead were sent to the 

landowners. Each was invited to 

one of six meetings. Information 

folders were given to all attendees. 

Following the meetings, folders 

were sent to all landowners who 

did not attend the meetings, and 

to some relatives of those who did 

attend, at their request.

o A total of 91 landowners were 

invited to attend the meetings. 

A total of 16 landowners (18%) 

attended the meetings, along with 

some friends and/or relatives. 

The meetings were held for the 

following purposes:

 Present background, goals, and 

objectives of the Curecanti RPS; 

and related Gunnison County 

resource conservation and longrange planning eff orts.

 Show areas of opportunity for 

resource conservation (COA) 

surrounding the NRA.

 Identify potential landowner 

incentives for resource 

conservation.

 Identify landowners' related 

long-term goals and objectives.

 Explore landowner willingness 

to work in partnership with 

NPS and other entities to 

conserve the natural, cultural, 

recreational, and scenic 

resources in the Curecanti area.

o FINDINGS: In general, the 

landowners were interested in the 

COA concept. Most were at the 

meetings primarily to learn more 

about the RPS, but were reluctant 

to make any commitments 

regarding partnering with NPS 

or other entities. They tended to 

display a “wait-and-see attitude”. 

Some expressed concern about 

condemnation of private property, 

and were relieved to learn that it 

would not be a recommendation 

of the study. Some landowners 

supported the goals and objectives 

of the study, and were very 

much interested in working in 

partnership with NPS to explore 

tools of resource conservation that 

would benefi t both the NRA and 

the landowner. They were anxious 

for NPS to take action as quickly as 

possible. There appeared to be no 

opposition to the ideas presented 

by the study team, or to the 

direction the study was taking.

 October and November, 2003, and 

February, 2004: At the request of a 

landowner, four additional meetings 

were held with various members of 

an extended family that jointly own 

property adjacent to the NRA. The 

landowners were unable to attend the 

earlier neighborhood meetings held in 

May and June of 2003. 

 November 25, 2003: Meeting in 

Crawford and fi eld trip to grazing 

site with USFS, several members 

of the Black Mesa Grazing Pool, 

and a representative from U.S. 

Representative Scott McInnis’ offi ce 

to explain the goals and objectives 

MEETINGS WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC, PARK VISITORS, PRIVATE LANDOWNERS, AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

216 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

of the RPS, and to receive input 

regarding potential aff ects on the 

recommendation pertaining to a longestablished grazing permit issued by 

the USFS. As a result of the meeting, an 

agreement was reached to redraw the 

proposed boundary line in the vicinity 

of Long Gulch/Bear Trap area along 

CO 92 to reduce the potential impact 

to grazing permittees.

 December 3, 2003: Meeting in Denver 

with representatives of the Black 

Canyon Ranch Properties Limited 

Liability Corporation (LLC), which 

owns property north of the NRA 

near East Portal, to discuss goals and 

objectives of the RPS in relation to 

goals and objectives the LLC has with 

its property.

 Week of December 15th, 2003: 

Meetings in the Curecanti area 

with private property owners, and 

federal and state offi cials, including 

on-site visits to the park, to explore 

partnership opportunities with the 

private sector to conserve resources 

surrounding the NRA and adjacent 

to Black Canyon of the Gunnison 

National Park. 

 November 18, 2005: Meeting with 

landowners on CO 92 to provide status 

update of RPS process, and to discuss 

concepts of potential land exchanges.

 June 7, 2007: Meeting with David 

Nimkin, Southwest Regional Director, 

National Parks and Conservation 

Association, in Montrose, to brief 

him on the Resource Protection Study 

background and recommendations.

 July 21 through July 25, 2007: Five 

Open Houses at Lake Fork Marina, 

Blue Mesa Reservoir; Elk Creek 

Marina, Blue Mesa Reservoir; Holiday 

Inn Express in Montrose; Memorial 

Hall in Hotchkiss; and Fred R. Field 

Western Heritage Center in Gunnison 

– to share background information on 

the Resource Protection Study with the 

public; to discuss the alternatives in the 

Draft RPS/EIS, including the proposed 

action; and to solicit comments on the 

document.

 August 21, 2007: Meeting with City 

Council, City of Gunnison, to brief 

the council members on the Resource 

Protection Study background and 

recommendations.

 August 27, 2007: Meeting in Gunnison 

with the Upper Gunnison River 

Water Conservancy District, to brief 

the board members on the Resource 

Protection Study background and 

recommendations.

 October 6, 2007: Presentation of the 

Resource Protection Study concepts 

at a workshop at the Land Trust 

Alliance’s annual conference in 

Denver.

 MEETINGS WITH AMERICAN

INDIAN TRIBES

In a study performed by Dave Ruppert of the 

NPS Intermountain Support Offi ce, Denver, 

published in August, 2002, entitled: “ American 

Indian Affi liation: Curecanti National 

Recreation Area,” it was determined that the 

 American Indian tribes historically associated 

with the Curecanti area are the Northern Ute 

Tribe in Ft. Duchesne, Utah; the Southern 

 Ute Tribe in Ignacio, Colorado; and the Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribe in Towaoc, Colorado. 

Contact was initiated between NPS and 

the three Ute tribes regarding the RPS on 

March 6, 2001 by a letter from the NRA 

superintendent to the three Ute tribes, inviting 

them to a meeting in Montrose, Colorado to 

discuss the RPS and other issues of mutual 

interest relating to Curecanti NRA and Black 

Canyon of the Gunnison National Park. 

(The superintendent manages both parks.) 

A number of telephone calls and letters of 

correspondence ensued, resulting in one 

meeting, between a representative of the 

Northern Ute Tribe and NPS in Montrose 

on December 11, 2001. This was followed by 

a presentation by the study team to a joint 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 217

meeting of the three Ute tribes in Grand 

Junction, Colorado on June 14, 2002. NPS 

continued to keep the tribes informed of the 

progress of the RPS by such means as project 

newsletters, and through invitations to attend 

additional project meetings.

 December 11, 2001: Meeting with 

the Northern Ute Tribe at the Ute 

Indian Museum in Montrose to 

describe the RPS project; identify 

information needs of both parties; and 

discuss opportunities for on-going 

consultation regarding the RPS, and 

other NPS-related issues.

 June 14, 2002: Meeting with the Tri-

 Ute Council at its quarterly meeting 

in Grand Junction to explain the 

goals and objectives and current 

status of the RPS; seek comments 

and concerns from the Council; and 

obtain recommendations on how to 

proceed with consultation. Members 

of the Council in attendance 

included representatives from all 

three Ute tribes.

 COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL

AND STATE LAWS, REGULATIONS, 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND NATIONAL

PARK SERVICE POLICIES

 SECTION 106 CONSULTATION

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 (16USC, et seq.) 

requires that for any action that aff ects cultural 

resources either listed in or eligible for listing 

in the National Register of Historic Places, the 

associated American Indian tribes, the State 

Historic Preservation Offi cer, and the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation be given 

opportunities to comment. These entities 

have all had opportunities to participate in the 

study process since initial scoping.

 CONSULTATION FOR SPECIES 

OF CONCERN

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16USC 

1531, et seq.) must ensure that any action taken 

by a federal agency does not jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the destruction 

or adverse modifi cations of critical habitat. 

Section 7 requires that federal agencies 

consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) to make that determination. 

Information regarding threatened, 

endangered, proposed, and candidate species 

occurring in the area was obtained from 

USFWS, and is included in the Aff ected 

Environment chapter.

NEWSLETTERS

Three newsletters were prepared over the 

course of the project. All three newsletters 

may be seen on the NRA’s website at www.

nps.gov/cure, by clicking on “Management,” 

then on “more information” under “Curecanti 

Resource Protection Study.”

The fi rst newsletter was published in 

the spring of 2001. It provided a general 

description of the NRA and area resources, 

and described the study purpose and process. 

It provided a summary of study issues and 

concerns, outlined the data collection and 

analysis process, and highlighted the results 

of a citizen’s photographic assessment. The 

newsletter also solicited ideas from the public 

about resource protection and the potential 

for recreational use within and surrounding 

the NRA. 

The second newsletter was released in the 

winter of 2002 to announce a series of public 

open houses. It again solicited comments 

on the unmet potential of land-based and 

reservoir tributary-based recreation and 

resource education in areas both within and 

surrounding the NRA.

The third newsletter was released in the fall 

of 2003 to present two major approaches to 

resource conservation — a Conservation 

RECLAMATION REVIEW VERSION OF THE DRAFT RPS/EIS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

218 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Opportunity Area (COA), and a Joint Agency 

Management Eff ort (JAME); management 

considerations; preliminary boundary 

alternatives; and tools for encouraging 

conservation measures. The newsletter 

also solicited comments on the preliminary 

recommendations contained therein.

 MULTI-AGENCY REVIEW VERSION OF

THE DRAFT RPS/EIS

On April 28, 2005, a review version of the 

entire Draft RPS/EIS was distributed to 

partnering agencies for review and comment, 

at the same time the document was placed on 

offi cial internal NPS regional and Washington 

offi ce policy review. 

 RECLAMATION REVIEW VERSION OF

THE DRAFT RPS/EIS

Reclamation provided extensive comments 

on the Multi-Agency Review Version of 

the Draft RPS/EIS, and wanted to review 

a follow-up version that addressed their 

comments . Therefore, a revised version of 

the Draft RPS/EIS was sent to Reclamation 

on June 21, 2006, for their review and 

comment. Through close coordination 

with NPS, Reclamation’s comments were 

addressed, and are reflected in both the 

Draft RPS/EIS that was released for public 

review, and in this Final RPS/EIS. 

 PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT 

RPS/EIS

A Notice of Availability (NOA) was published 

in the Federal Register, and news releases in 

local newspapers, to coincide with the release 

of the Draft RPS/EIS for public review and 

comment. The public review period exceeded 

90 days, from July 17 to October 22, 2007. Over 

700 copies of the Summary Draft RPS/EIS 

were mailed to persons, organizations, and 

government entities on the project’s mailing 

list. Full documents were made available to 

agencies and government entities, and were 

available to the public on the Internet at http://

parkplanning.nps.gov, and at local libraries.

In all, NPS received 35 sets of written 

comments in the form of letters, faxes, and 

Internet entries. Of these, 63% supported 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action); 26% were 

neutral, not specifying which alternative was 

favored; and 11% supported Alternative 1 

(No Action). The study team evaluated each 

comment, and where appropriate made 

modifi cations to the document, which are 

refl ected in the Final RPS/EIS. Refer to the 

section “Comments on Draft Resource 

Protection Study / Environmental Impact 

Statement, and National Park Service 

Responses” found elsewhere in this chapter 

for specifi cs about the comments and NPS 

responses.

All comments received, as well as meeting 

records related to this project, are being 

retained as a part of the project’s administrative 

record. In addition, copies of letters and 

other communications from agencies, local 

governments, and organizations, are included 

in this chapter.

RELEASE OF THE FINAL RPS/EIS, 

RECORD OF DECISION, AND REPORT TO

CONGRESS

Upon publication of the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Notice of Availability 

(EPA NOA) in the Federal Register, and news 

releases in local newspapers, the Final RPS/EIS 

will be distributed in the same fashion as was 

the Draft RPS/EIS. It will also be available to the 

public on the Internet at http://parkplanning.

nps.gov/cure, and at local libraries.

No sooner than 30 days following distribution 

of the Final RPS/EIS, as determined by the 

date that the EPA NOA appears in the Federal 

Register, the National Park Service will release a 

Record of Decision that documents its selected 

alternative. NPS will follow this up with a 

Report to Congress, written in conjunction 

with Reclamation, which will be transmitted 

to Congress through the Department of the 

Interior. Implementation of the Proposed 

Action will then depend on congressional 

action.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 219

LIST OF RECIPIENTS FOR THE DRAFT RPS/EIS

Local Governments 

x City of Delta 

x City of Gunnison 

x City of Montrose 

x Delta County Board of County 

Commissioners 

x Gunnison County Board of County 

Commissioners 

x Gunnison County Planning Department 

x Montrose County Board of County 

Commissioners 

x Montrose County Land Use Department 

x Town of Crawford 

x Town of Hotchkiss 

x Town of Paonia 

Private Entities and Organizations 

x Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists 

x Black Canyon Anglers 

x Black Canyon Audubon Society 

x Black Canyon Land Trust 

x Black Canyon Ranch Properties, L.L.C. 

x Chipeta Chapter, Colorado 

Archeological Society 

x Club 20 

x Colorado Cattlemen’s Agricultural Land 

Trust 

x Colorado Environmental Coalition 

x Colorado Livestock Association 

x Colorado Mountain Club 

x Colorado Native Plant Society 

x Colorado Natural Heritage Program 

x Colorado Open Lands 

x Colorado River Energy Distributors 

Association 

x Colorado River Water Conservation 

District 

 LIST OF RECIPIENTS FOR THE

DRAFT RPS/EIS 

All of the recipients were sent the Summary 

of the Draft Resource Protection Study/

Environmental Impact Statement. In addition, 

printed copies of the full document, and/or 

electronic versions on CD, were sent to some 

recipients such as government agencies and 

offi cials. In addition, the full document could 

be seen on the Internet at http://parkplanning.

nps.gov/cure, and at local libraries. 

Distribution and availability of the Final RPS/

EIS is similar to that of the Draft RPS/EIS.

Federal Agencies and Elected Officials 

x Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation 

x Bureau of Land Management 

x Bureau of Reclamation 

x National Park Service, Legislative Affairs 

x National Park Service, Washington 

Office 

x Uncompahgre Plateau Project (a multiagency/private partnership) 

x U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

x Natural Resources Conservation Service 

x U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

x U.S. Forest Service 

x U.S. Geological Survey 

x U.S. Representative John Salazar 

x U.S. Senator Wayne Allard 

x U.S. Senator Ken Salazar 

x Western Area Power Administration 

Affiliated American Indian Groups 

x Southern Ute Tribe 

x Uintah and Ouray Ute Indian Tribe 

(Northern Ute Tribe) 

x Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

State of Colorado Agencies and Elected 

Officials 

x Colorado Department of Natural 

Resources 

x Colorado Department of Transportation 

x Colorado Division of Wildlife 

x Colorado State Forest Service 

x Colorado State Historic Preservation 

Office 

x Colorado State Parks 

x Office of the Governor, Policy and 

Initiatives 

x State Representative Kathleen Curry 

x State Representative Raymond Rose 

x Former State Senator Lewis Entz 

x State Senator Jim Isgar 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

220 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

x Uncompahgre Valley Trail Riders 

x Uncompahgre Valley Water Users 

Association 

x Upper Gunnison River Water 

Conservancy District 

x US Hang Gliding Association 

x West Elk Loop Scenic and Historic 

Byway 

x Western Colorado Congress 

x Western Colorado Interpretive 

Association 

x Western Horizon Resorts 

x Western State College 

x Wilderness Opportunities 

Other 

x Other contacts on the park’s mailing list,

mostly individuals (approximately 500) 

x Various local repositories 

x Grand Valley Anglers 

x Gunnison Angling Society 

x Gunnison Arts Center 

x Gunnison County Association of 

Realtors 

x Gunnison County Chamber of 

Commerce 

x Gunnison County Electric Association 

x Gunnison County Stockgrowers 

Association 

x Gunnison County Trails Commission 

x Gunnison/Crested Butte Tourism 

Association 

x Gunnison Gorge Anglers 

x Gunnison Ranchland Conservation 

Legacy 

x High Country Citizens’ Alliance 

x Hotchkiss Chamber of Commerce 

x Montrose Association of Realtors 

x Montrose Chamber of Commerce 

x Montrose County Cattleman’s 

Association 

x Montrose Historical Society 

x Montrose Rod and Gun Club 

x Montrose Visitor and Convention 

Bureau 

x National Park Foundation 

x National Parks and Conservation 

Association 

x Paonia Chamber of Commerce 

x Recreation Resource Management 

x Region 10 

x Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 

x Rocky Mountain Real Estate 

x San Juan Mountain Runners 

x Sheep Mountain Alliance 

x Sierra Club, Rocky Mountain Chapter 

x Sonoran Institute 

x Southern Rockies Force Network 

x The Access Fund 

x The Conservation Fund 

x Colorado Trail Riders 

x Crawford Chamber of Commerce 

x Crested Butte Chamber of Commerce 

x Delta Chamber of Commerce 

x Delta County Tourism Cabinet 

x Delta/Montrose Electric Association 

x Delta/Montrose Public Lands 

Partnership 

x The Nature Conservancy 

x The Wilderness Society 

x Trout Unlimited 

x Trust for Public Lands 

x Uncompahgre Valley Association 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 221

 COMMENTS ON DRAFT RPS/EIS, AND

NPS RESPONSES

This section includes comments received 

during the public review period from July 20 

to October 22, 2007, on the Curecanti National 

Recreation Area Draft Resource Protection 

Study / Environmental Impact Statement (RPS/

EIS), dated June 2007. Distribution of the 

document was as follows:

 1,250 copies of the 8-page summary 

document, to government agencies and 

offi ces, elected offi cials, organizations, 

libraries, adjacent landowners, and 

individuals on the National Park 

Service (NPS) mailing list; 

 370 copies of an electronic version 

(pdf fi le format on CD) of the full 

Draft RPS/EIS and related documents 

to government agencies and offi ces, 

elected offi cials, organizations, and 

libraries; and

 64 copies of the printed version of 

the full Draft RPS/EIS to government 

agencies and offi ces, and libraries; 

and printed versions to others upon 

request.

Both the full paper and CD versions were 

made available at the following locations:

 Bureau of Land Management / U.S. 

Forest Service offi ces in Gunnison, 

Colorado

 Crawford Library

 Crested Butte Library

 Delta Library

 Elk Creek Visitor Center, Curecanti 

National Recreation Area

 Grand Mesa Library

 Gunnison Library

 Gunnison Visitor Center, Black 

Canyon of the Gunnison National Park

 Hotchkiss Library

 Montrose Library

 Montrose Public Lands Offi ce

 Paonia Library.

In addition to the distributed copies, the 

entire document was posted on the National 

Park Service planning website at http://

parkplanning.nps.gov/cure.

To be considered, comments on the Draft 

RPS/EIS had to be in writing. A total of 

35 letters, faxes, and Internet entries were 

received. Of these, 63% supported Alternative 

2 (Proposed Action); 26% were neutral, not 

specifying which alternative was favored; and 

11% supported Alternative 1 (No Action). All 

comments received, as well as meeting records 

related to this project, are being retained as a 

part of the project’s administrative record.

In accordance with Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), all letters from federal, state, or local 

agencies, and American Indian tribes, as well 

as all substantive public comments, must be 

included in the fi nal environmental impact 

statement; and NPS Responses to substantive 

comments must be provided. All letters from 

agencies and organizations are included at the 

end of this section. No letters were received 

from American Indian tribes.

All substantive comments and NPS responses 

to them are provided in Table 16: Comments 

on Curecanti Draft RPS/EIS, and NPS 

Responses. Some non-substantive comments 

are also included in the table. Many of the 

comments in the table have been summarized 

for brevity.

Comments are substantive if they:

 question, with reasonable basis, 

the accuracy of information in the 

environmental impact statement;

 question, with reasonable basis, 

the adequacy of the environmental 

analysis;

 suggest diff erent viable alternatives; or

 cause changes or revisions in any of the 

alternatives, including the Proposed 

Action.

In other words, comments are substantive 

if they raise, debate, or question a point of 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT RPS/EIS, AND NPS RESPONSES
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

222 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

fact or the method of impact analysis, or if 

they suggest a new alternative or changes in 

the stated alternatives. Comments in favor of 

or opposed to the Proposed Action or other 

alternatives, or comments that simply agree or 

disagree with NPS policy, are not necessarily 

considered substantive.

In Table 16, if NPS responses indicate that a 

change in the text from the Draft RPS/EIS is 

being made, such text changes are shown in 

bold font. Page numbers refer to those found 

in the Draft RPS/EIS.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 223

COMMENTS ON DRAFT RPS/EIS, AND NPS RESPONSES

TABLE 16: COMMENTS ON CURECANTI DRAFT RPS/EIS, AND NPS RESPONSES

Comment NPS Response 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Bureau of Land Management [Department of the Interior] 

BLM has been involved in the planning and 

development of the Resource Protection Study. BLM 

is satisfied that all of their comments to date have 

been addressed. Therefore, BLM fully supports 

Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, and looks 

forward to opportunities for review and input into 

future documents related to the project, including 

the FEIS, Report to Congress, and language related 

to potential new NRA legislation. 

NPS thanks BLM for their comments and their 

participation in the study. We look forward to 

involving them in future documents, and in 

continuing to work with them to conserve the 

resources in the Curecanti area. 

Bureau of Reclamation [Department of the Interior] 

The commenter restated that under both 

alternatives Reclamation would continue its 

administrative jurisdiction and responsibilities within 

and adjacent to the National Recreation Area, 

including construction, operation, maintenance, 

replacements and additions, consistent with 

Reclamation law, including unrestricted access for 

them and their assigns to their lands, land interests, 

and facilities. Any legislation for the NRA would 

allow that situation to continue, without any 

additional limitations on Reclamation's operational 

capabilities. 

NPS concurs, as already stated at various locations 

throughout the document, including this statement 

found on page 49: “Reclamation would have the 

ability at all times to construct, operate, maintain, 

and replace its facilities, including additions thereto. 

This ability includes access to all its lands, land 

interests, water and water interests, and facilities.”

In addition, NPS has amended the text within the 

boxes on page v and 36, by adding the phrase 

“and they and their assigns would continue to 

have unrestricted access to their lands and 

land interests, water and water interests, and 

facilities.” Similar wording has been added to the 

Abstract; to pages v, vi, x, 15, 43, 49, 61, 62, 69, 

80, 124, 197, and 203; and to the maps for 

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. 

Some of the riparian area around Neversink was 

purchased with CRSPA Section 8 money for wildlife. 

This should be specified because it is in the NRA 

and should be protected for wildlife. The riparian 

area upstream from Blue (Mesa) Reservoir should be 

protected for wildlife and not have recreation 

developments such as trails, outhouses, etc. 

The RPS/EIS suggests future potential for 

recreational opportunities; however, NPS agrees 

that wildlife protection must be considered along 

with any proposals for fishing access, or general 

public access. This would happen when a proposed 

development is evaluated using the NEPA process. 

We intend to work closely with CDOW and other 

interested parties in this regards. 

NPS has amended the last sentence in the last 

paragraph on page 14 as follows: 

“Some lands were acquired by Reclamation, 

using Section 8 money to meet the purpose of 

wildlife mitigation for the Aspinall Unit. Some of 

these lands, such as the area near Neversink, are 

still within the NRA, while others were 

transferred to CDOW to be managed as a part of 

the State Wildlife System.” 

Page xi, Primary Differences Table, Recreational 

Opportunities row, Alternative 1 column, line 3: 

NPS concurs, and has made the recommended 

change. 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

224 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Comment NPS Response 

Bureau of Reclamation [Department of the Interior] 

continued 

Change "Curecanti Project" to "Curecanti Unit, 

CRSP and Uncompahgre Project" 

Rationale: The East Portal area of the CNRA was 

acquired (withdrawn) for the Uncompahgre Project 

and not for the Curecanti (now Aspinall) Unit of the 

Colorado River Storage Project. 

The commenter stated that some maps (including 

the Existing Conditions Map, the Alternative 1 map, 

and the Alternative 2 map) appear to be missing 

some roads within the NRA (they may be overlain 

by other map layers). The missing roads include the 

Soap Creek Road and the three dam access roads, 

among others. 

NPS agrees that these roads should appear on the 

three named maps, and we have added them to the 

Existing Conditions and Alternative 1 maps. They 

already appear on the Alternative 2 map, and will 

remain. However, these roads have been 

intentionally omitted from the Computer Generated 

Viewshed map and the Important Resources map, 

and will not be added, because they are not needed 

for the primary messages intended to be conveyed 

by those maps, and they would detract from the 

readability of the maps. 

The commenter requests that the words “and 

recreation” be removed from the sentence that 

begins on line 16 of left column on page 10. 

Rationale: As currently worded, recreation is implied 

as a project purpose. In this context, it is incorrect 

to state that the dam was constructed for 

recreation. 

NPS concurs, and has deleted the words “and 

recreation” as requested. However, in order to 

retain the message that the reservoirs have provided 

recreational opportunities, and that this relates to 

provisions in the Colorado River Storage Project Act, 

the last sentence in that paragraph has been 

changed to read as follows: 

“Thus, three reservoirs were created, which 

have provided for public recreation in keeping 

with Section 8 of the Colorado River Storage 

Project Act.”

The commenter recommends the sentence on Page 

13, left column, paragraph 1, line 3, beginning with 

the word "Annually," be replaced with: "Since 

1970, about 343,000 acre-feet of project water 

has been diverted annually from the Gunnison 

River at East Portal." 

Rationale: The stated annual diversions of over 

400,000 acre-feet from the Gunnison River at East 

Portal seem too high. Reclamation's records indicate 

that, since 1970, the average annual diversion at 

East Portal is about 343,000 acre-feet. 

NPS concurs, and has made the recommended 

change. 

The commenter recommends that on Page 14, the 

sentence "This peak generation ability flattens 

energy purchases and saves Western and CRSP 

customers millions of dollars annually" be 

deleted. 

Rationale: It seems inappropriate to characterize 

Aspinall peaking operations as a savings to 

NPS concurs. The referenced sentence has been 

deleted. 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 225

Comment NPS Response 

Bureau of Reclamation [Department of the Interior] 

continued

Western and CRSP customers -the Aspinall Unit was 

authorized to operate in this manner. 

On pages 17 and 18, land based recreational 

opportunities are discussed at various locations 

including "Vicinity between the Lake City Bridge 

and Riverway to provide future hiking and nonmotorized biking trail linkage to the city of 

Gunnison." (pg 18, 5th bullet). In general, this may 

be a good idea but it would be important to keep 

any trail to the north of the river channels with a 

large buffer zone between the trail and the river to 

protect riparian areas and wildlife. This comment 

also applies to similar statements throughout the 

document, including, but not necessarily limited to 

those on pages 76, and 105. 

The RPS/EIS suggests future potential for 

recreational opportunities, including a potential trail 

mentioned by the commenter. It is important to 

understand the no development would occur until 

the proposal is evaluated using the NEPA process. If 

and when that process occurs, locations will be 

considered in greater detail. NPS agrees that 

protection of riparian areas and wildlife will be a 

part of that evaluation; however, we do not want 

to specify or exclude any particular area(s) for 

consideration at this time. 

The commenter requests that Table 1 on page 31, 

be amended, by adding the following bullet to the 

3rd column of Recreation Opportunities row: 

"Reclamation law, as amended and 

supplemented. In particular, Section 8, 

Colorado River Storage Project Act; and PL 89-

72 as amended by Title XXVIII of PL 102-575." 

Rationale: These are the two major Reclamation 

laws that address recreational opportunities within 

the NRA. 

NPS concurs, and has inserted this new bullet. 

The commenter requests that the Alternative 1 Map 

and Alternative 2 Map be modified as follows: 

Change the statement regarding Reclamation 

management of dams, reservoirs, power plants, 

access roads and other related facilities, but not 

lands or land interests, to be consistent with 

statements on pages 49 and 63, where Reclamation 

manages Reclamation real property for 

operation/maintenance/etc. of Reclamation projects.

Rationale: The wording regarding Reclamation 

management on the two maps is inconsistent with 

the Reclamation management statements on pages 

49 and 63. 

After further consultation with Reclamation, and to 

be consistent with related changes to the text that 

are identified in the first row of Reclamation 

comments in this table, the following language has 

been added to the legend of the maps for 

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2: “Reclamation 

would manage its project lands and land 

interests, water and water interests, and 

facilities, pursuant to Reclamation law, the 

1965 MOA, and other applicable laws and 

regulations.” 

The commenter made reference to potential 

transfer of lands between CDOW and NPS. Such 

lands, if acquired as Aspinall (Curecanti) Unit 

wildlife mitigation lands with CRSPA Section 8 

monies, need to continue to be managed for 

wildlife mitigation purposes in order to maintain 

applicable mitigation credits. The comment applies 

to statements throughout the document, including, 

but not necessarily limited to those on pages 49, 

NPS concurs that land acquired for the purpose of 

wildlife mitigation will need to be managed for 

wildlife benefits, regardless of the administering 

agency. On page 127 of the Affected Environment 

chapter, we state that “Some of these CDOW lands 

are Reclamation wildlife mitigation lands for the 

Aspinall Unit, which were transferred to CDOW. 

They need to continue to be managed for wildlife 

purposes.”

COMMENTS ON DRAFT RPS/EIS, AND NPS RESPONSES
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

226 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Comment NPS Response 

Bureau of Reclamation [Department of the Interior] 

continued 

54, 127, and 206. 

In addition, we have added the following sentence 

at the end of the 1st paragraph in the 2nd column on 

page 49: 

“Such exchanges would be subject to a 

commitment to continue to manage the land 

thus acquired for wildlife, if the land was 

originally acquired for wildlife mitigation 

purposes.”

On Page 50, left column, last paragraph, line 1; and 

right column, Tracts 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10, regarding 

the phrases ". . . Reclamation revokes . . ." and 

"Reclamation revocation": The commenter 

recommends that the current wording be revised, 

with the suggested wording as follows. This 

comment also applies to similar statements 

throughout the document, including, but not 

necessarily limited to, pages 70, 200, and 204. 

Rationale: First, as used here, the words "revokes" 

and "revocation" only apply to withdrawals of 

lands, not the lands themselves. Second, 

Reclamation does not revoke its withdrawals; it may 

relinquish its withdrawals and recommend 

revocation. BLM is the agency that actually revokes 

the withdrawal. 

Suggested wording: 

Page 50, left column Last Paragraph, Line 1: 

Replace ". . . revokes the lands that would be 

transferred out of the NRA, to the BLM . . ." with ". 

. . relinquishes its withdrawals on lands to be 

transferred out of the NRA to BLM and BLM 

has revoked those withdrawals, . . ." 

Page 50, right column, Tracts 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10: 

replace ". . . Reclamation revocation . . ." with ". . . 

revocation of Reclamation's withdrawal." 

Page 70, table, left column, row three: replace ". . . 

revocation by Reclamation. . . " with ". . .

revocation of Reclamation's withdrawal. . ." 

Page 200, right column, 2nd bullet, 2nd sub-bullet, 

line 2: ". . . Reclamation revocation. . ." with ". . . 

revocation of Reclamation's withdrawal . . ." 

Page 204, left column, first bullet (Land Unit F) and 

second bullet (Land Unit H), both line 3: replace ". . 

. as to whether to revoke, or not . . . " with ". . . as 

to whether or not to relinquish and 

recommend revocation of ..." 

NPS thanks Reclamation for clarification of this 

process, and has made the recommended changes. 

Page 53, right column, "Private Land Use within the 

NRA" heading: Recommend this heading be 

Rather than modify the heading, NPS instead has 

made the following changes to the text: 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 227

Comment NPS Response 

Bureau of Reclamation [Department of the Interior] 

continued 

changed to, "Private Mineral Development within 

the NRA." 

This comment also applies to similar headings in the 

document, including, but not necessarily limited to 

those found on pages 117, and 189 (2 uses), but 

not the similar heading in the table on page 78. 

Note: A separate recommendation is being made 

for the wording on page 78. 

Rationale: With the exception of page 78, the 

subsequent discussions relate only to private 

mineral and mining rights, not the other private 

land use rights within the NRA. However, other 

than the 1st sentence in each of the alternative 

cells, the discussion in the table on page 78 could 

apply to all privately owned interests in the NRA. 

On page 53, the first sentence under Private Land 

Use within the NRA has been amended to read: 

“As in Alternative 1, NPS would continue to 

communicate and cooperate with those who 

hold private interests (such as rights-of-way, 

water rights, access rights, and oil/gas/ mineral 

rights) within the NRA in order to provide 

appropriate measures to minimize impacts of 

development and operations that now exist, or 

might exist, in the future.”

Related changes have been made to the text on 

page 117, as described later in this table, in 

response to this and other Reclamation comments 

about the text on page 117. 

On page 189, the first paragraph under Guiding 

Policies and Regulations has been amended as 

follows: 

“Current laws and policies encourage NPS to 

work cooperatively with owners of interests 

(such as rights-of-way, water rights, access 

rights, and oil/gas/mineral rights) within the 

NRA in order to help achieve desired 

conditions related to private land use within 

the NRA boundary. Refer to the following box 

for details.” 

NPS has amended the 1st sentence in the 3rd block of 

text in the box on page 189 as follows: 

“Good relations are maintained with owners of 

interests (such as rights-of-way, water rights, 

access rights, and oil/gas/mineral rights) within 

the NRA.” 

Page 59: right column, item 2: The proposed 

legislation should be jointly prepared by NPS and 

Reclamation similar to the Report to Congress. 

Rationale: The proposed legislation will affect both 

NPS and Reclamation. Joint preparation of the 

proposed legislation should ensure that the interests 

of both agencies are incorporated and that there is 

consensus and cooperation between the agencies. 

NPS concurs in concept. However, as it is not 

known who would write such legislation, we have 

replaced the last two sentences of item 2, page 59, 

with one, to read as follows: 

“Because legislation would affect both 

Reclamation and NPS, both agencies would be 

cooperatively involved in its drafting to ensure 

there is consensus and that the interests of 

both agencies are incorporated.” 

Page 59, right column, 3. c., fifth line -Change the 

words "full respect" to "consideration." This 

comment also applies to the same statement on 

page 283. 

Rationale: The phrase "full respect" could be 

viewed as in conflict with giving priority to 

Reclamation purposes. 

NPS has replaced the text in item 3. c. on page 59, 

and the third bullet statement on page 283, with 

the following: 

“In areas where management responsibility 

overlaps, the two agencies would work 

together, when necessary, to resolve 

conflicting uses with consideration for the 

legislative mandate for each agency, in a 

manner that is consistent with the primary 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT RPS/EIS, AND NPS RESPONSES
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

228 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Comment NPS Response 

purposes of Reclamation’s Aspinall and 

Uncompahgre projects.” 

Bureau of Reclamation [Department of the Interior] 

continued 

Page 78, Table, last row- Private land use within 

NRA: Replace the first sentence in the cells under 

both Alternatives 1 and 2 with wording similar to 

that found on pages ix and 61 regarding the varied 

existing legal rights within the NRA. 

Rationale: Mineral and mineral development rights 

are only a couple of the privately owned interests 

within the NRA. Other privately owned interests, to 

name a few, include rights-of-way, water rights, 

and access rights. 

NPS has replaced the first two sentences in the last 

row under Alternative 1 in the table on page 78 

with the following: 

“Currently, there are numerous and varied 

existing rights on lands within the NRA (such 

as rights-of-way, water rights, access rights, 

and oil/gas/mineral rights). Under this 

alternative, NPS would continue to work 

cooperatively with owners of such rights 

through a permitting process to allow the 

owner to exercise those rights, subject to deed 

restrictions, with the goal of minimizing 

adverse impacts on NRA resources or visitor 

enjoyment.” 

NPS has replaced the first two sentences in the last 

row under Alternative 2 in the table on page 78 

with the following: 

“Currently, there are numerous and varied 

existing rights on lands within the NRA (such 

as rights-of-way, water rights, access rights, 

and oil/gas/mineral rights). As in Alternative 1, 

NPS would continue to work cooperatively 

with owners of such rights through a 

permitting process to allow the owner to 

exercise those rights, subject to deed 

restrictions, with the goal of minimizing 

adverse impacts on NRA resources or visitor 

enjoyment.” 

Page 95, left column, State Listed Species, 

paragraph 2: Is there a reference for the statement, 

"The Colorado River cutthroat trout is known to 

occur in the Gunnison River below Crystal Reservoir, 

. . ."? If so, please provide the reference; otherwise 

delete the statement. 

Rationale: Seems like a slim possibility and the 

statement should be deleted if there is not a good 

reference for this information. 

CDOW has stocked this section of river a few years 

ago with some success. For clarification, NPS has 

replaced the referenced sentence on page 95 with 

the following: 

“The Colorado River cutthroat trout is known 

to occur in the Gunnison River below Crystal 

Reservoir (incidental occurrence through 

occasional stocking), Antelope Creek (a 

tributary to North Beaver Creek), Road Beaver 

Creek (a tributary to Cebolla Creek), as well as 

in the national park (Kowalski, pers. comm. 

11/27/2007).” 

In addition, NPS has added the following 

bibliographical citation on page 293, under 

PERSONAL COMMUNICATION: 

“November 27, 2007 personal communication 

from Daniel Kowalski, Fisheries Biologist, 

Colorado Division of Wildlife (Montrose), 

reconfirming CDOW’s Colorado River cutthroat 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 229

Comment NPS Response 

trout stocking program, including occasional 

stocking of the Gunnison River below Crystal 

Reservoir.” 

Bureau of Reclamation [Department of the Interior] 

continued 

Page 99, right column, paragraph 2, last sentence: 

Please note that the Gunnison Tunnel is also on the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

NPS has amended the last sentence of paragraph 2, 

right column, page 99, as follows: 

“The Gunnison Tunnel is on the National 

Register of Historic Places, and is a National 

Historic Civil Engineering Landmark.” 

Page 117, Right column, Current Heading- Private 

Land Use Within the National Recreation Area, 

paragraph 1, first sentence: Recommend this 

sentence be deleted and replaced with the second 

sentence, less the word "However." 

Rationale: The statement in the first sentence is not 

true. For example, Norman and Jean Austin (BMR 

Parcel 6) reserved and retained all water and water 

rights, and Frank and Susan Carpenter (BMR Parcel 

8) reserved certain water rights appurtenant to the 

respective parcels which Reclamation acquired. 

Other vendors also reserved various rights other 

than mineral and mineral development rights. 

_____________ 

Page 117, Current Heading- Private Land Use 

Within the National Recreation Area, paragraph 1: 

Add the following sentence(s) regarding 

"subordination" of mineral rights at the end of the 

paragraph: 

"Where Reclamation acquired land but not the 

appurtenant mineral, or oil or gas rights, it 

subordinated those reserved rights to require their 

development in a manner that would not interfere 

with project purposes. The subordination for 

reserved mineral rights, including oil and gas, is 

contained in the Land Purchase Contract and/or 

deed for each parcel acquired." 

Rationale: It is Reclamation policy to subordinate 

the development of reserved mineral rights to the 

United States' rights and regulate such 

development in a manner that doesn't interfere 

with project purposes. A partial review of its 

acquisition files indicate that Reclamation 

subordinated development of reserved mineral 

rights to Curecanti Unit and CRSP purposes. 

On page 117, NPS replaced the first paragraph 

under PRIVATE LAND USE WITHIN THE NATIONAL 

RECREATION AREA with the following two 

paragraphs: 

“All surface lands and waters within the NRA 

are currently owned by the federal 

government. However, in a number of 

locations throughout the NRA, there exist 

retained private rights (such as rights-of-way, 

water rights, access rights, and oil/ gas/mineral 

rights). Where Reclamation acquired land but 

not the appurtenant mineral, or oil or gas 

rights, it subordinated those reserved rights to 

require their development in a manner that 

would not interfere with project purposes. The 

subordination for reserved mineral rights, 

including oil and gas, is contained in the land 

purchase contract and/or deed for each parcel 

acquired. 

The term “split estate” describes the situation 

where one party owns the surface rights and 

another party owns the subsurface rights (oil, 

gas, or minerals). Privately owned, or reserved, 

subsurface interests within the NRA are shown 

in Table 10.” 

Pages 118-119; Table 10; Interests Reserved 

column: Except where otherwise indicated in the 

comments below, add to all rows the phrase: 

"Subordinated to CRSP". 

Rationale: Reclamation subordinated those mineral 

NPS concurs, and has made the recommended 

change. 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT RPS/EIS, AND NPS RESPONSES
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

230 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Comment NPS Response 

Bureau of Reclamation [Department of the Interior] 

continued 

rights not acquired to its project purposes; such 

subordination should be noted. 

Page 118, Table 10, the three rows for 49N, 2W, 26 

(Eagle Rock Resort, Herman, and Nelson): Remove 

these rows from the table.

Rationale: These previous owners never had any 

mineral rights on these lands. The United States 

reserved all minerals in the patent for these lands. 

NPS concurs, and has made the recommended 

change. 

Page 118, Table 10, the row for 49N, 3W, 25, 26 

(Holman, J.), Interests Reserved column: Add the 

following statement: "BMR Parcel12A (10 acres in 

Sec. 25) had reserved oil/gas rights 

subordinated to CRSP" 

Rationale: See following rationale for all three 

Holman rows in Table 10. 

NPS concurs, and has made the recommended 

change. 

Page 118-119; Table 10; the second and third 

Holman, J. rows; Interests Reserved column: For 

these rows, add the phrase, "Additional research 

necessary". 

Rationale: With the exception of BMR Parcel 12A 

(10 acres in Sec. 25, T49N, R3W) which did have 

reserved oil/gas subordinated to CRSP purposes, all 

of the Holman parcels (155+ acres) were acquired 

through condemnation. Additional research of the 

court's action in that case is necessary to determine 

whether or not any mineral rights were reserved to 

Holman and whether or not any such rights were 

subordinated to CRSP. During this review, the one 

legal description related to the Holman 

condemnation case, which Reclamation found did 

not include any reservation of mineral rights to 

Holman. However, that description may not have 

been part of the final decision. 

NPS concurs, and has made the recommended 

change. 

Page 119 (text), left column, paragraph 1, line 2, 

sentence beginning with "Mrs. Dickerson": Revise 

the sentence and add a second sentence to read as 

follows: 

“Mrs. Dickerson reserved "the perpetual right 

to mine and remove decomposed granite and 

the materials intermixed therewith" from a 

portion of the conveyance, creating a 33.16 

acre split mineral estate, together with the 

right of ingress and egress over the mineral 

estate. However, this mineral right is 

subordinated to the United States' rights, in 

that, ". . . any rights reserved hereunder shall 

NPS concurs, and has made the recommended 

change. 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 231

Comment NPS Response 

Bureau of Reclamation [Department of the Interior] 

continued 

be exercised in such manner as will not 

interfere with the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of any works of the proposed 

Curecanti Unit of the Colorado River Storage 

Project Act as determined by the Secretary of 

the Interior or his duly authorized 

representative.”” 

Rationale: The reserved mineral right was not 

correctly described and the appurtenant 

subordination of this mineral right to the Curecanti 

Unit, CRSP, was not included in the description. 

Page 123, right column, first paragraph (re. 

Fruitland Mesa): Add the following sentence at the 

end of paragraph: "Reclamation has 

recommended to BLM that it revoke the 

withdrawals for the Fruitland Mesa Project." 

NPS concurs, and has made the recommended 

change. 

Page 187, right column, Heading- Fee Simple 

Acquisition, Paragraph 1, line 4: Regarding loss of 

revenue and PILT offsets of lost revenue, suggest 

the use of either "could" or "may" in place of 

"would." 

Rationale: In a following paragraph, EIS states that 

the PILT offset is not guaranteed or may not occur, 

therefore the prior use of "would" is not proper. 

NPS concurs, and has used the word “may” as 

suggested; therefore, the sentence will read: 

“This loss of revenue may be partially 

mitigated by an increased “Payments in Lieu of 

Taxes (PILT)” from the federal government to 

the counties involved.” 

Page 189, Desired Condition Box, left column, first 

paragraph, line 3: The wording ". . . requirements 

specified in warranty or other legal deeds, such as 

the requirement that such activity not interfere with 

the construction, operation, and maintenance of 

Reclamation works." be replaced with ". . . the 

subordination of the development of such 

rights to Reclamation's project as specified in 

the land purchase contracts and deeds." 

Rationale: Reclamation may have acquired lands 

whereon the vendor retained certain mineral rights 

with the associated development rights 

subordinated to the Reclamation project in order to 

protect project purposes, works, and water quality. 

In general, that means the development of those 

reserved rights is subject to conditions to protect 

Reclamation project purposes and works and/or 

project water quality as may be required by the 

Secretary of the Interior or his authorized 

representative. The specific reservations and 

subordinations are cited in the Land Purchase 

Contract and/or the deed for each parcel acquired. 

NPS concurs, and has made the recommended 

change. 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT RPS/EIS, AND NPS RESPONSES
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

232 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Comment NPS Response 

Bureau of Reclamation [Department of the Interior] 

continued

Glossary: Add the following terms/definitions to the 

Glossary. 

“Reclamation Works: The structures, facilities, 

and appurtenances necessary to meet 

Reclamation project purposes, together with 

the lands and land interests necessary for such 

works. Generally, Reclamation project works 

may include, but are not necessarily limited to, 

dams, reservoirs, canals, laterals, ditches, 

roads, transmission lines, substations, 

buildings, power plants, offices, warehouses, 

residences, telephone lines, parking areas, 

gates, fences, siphons, etc., and the necessary 

land and land interests, such as leases, rightsof-way, and easements, etc.” 

“Relinquishment: A notification to BLM by a 

Federal holding agency (such as Reclamation) 

that: 

- The public lands withdrawn or reserved for 

its use are no longer needed, or 

- The withholding or segregation of land from 

settlement, sale, location, or entry is no longer 

required. (Reclamation, 1998)” 

“Revocation: The actual cancellation of a 

withdrawal by BLM, but does not necessarily 

open the land to settlement, sale, location, or 

entry under some or all of the general land 

laws. (Reclamation, 1998)”

“Subordinate (verb): To place a senior real 

property interest in a position of lower priority 

to that of an otherwise junior real property 

interest in the same real estate. (adapted from 

a portion of the definition of "Subordination 

agreement" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth 

Edition, 1990)”

“Subordination: The act or process by which a 

person's rights or claims are ranked below 

those of others. (Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth 

Edition, 1990)” 

NPS concurs, and has made the recommended 

changes. 

National Park Service – Acadia National Park 

The commenter was the Superintendent of 

Curecanti NRA when Public Law 106-76, which 

requested this study, was enacted in 1999. He was 

one of the original members of the study team, and 

supported the concept of conducting a study that 

would develop recommendations that Congress 

The study team thanks commenter for his visionary 

contributions to the study at the beginning of the 

project, and for his support of the Proposed Action. 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 233

Comment NPS Response 

National Park Service – Acadia National Park

continued 

could then consider prior to legislative 

establishment of the NRA. He is supportive of the 

recommendations found in the Proposed Action, 

and believes they do an excellent job of satisfying 

the intent of the request by Congress. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

The commenter suggested that NPS provide 

additional clarification and analysis pertaining to the 

potential environmental impacts associated with 

increased recreational access and use of lands that 

might occur under Alternative 2. This is especially 

significant for those land units (CO 92, Gunnison 

River, Iola Basin, and Sapinero/Blue Mesa) that have 

been identified as COAs based on their recreational 

value. EPA suggests that the DEIS should 

acknowledge that additional recreational uses could 

present localized impacts to resources. The 

designation of biking or horse trails in areas within 

the proposed NRA/COA boundary that are currently 

not accessible, for example, would pose a potential 

for increased erosion, water quality degradation 

and wildlife impacts. Other recreational activities 

would pose their own unique set of potential 

impacts to natural resources. In addition, amenities 

such as parking lots, campsites and restroom 

facilities represent additional potential indirect 

impacts. 

Therefore, EPA recommends that Chapter 4’s 

treatment of Environmental Consequences for 

Natural Resources include references to potential 

impacts associated with increased recreational 

access and uses associated with the Preferred 

Alternative. Similarly, Table 5 in Chapter 2, 

“Summary of Environmental Consequences” should 

include language on potential adverse impacts 

associated with increased use of specific COA units. 

While these DEIS sections may characterize 

recreation-related impacts as minor or moderately 

adverse, and may also cite management plans and 

measures that can and/or will be employed to 

mitigate impacts, EPA believes that the document 

should clearly disclose that increased recreational 

use that occurs as a result of this proposal may 

present impacts to water quality, vegetation, 

wildlife communities, special status species and 

other resources. 

NPS acknowledges that increased recreational use 

that occurs as a result of implementation of 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) may present more 

impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife 

communities, special status species and other 

natural resources, than would result under 

Alternative 1 (No Action), especially in those COA 

land units that have good potential for recreational 

opportunities. However, the above is conditioned 

with an understanding that no public recreational 

activities would occur under the auspices of the 

NRA on any lands within the COA until NPS 

acquired the appropriate interest to allow it; and 

this would only happen with the approval of the 

landowner. 

In response to EPA’s concern, NPS has added the 

following text as a preface to the impact topic of 

Natural Resources in Table 5: Summary of 

Environmental Consequences, starting on page 72 

of the Alternatives chapter, and as a preface to the 

Natural Resources section starting on page 140 of 

the Environmental Consequences chapter: 

“In general, increased recreational use that 

occurs as a result of implementation of 

Alternative 2: Proposed Action may present 

more impacts to water quality, vegetation, 

wildlife communities, special status species 

and other natural resources, than would result 

under Alternative 1: No Action. This is 

especially true on some lands within the 

Conservation Opportunity Area (COA) should 

they ever be acquired in fee simple, or an 

interest thereof acquired, that would allow for 

public use. 

Potential recreational development, and 

related uses such as described in the list of 

existing and potential recreational 

opportunities under Visitor Activities in the 

VISITOR USE, UNDERSTANDING, AND 

ENJOYMENT section of the Affected 

Environment chapter, could present localized 

impacts to wildlife, vegetation, soils, water 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT RPS/EIS, AND NPS RESPONSES
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

234 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Comment NPS Response 

quality, and other resources. However, before 

any such recreational development occurs, or 

uses allowed, NPS would evaluate the 

proposal(s) using the NEPA process. The 

evaluation could occur for a single 

development or activity, or as a comprehensive 

study (e.g., a general management plan or 

implementation plan). At that time, impacts on 

the environment would be fully assessed, and 

mitigation measures identified. 

All recreational developments and/or activities 

within the future NRA boundary would be in 

accordance with the NPS mission of preserving 

unimpaired the natural and cultural resources 

and values of the NRA for the enjoyment, 

education, and inspiration of this and future 

generations. For any recreational uses and/or 

associated amenities authorized on COA lands, 

NPS would work with landowners to minimize 

impacts so that the goals of resource 

conservation are met.” 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency continued 

The commenter notes that ten tracts, encompassing 

1,243 acres, have been identified for potential 

deletion from the NRA under the Preferred 

Alternative. While the intent is that some of these 

tracts will be used to secure the conservation of 

other high-value resources on properties within the 

proposed COA, there is not enough detailed 

information on the basis for the deletion of these 

properties in the DEIS (Chapter 2, page 50). The 

Final EIS should include some information on the 

criteria and rationale used to determine the tracts 

subject to potential deletion. 

In order to clarify the rationale for recommending 

exclusion of some lands (identified on page 50), 

NPS has made the following changes to the 

document: 

The first paragraph under “Lands to Be Deleted 

from the Existing NRA” in the first column of page 

50 has been replaced with the following three 

paragraphs: 

“During the process of assessing the resource 

value and character of the land within and 

surrounding Curecanti NRA, certain tracts of 

land were identified for potential exclusion 

from the NRA boundary. These lands, which 

total 1,243 acres, are shown as ten different 

“Tracts” on the Alternative 2 map. As this 

study defines proposed lands, for clarity of 

discussion, especially in the Affected 

Environment and Environmental Consequences 

chapters, these deletions are not included in 

the term “proposed lands.” 

NPS identified two primary reasons for the 

exclusion of the tracts. The first is that the 

proposed deletions would provide net overall 

management efficiencies by transferring 

various tracts to two adjacent federal land 

management agencies. Tracts 1 and 10 would 

be transferred to the Bureau of Land 

Management. Tracts 2, 3, 8, and 9 would be 

transferred to the U.S. Forest Service. 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 235

Comment NPS Response 

The second is that the proposed deletions 

would provide a more logical NRA boundary in 

certain locations along the north side of 

Colorado Highway 92 (Tracts 4, 5, 6, and 7), 

and along the west side of Soap Creek Road 

(Tracts 8 and 9). In these locations, the road 

winds in and out of the existing administrative 

boundary, causing unnecessary confusion for 

visitors who are unsure of whether they are in 

or out of the NRA. The proposed changes 

would make the edge of the road right-of-way 

the NRA boundary, thus eliminating this 

confusion.” 

The text in the second column of page 50 that 

describes the ten tracts has been amended to read 

as follows: 

“The ten tracts of land that are currently being 

considered for potential deletion from the 

existing NRA are described below. The reason 

for the recommended deletion is identified 

within parentheses ( ). 

Tract 1: 680 acres to BLM, subject to revocation 

of Reclamation’s withdrawal (management 

efficiencies) 

Tract 2: 42 acres to USFS, upon passage of NRA 

legislation (management efficiencies) 

Tract 3: 21 acres to USFS, upon passage of NRA 

legislation (management efficiencies) 

Tract 4: 162 acres to private interest, in 

exchange for COA land, subject to revocation 

of Reclamation’s withdrawal, and negotiation 

with landowner (logical boundary) 

Tract 5: 11 acres to private interest, in 

exchange for COA land, subject to revocation 

of Reclamation’s withdrawal, and negotiation 

with landowner (logical boundary) 

Tract 6: 159 acres to private interest, in 

exchange for COA land, subject to revocation 

of Reclamation’s withdrawal, and negotiation 

with landowner (logical boundary) 

Tract 7: 31 acres to private interest, in 

exchange for COA land, subject to revocation 

of Reclamation’s withdrawal, and negotiation 

with landowner (logical boundary) 

Tract 8: 3 acres to USFS, upon passage of NRA 

legislation (management efficiencies and 

logical boundary) 

Tract 9: 14 acres to USFS, upon passage of NRA 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT RPS/EIS, AND NPS RESPONSES
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

236 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Comment NPS Response 

legislation (management efficiencies and 

logical boundary) 

Tract 10: 120 acres to BLM, subject to 

revocation of Reclamation’s withdrawal 

(management efficiencies).” 

U.S. Forest Service 

Forest Supervisor’s Office (Grand Mesa, 

Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests)

On behalf of the U.S. Forest Service, one of the 

partnering agencies on the study, the Forest 

Supervisor of the Uncompahgre and Gunnison 

National Forests supports the Proposed Action and 

the land adjustments as proposed. 

NPS thanks USFS for its support of the Proposed 

Action, and looks forward to working in partnership 

with them to implement it. 

Gunnison Ranger District

The commenter suggested that changes in camping 

policy under Alternative 2 may cause users who are 

accustomed to camping in the corrals area near 

Soap Creek Campground to camp instead on U.S. 

Forest Service land in either existing or newlycreated dispersed sites along Soap Creek Road. 

This comment refers to the proposal that 

management of the Soap Creek Campground be 

transferred from USFS to NPS under the Proposed 

Action. NPS would consider converting the area 

described into an open camping area, which could 

be used by groups and/or individuals who would 

like to camp near their horses. The open camping 

area would have outside limits, so there would be 

some limitations as to where people could camp. 

The first bullet on page 171 has been amended to 

read as follows: 

“Direct and indirect long-term adverse impacts 

are possible due to the change in front-country 

campground management. Some camping 

opportunities in undesignated sites might be 

lost because NPS would limit the area where 

dispersed camping could occur. However, in 

the Soap Creek Campground, NPS would 

consider designating an area within and near 

the corrals for “open camping,” thus reducing 

the impact to users who prefer to camp in the 

vicinity of their horses. Although management 

of that campground would be transferred, NPS 

would allow most existing uses to continue, 

including use of the existing horse corrals, and 

overnight trailhead parking. This would result 

in a long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impact on campground users accustomed to 

current undesignated camping opportunities. 

However, there would also be long-term minor 

beneficial impacts as a result of greater NPS 

presence, including increased law enforcement 

and campground maintenance.” 

The commenter stated that the Draft RPS/EIS did 

not mention potential Alternative 2 impacts to 

recreationists who use the Soap Creek Corral area 

NPS would maintain current recreational activities, 

including horse use and hiking opportunities in the 

Soap Creek Area. Parking for trailhead use would 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 237

Comment NPS Response 

Gunnison Ranger District continued 

for day use and overnight horse trailer parking, 

especially during hunting season. Also, visitors have 

historically used the corral/campground area for day 

use and/or overnight trailhead parking in order to 

access the Coal Mesa Trail. They wondered if NPS 

would charge for trailhead parking and/or overnight 

parking of horse trailers. They further wondered if 

NPS will allow the continued use of the Coal Mesa 

trail and if NPS would assume maintenance 

responsibility for the trail. 

continue to be allowed. NPS does charge a fee for 

camping; however, if individuals were just using the 

area for parking, there would be no user fee. Refer 

above to the text change for the first bullet on page 

171. 

NPS does not plan to close any non-motorized trails 

on the lands it would acquire. NPS would assume 

maintenance responsibilities for that portion of the 

Coal Mesa Trail within the NRA boundary. 

Accordingly, the following sentence has been 

added to the middle of the first full paragraph on 

page 172: 

“Existing non-motorized trails on agency lands 

added to the NRA boundary would remain, 

and NPS would assume maintenance 

responsibilities of such trails.” 

The commenter discussed existing concession and 

outfitting permits in the Soap Creek Area. They 

agree that the campground concession permit 

would need to be transferred to NPS. They stated 

that the existing outfitter permit should be retained 

by USFS. However, NPS may need to provide this 

outfitter a permit as well, primarily for corral use 

and horse trailer parking. 

They also commented that due to the moderate to 

heavy use the corral area receives during the hunting 

season for horse trailer parking, either the present use 

should continue or another adequate site would need 

to be identified for such use. 

NPS appreciates receiving the additional information 

about the outfitter permitted to use the Soap Creek 

area. NPS agrees that it would also need to issue a 

permitting document to the outfitter. This 

document is known as a Commercial Use 

Authorization. Other existing commercial permits 

would be worked out on a case by case basis. 

NPS looks forwards to working with the Gunnison 

Ranger District to iron-out such operational details if 

Alternative 2 is implemented, in order to minimize 

impacts on traditional uses. 

Regarding permitting, the last two sentences in the 

second sub-bullet on page 199 have been amended 

to read as follows: 

“The existing campground concession permit 

would be transferred to the National Park 

Service, or terminated. If terminated, it would 

result in some adverse impacts to existing 

concessioners. USFS would need to amend the 

existing outfitter permit, and NPS would need 

to issue a Commercial Use Authorization to the 

same outfitter, reflecting changes brought 

about by transfer of agency lands.” 

Regarding parking of horse trailers, refer to the text 

change referenced above for the first bullet on page 

171. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of the Interior) 

Via a phone conversation with NPS, USFWS 

recommended that NPS assure that its 

determination of “no affect” for threatened and 

endangered species is clearly stated within the 

document. 

NPS reviewed the text as written in the Special 

Status Species section of Chapter 4: Environmental 

Consequences on pages 152-156. The section 

discusses potential impacts to threatened, 

endangered, and otherwise designated special 

status species. We have modified a paragraph that 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT RPS/EIS, AND NPS RESPONSES
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

238 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Comment NPS Response 

occurs in two locations in the document – in Table 

5: Summary of Environmental Consequences, in the 

Alternative 2 column for Special Status Species on 

page 73 of Alternatives Chapter 2; and in the 1st 

paragraph of the Conclusion for the impacts of 

Alternative 2: Proposed Action, in the 2nd column of 

page 156 – as follows: 

“Implementation of Alternative 2 would 

benefit special status wildlife species and 

therefore would have no effect on the bald 

eagle, Gunnison Sage-grouse, Colorado River 

cutthroat trout, American peregrine falcon, 

greater sandhill crane, long-billed curlew, 

great blue heron, or other sensitive species. 

Special status plant species would also 

experience beneficial impacts. Through 

decreased potential for development and 

other land use activities that are detrimental to 

habitats, all special status species within the 

proposed lands would have opportunities for 

increased conservation and potential for 

populations to expand. Benefits would be 

greatest on Land Units D (Iola Basin COA), E 

(Sapinero/Blue Mesa COA), and G (West-End 

COA), where development potential is 

currently the highest. However, resources on 

other private lands within the COA would 

benefit as well. In addition, there are no 

immediate plans for developments or new 

recreational facilities that would affect these 

species. Future proposals would be evaluated 

using the NEPA process prior to project 

approval.”

Western Area Power Administration (Department of Energy) 

The commenter requested that the Final RPS/EIS 

include a discussion regarding the relationship 

among Western, Reclamation, and NPS, and 

provide information regarding Western's authority 

to operate its facilities related to the Aspinall Unit. 

The final RPS/EIS should provide this information to 

ensure there are no gaps in the history of the 

Aspinall Unit and the NRA lands, including the 

transmission of electric power. The commenter 

requested that this information be provided under a 

separate heading for the Department of Energy. 

NPS concurs with Western’s recommendations, as it 

is important to provide information on Western’s 

authority and mandated responsibilities related to 

operation of the Aspinall project. 

A new section has been inserted into Chapter 1: 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION, beginning on 

page 15, before the “Study Process” header, as 

follows: 

“WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

(DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY) SPECIAL 

MANDATES 

Background and Purpose

One of the stated purposes of the Colorado 

River Storage Project (CRSP), passed by 

Congress on April 11, 1956, was "for the 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 239

Comment NPS Response 

generation of hydroelectric power." The 

Secretary of the Interior was instructed to 

construct, operate, and maintain Colorado 

River storage units (dams, reservoirs, power 

plants, transmission facilities and appurtenant 

works) at Curecanti (subsequently designated 

the Wayne N. Aspinall Storage Unit on October 

3, 1980), Flaming Gorge, Navajo and Glen 

Canyon. 

The responsibility for transmission and 

marketing of power was subsequently passed 

to the Secretary of Energy, per Section 302 of 

the Department of Energy (DOE) Organization 

Act of 1977. This act transferred "all functions 

of the Secretary of the Interior under section 5 

of the Flood Control Act of 1944, and all other 

functions of the Secretary of the Interior . . . 

with respect to the power marketing functions 

of the Bureau of Reclamation, including the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of 

transmission lines and attendant facilities." 

This section of the act goes on to state that the 

power marketing functions shall be exercised 

by the Secretary of Energy acting through a 

separate and distinct administration within the 

department. 

Previously, the Flood Control Act of 1944 

authorized the Secretary of the Interior to 

construct or acquire necessary transmission 

lines and related facilities to deliver power 

generated from Corps of Engineers water 

projects. Also, the Reclamation Acts of 1902 

and 1939 serve as further authority for the 

power marketing / transmission role carried 

out by Western Area Power Administration 

(Western). 

Western’s Mission

Western markets and delivers reliable, costbased hydroelectric power and related services 

within a 15-state region of the central and 

western U.S. It is one of four power marketing 

administrations within the U.S. Department of 

Energy, whose role is to market and transmit 

electricity from multi-use water projects. Its 

transmission system carries electricity from 57 

power plants operated by the Bureau of 

Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 

the International Boundary and Water 

Commission. Together, these plants have an 

installed capacity of 10,395 megawatts. 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT RPS/EIS, AND NPS RESPONSES
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

240 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Comment NPS Response 

Western’s Goals

Western’s mandate is to assure the continuous 

and uninterrupted supply of energy from the 

Curecanti/Aspinall project to its distribution 

partners. It therefore needs to construct, 

operate, and maintain, and have ready access 

to, its existing transmission corridors / 

facilities. In addition, future demand and 

changing technologies may require the 

establishment of new corridors / rights-of-way 

within the boundaries of Curecanti NRA.”

Western Area Power Administration (Department of 

Energy) continued

The commenter clarified that Western owns no 

lands within the proposed boundaries of Curecanti 

NRA; however, it does own, operate and maintain 

transmission facilities. For example, on page 128, 

the draft states that "Western owns and operates a 

number of facilities, including transmission lines and 

communication sites, as well as the roads that 

provide access to these facilities that lie within or 

adjacent to Curecanti NRA." Western does not 

"own" the roads or the lands beneath them. These 

roads were constructed by Reclamation when the 

transmission facilities were built and are currently 

maintained and improved as needed by Western. 

NPS appreciates Western’s clarification regarding 

ownership of lands (corridors and roads). The lands 

within the project are under the ownership of the 

United States. Therefore, the 1st sentence in the 1st 

paragraph under WESTERN AREA POWER 

ADMINISTRATION on page 128 has been amended 

to read as follows: 

“Western owns and operates a number of 

facilities, including transmission lines and 

communication sites.” 

STATE OF COLORADO 

Colorado Division of Wildlife 

CDOW has been involved in the planning and 

development of the Resource Protection Study. 

Among the issues with which they were concerned 

was the continuance of public access for wildliferelated recreation in the NRA, including hunting, 

angling, and watching/viewing wildlife. They want 

to ensure that these uses would continue in 

perpetuity at the NRA, and feel that this will be the 

case under the Proposed Action. Therefore, on 

behalf of CDOW, the Southwest Regional Manager 

supports Alternative 2: Proposed Action. 

NPS thanks CDOW for its support of the Proposed 

Action, and looks forward to working in partnership 

with them to implement it. 

Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation (Colorado State Historical Society) 

The commenter requested that NPS forward Section 

106 studies to her office. NPS subsequently sent 

additional information and an Assessment of Effects 

evaluation. In response, the commenter concurs 

with the NPS finding of no effect pertaining to the 

recommendations of the Proposed Action. 

However, the commenter pointed out that in 

NPS appreciates the assistance of the SHPO in 

reviewing the RPS recommendations as it pertains 

to cultural resources. In order to clarify the intent of 

including required Section 106 evaluations prior to 

any future federal action that has a potential of an 

adverse effect, NPS has made the following 

additions to the document. 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 241

Comment NPS Response 

Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation 

(Colorado State Historical Society) continued

regards to any future land exchange for private 

land, there is a potential for an adverse effect; and 

if that action is contemplated, it would need to be 

fully evaluated per Section 106 prior to any such 

conveyance.

On page 50, right column, the following has been 

added as the last paragraph on the page, after the 

description for Tract 10: 

“Prior to any exchange using Tracts 4, 5, 6 and 

7 for private lands, or any other parcels that 

may be identified in the future to be used in 

such an exchange, the lands proposed for 

exchange would be evaluated under Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

[36 CFR §800.4(d)(1)] to determine if they 

contain any site or sites considered to be 

eligible for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places. If such a determination is made, 

exchange of such lands would be considered 

an adverse effect, and a protective action such 

as the following would need to be taken prior 

to any such conveyance: (1) the conveyance 

would be conditioned upon a preservation 

easement to ensure the continued protection 

of the resource; or (2) the parcel would be 

subdivided in such a way that any tracts 

containing eligible cultural resources would 

remain with NPS, and tracts without such 

resources could be used in exchange. 

Otherwise, the effort to exchange such a 

parcel would be terminated.” 

On page 75, Table 5: Summary of Environmental 

Consequences, in the row for “Archeological 

Resources, and Historic Districts and Structures,” in 

the third column (Alternative 2), the following 

sentence has been added at the end of the existing 

sentence: 

“However, in the case for future land 

exchanges with private parties, any parcel 

proposed for exchange would be evaluated 

under Section 106 for potential adverse effect 

to cultural resources, and any such effect 

would be mitigated prior to the conveyance of 

any property.” 

On page 167, right column, the following 

paragraph has been added between the second and 

third paragraphs: 

“For example, because there is a potential of 

cultural resources existing on some land that 

may be used in exchange for private land 

within the COA, any parcel thus proposed 

would be evaluated for potential adverse 

effect prior to any such exchange. If a property 

is determined to contain any site or sites 

considered to be eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places, a 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT RPS/EIS, AND NPS RESPONSES
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

242 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Comment NPS Response 

protective action such as the following would 

be taken prior to any such conveyance: (1) the 

conveyance would be conditioned upon a 

preservation easement to ensure the 

continued protection of the resource; or (2) the 

parcel would be subdivided in such a way that 

any tracts containing eligible cultural resources 

would remain with NPS, and tracts without 

such resources could be used in exchange. 

Otherwise, the effort to exchange such a 

parcel would be terminated.” 

Colorado Natural Areas Program – CNAP (Colorado State Parks) 

The commenter is concerned about the potential 

impact of Alternative 2 implementation on the 

South Beaver Creek Colorado Natural Area, which is 

adjacent to the proposed NPS management 

boundary and contains a BLM sensitive species, the 

skiff milkvetch. This plant, which occurs within the 

Natural Area and is also located on proposed NPS 

land, is of primary concern to CNAP and they 

recommend that potential impacts to the species be 

considered in the Curecanti RPS/EIS. 

Skiff milkvetch is a Colorado endemic, found only in 

Gunnison County and known from just a few sites. 

The plant is one of the most rare and imperiled 

plant species in the state. The South Beaver Creek 

Natural Area / ACEC (Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern) contains the best and largest known 

population, and is located less than a mile southeast 

of Land Unit C. 

The commenter recommends that NPS carefully 

consider the impacts on the species before planning 

any new trails or other potential recreation in this 

area. 

NPS agrees with the commenter about the need to 

carefully consider the impacts on the South Beaver 

Creek Colorado Natural Area that may result from 

the implementation of Alternative 2. It is important 

to mention that no specific trails or other 

recreation-related development are recommended 

at this time. However, future developments are 

possible under the proposed alternative. Such 

projects, once proposed, would be evaluated using 

the NEPA process before being approved. NPS 

would work with other entities to minimize or 

mitigate identified impacts, and appreciates the 

offer made by CNAP for their future involvement in 

such reviews. 

Although in Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

we have already recognized the skiff milkvetch as a 

sensitive species in the area, we are adding the 

following language from CNAP to page 97 to relate 

the species to the ACEC and the CNAP: 

“The skiff milkvetch occurs in its highest 

abundance on property just southeast of the 

Curecanti NRA boundary in the South Beaver 

Creek drainage on BLM property, which is an 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). 

A portion of the ACEC that encompasses the 

best and largest population of skiff milkvetch 

was designated as a Colorado Natural Area in 

1997. This status provides additional 

monitoring and protection for the rare plant 

species. Colorado Natural Areas Program 

(CNAP) is a state agency which preserves some 

of the finest examples of Colorado's original 

and unique landscapes for the benefit of 

present and future generations. CNAP works in 

partnership with local, state, and federal 

agencies and private citizens to recognize and 

protect areas which represent exceptional 

examples of Colorado's diverse ecosystems. 

The CNAP designation is approved by the 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 243

Comment NPS Response 

Natural Areas Council, signed by the Governor 

of Colorado, and when enacted, protects 

elements of statewide importance.” 

Colorado Natural Areas Program – CNAP (Colorado 

State Parks) continued 

The commenter is supportive of the idea of erecting 

an interpretive sign that would recognize the multiagency cooperative management for the protection 

of the skiff milkvetch. If this action is pursued, then 

CNAP may be able to provide some assistance on 

sign wording or possibly funding. The intention 

would be to educate visitors and to discourage offtrail use. 

Although the document refers to the possibility of 

additional interpretive opportunities under the 

proposed alternative, a specific sign to address skiff 

milkvetch is not being proposed at this time. 

However, we appreciate the idea of utilizing a sign 

to aid in protecting this sensitive species, and may 

consider the commenter’s offer at a future time. 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

City of Gunnison 

Gunnison City Council

Gunnison City Council stated that they fully endorse 

the Proposed Action, because they believe it will 

provide positive social, environmental and economic 

benefits. Additionally, they committed City staff to 

help organize other stakeholders to support the 

Proposed Action. 

NPS thanks the Gunnison City Council members for 

their support of the Proposed Action, and looks 

forward to working in partnership with them to 

implement the recommendations, should the 

Proposed Action be congressionally approved. 

Gunnison County Board of County Commissioners 

The Gunnison County Commissioners support 

Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Specifically, they 

concur that NPS should continue to manage 

Curecanti resources and that the NRA boundary 

should be delineated from a resource management 

standpoint rather than simply the land needed to 

create the reservoirs. They also concur with the 

approach of acquiring the land needed to establish 

the desired boundary through voluntary 

cooperation of private landowners and other 

agencies. They feel that the recommendation will 

provide future beneficial impacts for the area and 

the community. 

NPS thanks the Gunnison County Board of County 

Commissioners for their support of the Proposed 

Action, and looks forward to working in partnership 

with them to implement the recommendations, 

should the Proposed Action be congressionally 

approved. 

Gunnison County Trails Commission 

The commenter stated that under the present 

situation, bicycles are not allowed on trails within 

Curecanti NRA. They suggested that creating a 

system of bicycle trails would be beneficial in that it 

could increase the amount and types of recreational 

trail experiences for a variety of trail users, including 

families, and for an aging population. They also 

suggested that there would be opportunities to link 

trails to a system of trails outside the NRA. 

Increased trail opportunities would draw in more 

NPS agrees that the proposed alternative could add 

additional recreational opportunities, including the 

possibility of designating some trails for bicycle use. 

Prior to the development of new trails, or to 

designating existing trails for bicycle use, NPS would 

utilize the NEPA process to evaluate potential 

impacts. If it is determined that bicycle use on trails 

would be compatible with other uses, and resources 

would not be unreasonably impacted, bicycle use 

could be allowed via special regulation. NPS will 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT RPS/EIS, AND NPS RESPONSES
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

244 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Comment NPS Response 

Gunnison County Trails Commission continued 

users, including hikers, runners and bicyclists. 

likely undertake such a NEPA process after 

legislative establishment. 

Montrose County Board of County Commissioners 

The Montrose County Commissioners support 

Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Specifically, they 

concur that NPS should continue to manage the 

resources and recreation at Curecanti, and that it be 

legislatively established as an NRA. They agree with 

the approach of working with adjacent landowners 

within a Conservation Opportunity Area, subject to 

the requirement that landowner involvement is 

voluntary. They appreciate being included in the 

study process, and look forward to its beneficial 

impacts. 

NPS thanks the Montrose County Board of County 

Commissioners for their support of the Proposed 

Action, and looks forward to working in partnership 

with them to implement the recommendations, 

should the Proposed Action be congressionally 

approved. 

Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District 

The commenter opined that any agricultural water 

rights associated with the Conservation Opportunity 

Areas should remain in private agricultural 

ownership. 

If NPS were to acquire a conservation easement on 

land within the COA, we would strive to assure that 

the water associated with the property would 

remain for use on that property and its related 

agricultural uses. 

NPS would not acquire property for the purpose of 

acquiring its associated water right. 

NPS agrees in principle that agricultural water rights 

should remain for agricultural uses. If NPS were to 

acquire property in fee simple, we would work 

cooperatively with the landowner and the 

appropriate water district regarding the distribution 

of water rights. 

Accordingly, the following sentence has been 

inserted prior to the last sentence in the paragraph 

relating to water rights, which begins at the bottom 

of the first column on page 53: 

“As an example, a landowner may choose to 

work with his or her attorney and/or local 

water district to ensure 

that the water will continue to be used for 

agricultural purposes.” 

ORGANIZATIONS 

Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists

The Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists (ABP) very 

much supports the Proposed Action to add 

additional lands within the protection of the 

Curecanti National Recreation Area (NRA). The ABP 

generally supports all efforts to protect the natural 

resources we have left in the United States and we 

firmly believe the Proposed Action Alternative 

outlined in the Curecanti study is a step in the right 

NPS recognizes that BLM has authorized hang 

gliding and parasailing from atop a ridge known as 

Big Mesa. Although hang gliders have the option of 

landing on BLM land west of Big Mesa, or on 

private land (with the permission of the land 

owner), sometimes conditions warrant that users 

consider an alternate landing site within the NRA. 

However, current regulations prohibit that use, 

except at locations designated by special regulations 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 245

Comment NPS Response 

Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists continued 

direction. 

More specifically, the ABP applauds the joint 

PS/BLM proposal to provide for safe, legal landing 

areas for hang gliders. Three reasons. First, nonpowered aerial activities have very little to no 

negative impact on the environment. Second, the 

proposed alternative would enable the NPS to save 

valuable resources that would otherwise be used 

trying to apprehend recreationists who are generally 

persons who love and respect nature. Three, the 

equipment and skills for non-powered recreational 

flight are improving exponentially in the United 

States and elsewhere and these activities can be 

carried out more safely when legal landing areas are 

provided. Legal landing areas allow hang glider 

pilots to take the necessary precautions to ready 

their equipment. This also encourages them to use 

their best, state-of-the-art equipment without fear 

of losing the gear due to having to conduct their 

sport illegally. 

It is also a very positive step in the Proposed 

Alternative for the NPS to recognize that nonpowered flight constitutes an appropriate activity in 

some NPS units. We support the NPS conforming its 

policies and regulations to provide safe, legal 

landing areas as proposed in the document. We 

also believe this Proposed Action in the EIS is a step 

in the right direction by recognizing that sometimes 

the best management of non-damaging activities 

such as non-powered flight is minimal 

management. As the document references, this has 

usually been the BLM approach since they generally 

do not regulate non-powered flight. If the NPS 

prefers not to change its own regulations to 

promote legal hang gliding landing areas within the 

NRA, then we do support a transfer of 

administrative jurisdiction to the BLM in order to 

provide for this use. Both agencies under the 

Department of Interior need to be able to expend 

their resources in a more positive way than trying to 

apprehend pilots of non-powered flight who have 

no criminal intentions and do not truly pose a threat 

to others or the environment. In these days of 

shrinking federal budgets, the NPS needs to be able 

to use appropriations to provide for habitat 

preservation and creation rather than using precious 

resources trying to police what should be 

considered as a legitimate recreational activity. 

pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit. 

On page 103, there is a discussion about existing 

and potential recreational activities that were 

identified during workshops and open houses with 

the public. It clarifies that the determination of 

whether a potential recreational activity would or 

would not be provided within the NRA would be 

made during a future planning process. 

Private land along Willow Creek, just northwest of 

Big Mesa, has been included in the COA as part of 

Land Unit D, Iola Basin COA. The rational for this 

includes other factors besides aerial-based 

recreation, such as protection of riparian habitat, 

and adjusting the boundary for efficiency reasons. 

However, that all said, we do believe that the 

inclusion of the above Willow Creek parcel within 

the COA, in combination with existing NRA land, 

would offer a safe landing area for users. NPS 

agrees that an evaluation and determination as to 

whether to allow aerial use needs to be made. In 

the event future planning processes determine 

aerial use is appropriate, a special regulation would 

be developed to authorize this activity. 

The commenter suggests that in the event NPS does 

not approve the use of its land for aerial landing, 

that it considers transferring the land to BLM, an 

agency that would likely allow the continuation of 

the sport. NPS would need to coordinate this 

activity between the two agencies, since the launch 

area is on BLM land. It makes good sense to involve 

BLM in any discussion that pertains to its aerial 

recreation at this site. As the process would be 

conducted under NEPA, BLM and other entities 

would have future opportunities to provide input 

into such a decision. 

Black Canyon Land Trust

The commenter strongly supports Alternative 2 

NPS appreciates the Black Canyon Land Trust’s 

support of the Proposed Action. We concur that 

offering incentives that minimize development is 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT RPS/EIS, AND NPS RESPONSES
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

246 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Comment NPS Response 

Black Canyon Land Trust continued 

because of the conservation benefits to be derived 

from conservation easements and fee acquisitions 

from willing landowners on adjacent land; the 

increased likelihood of conserving the rural 

character and traditional uses of the land, and its 

scenic values; the economic benefits of tourism; and 

the potential enhancement of habitat for Gunnison 

Sage-grouse and other wildlife. The commenter also 

believes that minimizing development – especially 

residential development – in the area adjoining the 

NRA is the best way to protect the lands in the 

existing NRA; and that Alternative 2 is a very good 

plan for doing that. 

one way to meet the conservation goals for the 

area; however, we also recognize the need to 

cooperatively work with landowners who wish to 

take on other types of conservation projects and/or 

to develop their properties, in order to identify ways 

to facilitate conservation projects and minimize the 

impact of development. Through communication 

and knowledge, property owners may consider 

development techniques and land uses that improve 

wildlife habitat, while minimizing impacts to 

resources such as natural viewsheds, vegetation, 

water quality, and night sky. In any case, NPS looks 

forward to working with land trusts in 

accomplishing mutual objectives for the Curecanti 

area. 

The Conservation Fund

The commenter supports Alternative 2 because it 

allows NPS to further protect the resources 

surrounding the NRA, and the approach is 

compatible with The Conservation Fund’s (TCF) 

dual-purpose mission, which promotes and blends 

economic and environmental objectives. TCF 

endorses the COA concept, which respects the 

rights of private landowners, and the variety of 

conservation tools that can be used to protect 

resources. TCF is interested in assisting NPS with the 

implementation of Alternative 2. 

NPS appreciates The Conservation Fund’s support of 

the Proposed Action, and looks forward to their 

potential assistance in implementing it. 

International Mountain Bicycling Association

The commenter requested that the final RPS/EIS 

take steps towards satisfying 36 CFR 4.30, the 

regulation for bicycling on trails in National Park 

Service (NPS) units. Specifically, the RPS/EIS revision 

process should incorporate a special regulations 

request regarding potential future bicycling use on 

trails within Curecanti. 

Mountain bicycling is a quiet, low-impact, humanpowered activity compatible with resource 

conservation and a healthy lifestyle. In an era when 

many NPS visits are confined to motor vehicle travel, 

mountain bicycling provides an appropriate mode 

of recreation for personal exploration and the 

formation of emotional connections with our 

national parks. 

Bicycle use on trails on NPS land is governed by 36 

CFR 4.30. Many of the two-dozen NPS units with 

bicycling on narrow dirt trails permit this use 

through their superintendent's compendium, 

though 36 CFR 4.30 stipulates that bicycle use on 

trails requires promulgating special regulations. 

Several parks are undergoing this process right now 

NPS would like to thank IMBA for its comments 

pertaining to bicycling and bicycle trails, and the 

process needed to authorize bicycle use on trails 

within the NRA. 

As stated on page 105 of the document, “There is a 

potential to designate bicycle trails in the NRA, and 

a desire on the part of the local trails commission to 

find a trail to connect the NRA to the City of 

Gunnison.” NPS recognizes that bicycle use may be 

appropriate for some trails, and we plan to evaluate 

the potential to allow bicycling at some future time. 

A likely window of opportunity would be during the 

preparation of an Implementation Plan resulting 

from this Resource Protection Study, or during a 

General Management Plan revision process, as 

mentioned by the commenter. 

While the RPS/EIS is evaluating the natural, cultural, 

recreational and scenic resources, its 

recommendations are general by nature. The study 

is looking at long range opportunities to protect 

resources, and to assure that the NRA has an 

adequate land base for current and future 

recreational needs. It is not making specific 

recommendations for development of recreational 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 247

Comment NPS Response 

International Mountain Bicycling Association

continued 

and IMBA can share insights on their approach and 

progress. 

The most efficient way to permit bicycling on dirt 

trails in the NRA is by dovetailing the process with 

the RPS/EIS revision. Park staff can begin the special 

regulations process required to permit bicycling on 

dirt trails while updating the RPS, drastically 

reducing extra work and resources. NPS Special 

Regulations Program Manager Jerry Case 

(jerry_case@nps.gov or 202-208-4206) can provide 

more information on streamlining the special 

regulations process. 

IMBA encourages Curecanti to submit a proposed 

rule during the GMP revision for construction of 

shared-use trails within the NRA. This would not 

obligate the agency to construct such trails, but 

would eliminate future delays by having the special 

regulations in place. 

facilities, but does talk about potential development 

and recreational activity. A General Management 

Plan or Implementation Plan would be more specific 

in its recommendations, and we suggest that it is 

that process that would be appropriate to evaluate 

specific trails for bicycle use. 

Page 105 of the draft plan discusses the potential 

for mountain bicycling within the NRA and 

specifically an east-west trail south of Blue Mesa 

Reservoir. IMBA supports this proposal and offers its 

assistance in planning for mountain bicycling use. 

Future trail projects at Curecanti may also be good 

candidates for Centennial Challenge funding. At Big 

Bend National Park, IMBA and a local affiliate 

worked with the NPS to design a shared-use trail 

proposal that has been selected as a Centennial 

Challenge project. Please consider a similar 

approach at Curecanti. 

NPS would like to thank IMBA for their offer of 

assistance pertaining to evaluation of existing and 

future trails for bicycle use. A logical time to recruit 

their assistance, and the assistance of other 

organizations, would be during the NEPA process 

for a General Management Plan or Implementation 

Plan. After such a plan is completed, and decisions 

are made as to bicycle use on trails, NPS would be 

interested in seeking partners and shared funding 

to assist in matters such as trail development and 

maintenance. 

The Trust for Public Land

The commenter strongly supports Alternative 2 

because it would help protect existing recreational 

and conservation values within the NRA, and also 

provides an opportunity to expand and better 

manage protected lands throughout the area. The 

commenter feels that the most effective way for 

NPS to conserve land around the NRA is by 

partnering with local governments and non-profit 

land conservation organizations to help willing 

landowners permanently protect their property. The 

Trust for Public Land welcomes the opportunity to 

work with NPS and others to help implement 

Alternative 2. 

NPS appreciates The Trust for Public Land’s support 

of the Proposed Action, and looks forward to their 

potential assistance in implementing it. 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT RPS/EIS, AND NPS RESPONSES
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

248 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Comment NPS Response 

INDIVIDUALS 

Unaffiliated Individual

One commenter stated that Alternative 2 would be 

a waste of taxpayer funds. 

___________ 

Another commenter stated the benefits of 

partnering to achieve goals in the following 

statement: “The most effective way for the Park 

Service to conserve land around Curecanti is by 

partnering with local governments and non-profit 

land conservation organizations to help willing 

landowners permanently protect their property. 

Such partnerships will give the Park Service access 

to the wide variety of conservation tools that will be 

necessary in order to meet the diverse needs of 

private landowners, while also meeting its own 

conservation objectives. Alternative Two may help 

to provide the Park Service with the resources it 

needs to accomplish these goals.” 

The cost of implementing Alternative 2 is greater 

than Alternative 1. The one-time cost of 

implementing Alternative 2 is estimated to range 

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

acquiring interests in land, such as through 

conservation easements and fee simple ownership. 

The relatively large range is because of the many 

variables pertaining to acquiring interests in land. 

The funding source would be the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF), and not from taxpayer 

funds. LWCF is funded from lease payments made 

for federal offshore oil and gas resources, federal 

recreation fees, sales of federal surplus real 

property, and federal motorboat fuel taxes. 

The expenditure of the above funds would likely be 

coordinated with other partners and agencies. 

In addition to one-time costs, there would be 

annual recurring costs of about $160,000 to cover 

staff positions. That funding would come from 

general appropriations (i.e. taxpayer funds). 

NPS believes that the costs of implementing 

Alternative 2 would serve to conserve resources that 

might otherwise be adversely impacted, and as such 

would be money well spent for the benefit of the 

American people. 

Unaffiliated Individual

One commenter requested that NPS not close roads 

or reduce opportunities for people to use the land. 

The Proposed Action does not define specific 

actions to be taken related to roads and road 

closures. NPS does not anticipate closing “roads.” 

However; off-road travel would be restricted under 

NPS administration. 

NPS believes that recreational opportunities would 

increase as a result of implementing the Proposed 

Action, as there would be potential to acquire 

access easements and/or additional land from 

willing landowners. This would provide an 

expanded land base for recreational opportunities, 

including hunting and fishing, consistent with NPS 

policies and regulations. 

Unaffiliated Individual

One commenter requested that NPS not charge 

additional fees for people to recreate. 

The Proposed Action, in and by itself, does not 

make any recommendations for additional fees, or 

for increasing fees. There would be no entrance fee 

to Curecanti, with the exception of continuation of 

the current fee charged for the East Portal area. 

Boat permit and camping fees now being charged 

would continue. The camping fee for Soap Creek 

Campground, now operated by a USFS 

concessioner, would likely stay the same, as it is 

already consistent with other camping fees being 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 249

Comment NPS Response 

charged within the NRA. 

Unaffiliated Individual

One commenter stated that the COA toolbox is an 

exciting concept, and hoped that it can be used to 

preserve recreational, scenic and natural features, 

and recreational opportunities that we in western 

Colorado treasure. 

The toolbox referenced by the commenter is the 

Toolbox of Incentives for Resource Conservation: A 

Handbook of Ideas for Neighbors in the Curecanti 

Area, which is included in Appendix A. It should be 

noted that several of the tools would not be 

available to NPS until authorized by Congress. NPS 

agrees with the commenter that the resources 

mentioned are important to western Colorado, and 

are worthy of protection. 

Unaffiliated Individual

One commenter suggested that the East Portal area 

be added to the Black Canyon of the Gunnison 

National Park. He felt that if the East Portal area is 

not within the national park, then there should be 

no entrance fee charged. He suggested it be 

included in the national park as it is a part of the 

Black Canyon and should be protected. He 

suggested that hunting should not be allowed in 

the East Portal Area. Also, the historic aspects of the 

Gunnison Tunnel might receive additional attention 

if the area is within the national park. 

NPS discussed with the Bureau of Reclamation the 

potential addition of the East Portal Area to the 

national park prior to legislation passed in 2003 

amending the park boundary. Reclamation felt that 

the facilities and water works of the East Portal area 

are tied to the Curecanti and Uncompahgre 

Projects, currently both within Curecanti NRA, and 

they could not support splitting them between two 

administrative units of the national park system. It is 

true that an entrance fee is paid to enter the 

national park and/or the East Portal area of 

Curecanti. Portions of the East Portal Road are 

within the national park, and many users access the 

park in the vicinity of the river just upstream of the 

East Portal campground. For these reasons an 

entrance fee is charged. Hunting is technically 

permitted in the East Portal Area, but there are few 

locations where hunters can practicably hunt. This is 

because the discharge of weapons within 100 yards 

of roads and facilities is prohibited, and the canyon 

is so narrow here that there are few locations 

where one could legally discharge a weapon. 

Historically, not much hunting has ever occurred 

within this portion of the canyon. We appreciate 

the commenter’s suggestion to increase the 

educational component that would tell more of the 

human drama related to the survey for, and 

construction and operation of, the Gunnison 

Tunnel. Although the RPS/EIS does not make such 

specific recommendations, the comment is well 

worth sharing with park management. 

Unaffiliated Individuals

Two commenters expressed a desire that 

implementation of Alternative 2 would add stream 

access for trout fishing. One commenter specifically 

wanted to see access to the vicinity of Curecanti 

Creek from the Forest Service boundary at the north 

along the highway south to Pioneer Point, and in 

the area between Hwy 149 and the Cebolla Creek 

arm near Blaine Rock, and Cimarron River vicinity 

near the town of Cimarron. 

NPS would like to emphasize that the potential to 

add fishing access to streams where there is now no 

access is greater with Alternative 2. However, there 

is not a certainty that such access would be 

provided, nor a timeframe to do so. The 

opportunity to add access to locations within the 

COA is dependent on the willingness of the 

landowner to allow it; or alternately, to allow NPS 

or another partnering entity to acquire the property, 

or access thereto. Such acquisitions would also be 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT RPS/EIS, AND NPS RESPONSES
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

250 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Comment NPS Response 

subject to the availability of funding. 

Adjacent Landowners

Some landowners requested specific information 

pertaining to their private property, and the possible 

effects of the Proposed Action on their property 

and their rights as property owners. 

In some cases NPS mailed out a specific response to 

a specific question. The following is a portion of 

one such response, but serves well to state the 

position of NPS related to landowners’ concerns: 

“. . . the creation of a COA would allow NPS to 

partner with neighbors to work on mutually agreed 

upon conservation projects, to acquire conservation 

easements, or acquire fee simple ownership, but 

only if the landowner were interested. Each 

landowner would have an option as to whether to 

be involved, or not (i.e., opt in or opt out). 

“Should Congress decide to create the COA, NPS 

could work with our park neighbors to seek grants 

or other assistance for certain projects, such as 

might benefit wildlife, or to protect the rural 

character of the area. We could also refer 

landowners who would like to learn more about 

conservation easements to local or national land 

trusts. We might also be able to offer other services, 

for example, perform an archeological review of a 

property, in order to determine what cultural 

resources might be within the COA (if such a review 

was desired by the landowner).” 

Adjacent Landowners

Some landowners stated that they would not want 

to open their property for public access (for 

example, to hikers). 

Property owners within the COA would be under 

no obligation to open their land to the public. NPS 

may be able to acquire public access in some areas 

(e.g., via fee simple acquisition or by acquiring an 

access easement). However, such acquisitions 

would be dependent on the willingness of the 

landowner. 

Adjacent Landowners

Some landowners indicated their interest in staying 

on their property. One landowner queried, “Can 

you explain to me how I would benefit from 

Alternative 2?” 

Private landowners could benefit from economic 

incentives afforded by various tools, including tax 

advantages, government grants, and payments for 

interests in land; from the potential increase in 

availability of funding to implement various tools of 

resource conservation; and through increased 

technical assistance from the National Park Service. 

Landowners would also benefit from knowing that 

they are making a greater contribution to the 

resource conservation ethic, to enhanced enjoyment 

of the spectacular Curecanti environment, and to a 

better quality of life for visitors and residents alike. 

Regardless of whether a landowner decides to 

“opt-in” or “opt-out,” successful resource 

conservation projects in the Curecanti Area will help 

protect many of the natural, cultural, and scenic 

intrinsic values which may have brought the 

landowner to the area to begin with. 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 251

Comment NPS Response 

Unaffiliated Individuals and Adjacent Landowners

Several individuals expressed the sentiment that 

they appreciated the goals of the RPS, as many of 

those goals aligned with their own desire of being a 

good caretaker of the land (some from the 

perspective of being landowners, and some from 

the perspective of being a user and/or appreciator 

of the land). 

NPS appreciates hearing from landowners and 

others who share common dreams and goals 

pertaining to protecting the natural, cultural and 

scenic resources intrinsic to the land. Such 

responses suggest that the recommendations of the 

Proposed Action could lead to important 

partnerships that would help accomplish resource 

conservation goals. 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT RPS/EIS, AND NPS RESPONSES
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

252 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

LETTERS FROM AGENCIES AND

ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE

DRAFT RPS/EIS

Author Information

Name: Richard W. Harrison

Organization: Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists

Address: 7316 Houston Drive, Hitchcock, TX 77563

Date Received: 10/17/2007

Correspondence Text

The Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists (ABP) very much supports the Proposed Action to add 

additional lands within the protection of the Curecanti National Recreation Area (NRA). The ABP generally 

supports all efforts to protect the natural resources we have left in the United States and we fi rmly believe 

the Proposed Action Alternative outlined in the Curecanti study is a step in the right direction. 

More specifi cally, the ABP applauds the joint NPS/BLM proposal to provide for safe, legal landing areas 

for hang gliders. Three reasons. First, non-powered aerial activities have very little to no negative impact 

on the environment. Second, the proposed alternative would enable the NPS to save valuable resources 

that would otherwise be used trying to apprehend recreationists who are generally persons who love 

and respect nature. Three, the equipment and skills for non-powered recreational fl ight are improving 

exponentially in the United States and elsewhere and these activities can be carried out more safely 

when legal landing areas are provided. Legal landing areas allow hang glider pilots to take the necessary 

precautions to ready their equipment. This also encourages them to use their best, state-of-the-art 

equipment without fear of losing the gear due to having to conduct their sport illegally. 

It is also a very positive step in the Proposed Alternative for the NPS to recognize that non-powered 

fl ight constitutes an appropriate activity in some NPS units. We support the NPS conforming its policies 

and regulations to provide safe, legal landing areas as proposed in the document. We also believe 

this Proposed Action in the EIS is a step in the right direction by recognizing that sometimes the best 

management of non-damaging activities such as non-powered fl ight is minimal management. As the 

document references, this has usually been the BLM approach since they generally do not regulate 

non-powered fl ight. If the NPS prefers not to change its own regulations to promote legal hang gliding 

landing areas within the NRA, then we do support a transfer of administrative jurisdiction to the BLM in 

order to provide for this use. Both agencies under the Department of Interior need to be able to expend 

their resources in a more positive way than trying to apprehend pilots of non-powered fl ight who have no 

criminal intentions and do not truly pose a threat to others or the environment. In these days of shrinking 

federal budgets, the NPS needs to be able to use appropriations to provide for habitat preservation and 

creation rather than using precious resources trying to police what should be considered as a legitimate 

recreational activity. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Richard Harrison

General Counsel

Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 253

Author Information

Name: Bill Day

Organization: Black Canyon Land Trust

Address: 28478 Hwy 92, Hotchkiss, CO 81419

Date Received: 10/15/2007

Correspondence Text

October 10, 2007

RE: Curecanti NRA Draft RPS/EIS

Dear Ms. Rudd,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft RPS/EIS. Black Canyon Land Trust strongly 

supports Alternative 2 for the following reasons, which are mentioned in DEIS:

• Alt 2 would increase the conservation benefi ts from conservation easements and fee acquisitions from 

willing sellers on adjacent land.

• Alt 2 would increase the likelihood of conserving the rural character of the land, scenic values, and 

traditional uses of the land surrounding the NRA.

• The economic benefi ts of tourism to the Curecanti area would be more likely under alt 2.

• The habitat for Gunnison Sage-grouse within the long, narrow NRA is not large enough to sustain a 

population without resources from undeveloped land outside the NRA. This is also true to a lesser degree 

of most of the other wildlife species mentioned in the DEIS.

We believe that minimizing development-especially residential development-in the area adjoining the NRA 

is the best way to protect the lands in the existing NRA. Alternative 2 is very good plan for doing that.

Sincerely,

Bill Day, President

Black Canyon Land Trust

LETTERS FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT RPS/EIS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

254 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 255

LETTERS FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT RPS/EIS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

256 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 257

LETTERS FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT RPS/EIS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

258 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 259

LETTERS FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT RPS/EIS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

260 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 261

LETTERS FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT RPS/EIS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

262 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 263

LETTERS FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT RPS/EIS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

264 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 265

LETTERS FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT RPS/EIS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

266 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 267

LETTERS FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT RPS/EIS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

268 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 269

LETTERS FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT RPS/EIS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

270 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 271

LETTERS FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT RPS/EIS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

272 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 273

LETTERS FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT RPS/EIS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

274 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 275

LETTERS FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT RPS/EIS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

276 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 277

LETTERS FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT RPS/EIS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

278 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 279

LETTERS FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT RPS/EIS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

280 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 281

LETTERS FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT RPS/EIS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

282 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 283

LETTERS FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT RPS/EIS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

284 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 285

LETTERS FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT RPS/EIS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

286 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 287

LETTERS FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT RPS/EIS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

288 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS

 PREPARERS OF THE RESOURCE 

PROTECTION STUDY/

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The following people were primarily 

responsible for preparing the RPS/EIS, and/or 

important materials used or referenced in the 

document.

 Bureau of Reclamation

Alan Schroeder, Natural Resource Specialist, 

EIS Cooperating Agency Representative 

from the Reclamation Lands and Recreation 

Resources Group, Western Colorado 

Area Office, Grand Junction, Colorado. 

Responsible for overall coordination of 

 Bureau of Reclamation input to the study, 

the EIS, and recommendations to Congress. 

BS in Forest Science, Forest Management 

Option. Over 30 years of experience in 

Federal land and resource management with 

the US Bureau of Reclamation, US Bureau 

of Land Management, US Fish and Wildlife 

Service and US Forest Service. Over 27 years 

of experience in resource management 

planning and NEPA documentation with the 

 Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau of 

Land Management.

National Park Service – Curecanti NRA/

Black Canyon of the Gunnison NP

 Marianne August, former Project 

Assistant and GIS Specialist. 

Responsible for GIS analysis and 

cartography for the project, and 

coordinating information-gathering 

from other agencies. Bachelors Degree 

in Geography. Four years with the 

National Park Service.

 Ralph Falsetto, former Cartographic 

Technician. Responsible for GIS 

analysis and cartography for the project, 

and coordinating information-gathering 

from other agencies. Currently a GIS 

Specialist for USFS at Fishlake National 

Forest in Richfi eld, Utah. Bachelors 

Degree in Geology. Two years with the 

National Park Service.

 Forest Frost, Archeologist. Served 

as RPS liaison during consultations 

with the State Historic Preservation 

Offi cer and Ute tribal representatives. 

Provided technical support on issues 

dealing with the NRA’s cultural 

resources. B.A. Anthropology, 

B.A. Geography, M.A. Geography. 

Member -- Registry of Professional 

Archaeologists. Twenty-one years with 

the National Park Service.

 Pete Hart, former Interim 

Superintendent. Overall oversight of 

the Draft Resource Protection Study 

during an extended period between 

permanent superintendents in 2003. 

Returned from retirement for several 

details in the National Park Service 

after a 34-year NPS career as a ranger, 

and later superintendent at some fi fteen 

NPS areas. BA and MA in Geography. 

 Dave Roberts, Management Assistant, 

RPS Park Liaison. Responsible for 

coordinating the project at the park 

level. Contributed to all sections 

of the document. Experience in 

NRA operations, interpretation, 

visitor and resource protection, 

resource management, fee collection, 

environmental compliance, and NRA 

planning. Former Chief Ranger, 

Black Canyon of the Gunnison 

National Monument, Tonto National 

Monument, Fort Union National 

Monument; Park Ranger, Montezuma 

Castle National Monument; Park 

Technician, Fort Point National 

Historic Site, Muir Woods National 

Monument. BA in Economics, with 

post graduate work in Environmental 

Geography. Thirty-three years with the 

National Park Service.

 Connie Rudd, Superintendent. 

Responsible for management of Black 

Canyon of the Gunnison National Park 

and Curecanti National Recreation 

Area, including future implementation 

of the Resource Protection Study, 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 289

and coordination of partners and 

neighbors. Experience includes 

assignments as Deputy Superintendent 

at Shenandoah National Park (7 years), 

Superintendent at Oklahoma City 

National Memorial and Chickasaw 

National Recreation Area (4 years); 

Rocky Mountain Regional Chief 

of Interpretation, Planner with 

Harper’s Ferry Center and Denver 

Service Center, fi eld interpreter 

and educator at Grand Canyon and 

Rocky Mountain National Parks (10 

years), English teacher at Colorado 

Mountain College (Steamboat), 

guest instructor at Albright Training 

Center and Mather Training Center. 

Participated in certifi cate program 

at Harvard University’s Kennedy 

School of Government, Conservation 

Leadership Institute, 2006-2007. BA 

in English, MS in Physical Geography. 

Twenty-seven years with the National 

Park Service.

 Ken Stahlnecker, Chief, Resource 

Stewardship and Science. Responsible 

for coordinating and providing 

natural and cultural resources input 

to the study process at the NRA 

level. Provided review for all sections 

of the document. Experience in 

resource management, environmental 

compliance, NRA operations, and 

NRA planning. Former Resource 

Manager, Denali National Park and 

Preserve, Crater Lake National Park, 

Curecanti National Recreation Area, 

and Antietam National Battlefi eld. BS 

in Forest Science. Twenty-four years 

with the National Park Service.

 Sheridan Steele, former 

Superintendent. Responsible for 

initially setting the overall direction, 

and providing guidance and advice 

during the fi rst four years of the study. 

In park management for 27 years, 

starting with NPS as Management 

Assistant at Cuyahoga Valley NRA. 

Prior to that, worked as a park planner 

for Ohio State Parks and for a nonprofi t conservation organization in 

Ohio. Also worked at Fort Scott NHS 

in Kansas and Rocky Mountain NP 

in Colorado, and was on detail in the 

Washington Offi ce of NPS for a year. 

Superintendent of Black Canyon of the 

Gunnison National Park and Curecanti 

NRA for 7 years, ending in 2003. 

Currently Superintendent at Acadia 

NP in Maine. Holds a BS in Business 

Administration and MS in Natural 

Resources Management. Thirty years 

with the National Park Service.

 Bill Wellman, former Superintendent. 

Responsible for overall management 

of Curecanti National Recreation 

Area and Black Canyon of the 

Gunnison National Park, and for 

providing guidance and advice on 

the Draft Resource Protection Study. 

Experience includes assignments as 

superintendent at Organ Pipe Cactus 

National Monument, AZ; Great Sand 

Dunes National Monument, CO; 

Timpanogos Cave National Monument, 

UT; and Fort Union Trading Post 

National Historic Site, ND. Currently 

Superintendent at Big Bend National 

Park in Texas. Holds a BS degree in 

Park Management from NC State. 

Thirty-fi ve years with the National Park 

Service.

National Park Service – Intermountain 

Support Office, Denver

 Jeff Heywood, Team Leader, 

Landscape Architect/Planner, 

Contracting Offi cer’s Representative. 

Responsible for overall management 

of the project. Contributed to all 

sections of the document. Experience 

at Intermountain Regional Offi ce 

and NPS Denver Service Center 

writing general management plans, 

development concept plans, and 

environmental impact statements. 

Experience at Curecanti NRA as 

facility manager; and chief of planning, 

construction, and concessions. BS(IE) 

& ME(IND) in industrial engineering; 

MLA in landscape architecture. 

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

290 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Twenty-nine years with the National 

Park Service.

 Dave Ruppert, Cultural 

Anthropologist. Produced a report 

on American Indian Affi liation at 

Curecanti NRA, and advised and 

participated in meetings with affi liated 

tribes. Presently works in the Offi ce of 

Indian Aff airs and American Culture, 

and serves as program manger for the 

Applied Ethnography Program in the 

Intermountain Region of the National 

Park Service in Denver, Colorado. 

Served as a cultural anthropologist 

with the cultural resources offi ce 

of the National Park Service in the 

Intermountain Region, and has held 

joint appointments as a research 

anthropologist with the Bureau of 

Land Management and the Offi ce of 

the Federal Inspector in Alaska. Served 

on the faculties of the University 

of Alaska in Fairbanks, Alaska, and 

Regis University in Denver, Colorado. 

Presently holds the position of 

associate professor of anthropology at 

the University of Colorado at Denver. 

Holds a PhD in cultural anthropology 

from the University of Arizona. 

Twenty-nine years with the National 

Park Service, the Bureau of Land 

Management, and the Offi ce of the 

Federal Inspector.

Contractors

• Nicole Korbe, Environmental Planner. 

Primary author of the sections of 

the document on natural resources, 

including descriptions and impact 

analysis of water quality, geology 

and paleontology, vegetation and 

wildlife, and special status species. 

Also participated in meetings and 

workshops as a member of the 

planning team. Experience in NEPA, 

natural resource impact assessment, 

wildlife habitat assessments, vegetation 

community analysis, wildlife and 

vegetation surveys, threatened and 

endangered species permitting and 

compliance, wetlands permitting 

and assessment, and other aspects 

of environmental planning and 

compliance. B.S. in Biology with a 

minor emphasis in Geology, with 

post graduate work in Ecology and 

Hydrology. Seven years experience in 

natural resource assessment. 

• Karen Lusby, NEPA Specialist/

Environmental Planner. Responsible 

for initial compilation of text for the 

Draft RPS/EIS. Conducted workshop 

to develop impacts. Compiled 

chapters on Purpose and Need, and 

Alternatives, in cooperation with 

park and regional staff ; and authored 

sections on Scenic Quality, Economic 

and Social Conditions, Neighboring 

Private Lands and Landowners, and 

National Park Service and Neighboring 

Agency Management and Operations. 

Experience in park planning (DO-2), 

environmental compliance (DO-12), 

resource management, and economics 

from 8 years with the National Park 

Service, Denver Service Center, and 12 

years in environmental consulting. 

B.S. in Outdoor Recreation and 

Park Administration, and M.S. in 

Forest Economics.

• Michael Morelli, Landscape Architect. 

Authored initial sections on Recreation 

Opportunities, and Interpretation 

and Educational Opportunities. 

Currently Transportation Planner 

with NPS Washington Offi ce of 

Transportation Management Program. 

Bachelors Degree in Environmental 

Design/Architecture from San Diego 

State University, and Masters Degree 

in Landscape Architecture from 

Louisiana State University. Over nine 

years with the National Park Service.

 CONSULTANTS

The following people provided input into the 

document preparation and/or revision. Some 

met with the study team, either individually 

or in group settings, to provide information, 

ideas, and feedback relating to the RPS/EIS.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 291

 Bureau of Land Management

 Arden Anderson, Recreation and 

 Wilderness Specialist, Gunnison 

Field Offi ce

 Allan Belt, former Uncompahgre Field 

Offi ce Manager (retired)

 Craig Blacketter, former Natural 

Resource Specialist, Gunnison 

Field Offi ce

 Joe Capodice, former Wildlife 

Biologist, Gunnison Field Offi ce 

(retired)

 Dave Kaufmann, Associate 

Uncompahgre Field Offi ce Manager

 Kenny McDaniel, Gunnison Field 

Offi ce Manager

 Teresa Pfi fer, Realty Specialist, 

Uncompahgre Field Offi ce

 Barb Sharrow, Uncompahgre Field 

Offi ce Manager 

 Barry Tollefson, former Gunnison 

Field Offi ce Manager (retired)

 Randall Zanon, Chief Cadastral 

Surveyor for Colorado, Colorado 

State Offi ce

 Bureau of Reclamation

 Jane Blair, General Engineer, 

Power Offi ce

 Donald K. Phillips, Manager, 

Curecanti Field Division

Club 20

 Reeves Brown, President

Colorado Department of Natural Resources

 Shane Henry, former Assistant 

Director for Energy, Land and Forestry

 Tim Pollard, former Deputy Director 

for Policy

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS

Colorado Department of Transportation

 Ron Alexander, Professional Engineer, 

Highway Operations

 Daryl Carlson, Resident Engineer, 

Highway Operations

 Colorado Division of Wildlife

 Rick Basagoitia, District Wildlife 

Manager, Game Management Unit 55

 James Guthrie, Financial Initiatives 

Program Manager

 Doug Homan, District Wildlife 

Manager, Game Management Unit 63

 Jeff Oulton, District Wildlife Manager, 

Game Management Unit 54

 Tom Spezze, Southwest 

Regional Manager

 Bob Towry, former Habitat Section 

Supervisor (Lands, Grants, Awards, 

and Realty)

 J Wenum, Gunnison Area Manager

 Jim Young, former Gunnison Area 

Manager (retired)

Colorado Governor’s Office

 Theresa Sauer, former Policy Analyst

 John Swartout, former Senior 

Policy Analyst

 Colorado River Energy Distributors 

Association

 Leslie James, Executive Director

Colorado State Representatives

 Kay Alexander, former Representative, 

District 58

 Carl Miller, former Representative, 

District 56

 Gregg Rippy, former Representative, 

District 61
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

292 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Colorado State Senators

 Lewis Entz, former Senator, District 5

 Jim Isgar, Senator, District 6

 Jack Taylor, Senator, District 8

Department of the Interior

 Judge Craig Manson, former Assistant 

Secretary of the Interior for Fish, 

 Wildlife and Parks

 Gunnison County

 Perry Anderson, former County 

Commissioner

 Hap Channel, County Commissioner

 John Devore, former County Manager

 Fred Field, former County 

Commissioner

 Jeff Guy, GIS Coordinator

 Dave Michaelson, former County 

Long Range Planner

 Mike Pelletier, County Long 

Range Planner

 Shannon Sprott, Planning Technician

 Neal Starkebaum, Assistant Director 

of Planning

 Jim Starr, County Commissioner 

(Chairperson)

 Paula Swenson, County Commissioner

 Montrose County

 Allan Belt, County Commissioner

 Susan Bronson, former Senior Planner

 Rick Gibbons, former County Planner

 Betsy Hale, former County 

Commissioner

 Joe Kerby, County Manager

 Leo Large, former County 

Commissioner

 Dave Ubell, former County 

Commissioner

 Steve White, Land Use Director

National Park Service – Curecanti NRA/

Black Canyon of the Gunnison NP

 Linda Alick, Chief Ranger

 Sarah Beetch, former GIS Cartographic 

Technician

 Danguole Bockus, Ecologist

 Joanie Budzileni, former Blue Mesa 

District Interpretive Specialist

 Jerry Burgess, former Facility Manager

 Myron Chase, former Resource 

Management Specialist

 Bob Cornelius, former Black Canyon 

District Ranger

 Michael Dale, Hydrologist

 Anna Marie Fender, former Interim 

Superintendent

 Schelle Frye, former Administrative 

Offi cer and Concessions Offi cer

 Don Hill, former Chief of Interpretation

 BJ Johnson, former Outdoor Recreation 

Planner

 Ned Kelleher, former Blue Mesa 

District Ranger

 Matt Malick, Aquatic Ecologist

 Bill Putre, former Safety Offi cer

 Steve Riley, former Facility Manager

 Kinsey Shilling, former Blue Mesa 

District Ranger

 Paul Zaenger, Black Canyon District 

Interpretive Specialist
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 293

 Phil Zichterman, former Chief, 

Interpretation, Education, and 

Technology

National Park Service – Intermountain 

Regional Office, Denver

 Kristin Cypher, former Cultural 

Landscape Architect

 James Doyle, Public Aff airs Specialist

 Theresa Ely, GIS Program Manager

 Ron Everhart, former Intermountain 

Region Colorado State Director

 Clayton Frazier, Professional 

Land Surveyor

 Wayne Gardner, former Chief of 

Planning and Environmental Quality

 Sayre Hutchison, Architect

 Tom Keohan, Historical Landscape 

Architect/Historical Architect

 Lori Kinser, Visual Arts, Publications 

Specialist

 Christine Landrum, Historian

 Vicki Magnis, former GIS Specialist

 Steve Martin, former Regional Director

 Hugh Osborne, Community Planner 

with Rivers, Trails and Conservation 

Assistance Program

 Nancy Shock, GIS Specialist

 Mike Snyder, Regional Director

 Chris Turk, Regional Environmental 

Quality Coordinator

 Glenna Vigil, Chief, Land Resources 

Program Center

 Karen Wade, former Regional Director

National Park Service – Intermountain 

Regional Office, Santa Fe

 Katherine Cooper, former 

Realty Specialist

 Wyoma Hansen, former Realty 

Specialist

 Susan Jordan, Realty Specialist

 Barbara Sulhoff , former Chief, Land 

Resources Program Center

National Park Service – Other

 Tim Connors, Geologist, Washington 

Offi ce - Denver 

 John Howard, Superintendent, 

Antietam National Battlefi eld

 Gary Johnson, Chief of Planning, Blue 

Ridge Parkway

 Chuck Pettee, Branch Chief, Water 

Rights, Water Resources Division – 

Fort Collins

 Mark Wondzell, Hydrologist, Water 

Resources Division – Fort Collins

National Parks and Conservation 

Association

 David Nimkin, Southwest Regional 

Director

The Nature Conservancy

 David Gann, Southwest Colorado 

Program Manager

 Betsy Neely, Director of 

Conservation Planning

Northern Ute American Indian Tribe

NOTE: The study team met with the following 

individuals. However, with the exception 

of Betsy Chapoose and Cliff ord Duncan, 

they should not be considered to have 

been designated by their tribe to be offi cial

consultation representatives. 

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

294 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

 Smiley Arrowchis, Tribal Member

 Betsy Chapoose, Cultural Rights and 

Protection Director

 Cliff ord Duncan, NAGPRA/TCP 

Consultant

 Luke Duncan, Tribal Member

 Roland McCook, former Chairman

 Dana West, Tribal Member

Southern Ute American Indian Tribe

NOTE: The study team met with the following 

individuals. However, they should not be 

considered to have been designated by their 

tribe to be offi cial consultation representatives.

 Pearl Casias, former Vice-Chairperson

 Neil Cloud, NAGPRA Coordinator

 Clement Frost, Chairman

 James Olgin, former Council Member

The Trust for Public Land

 Woody Beardsley, Project Manager

 Nissa Maddox, Program Associate

 Douglas Robotham, Colorado 

State Director

 Wade Shelton, Project Manager

Uncompahgre Valley Water 

Users Association

 Mark Catlin, General Manager

 Jim Hokit, former General Manager

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

 John Kleopfer, former Fish and 

 Wildlife Biologist, Western Colorado 

Ecological Services Field Offi ce, 

Grand Junction

 David McGillivary, Chief, Division of 

Federal Aid, Migratory Birds and State 

Programs, Denver

 U.S. Forest Service

 Dave Bradford, Rangeland Specialist, 

Paonia Ranger District

 Levi Broyles, District Ranger, Paonia 

Ranger District

 Jim Dawson, District Ranger, 

Gunnison Ranger District

 Mark Hatcher, Range Watershed 

Specialist, Gunnison Ranger District

 Bill Jackson, Recreation Staff Offi cer

 Carmine Lockwood, Planning Staff 

Offi cer, Gunnison, Grand Mesa, and 

Uncompahgre National Forests (GMUG)

 Steve Marquardt, former Renewable 

Resources Staff Offi cer

 Justin McConkey, Range Technician, 

Paonia Ranger District

 Charlie Richmond, Forest 

Supervisor, GMUG

 Nancy Schwieger, former Lands Staff , 

Paonia Ranger District

 Susan Spear, former District Ranger, 

Paonia Ranger District

 Bob Storch, former Forest 

Supervisor, GMUG

 Corey Wong, Public Service Staff 

Offi cer, GMUG

U.S. Representative Scott McInnis’s Office

 Leslie Baker, former Constituent 

Services Caseworker

 David Ludlam, former Staff Assistant

 Scott McInnis, former U.S. 

Representative
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 295

 Melissa Simpson, former Senior 

Legislative Assistant

U.S. Representative John Salazar’s Office

 Richard Baca, Northwest 

Regional Director

 John Whitney, Southwest 

Regional Director

U.S. Senator Wayne Allard’s Office

 Cory Gardner, General Counsel

 Brian Meinhart, Staff Assistant

 Andrew Merritt, State Director

 Richard Poole, Area Director

 Derek Wagner, former Staff Assistant

U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse 

Campbell’s Office

 James Doyle, former Communications 

Director

 Frank Fannon, former Senior 

Legislative Assistant

 Keith Johnson, former District Director

 Ginnie Kotnick, former Chief of Staff

 George Rossman, former 

District Director

U.S. Senator Ken Salazar’s Office

 Trudy Kareus, Northwest 

Regional Director

 Ute Indian Museum

 CJ Braff ord, Director

 Ute Mountain Ute American Indian Tribe

NOTE: The study team met with the following 

individuals. However, they should not be 

considered to have been designated by their 

tribe to be offi cial consultation representatives.

 Harold Cuthair, Tribal Member

 Manuel Heart, Tribal Councilman

 Western Area Power Administration

 C. Shane Collins, Environmental 

Protection Specialist

 Susan Starcevich, Realty Specialist, 

Land Management

 Ron Turley, Field Maintenance 

Manager, Montrose

Other

Please refer to the lists of meetings with 

public agencies and offi cials, private groups 

and individuals, and American Indian tribes 

identifi ed earlier in this Consultation and 

Coordination chapter.

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

296 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 297

APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

“Conservation is a state of harmony between land and man. . . A land ethic, then, 

reflects the existence of an ecological conscience, and this in turn reflects a conviction of 

individual responsibility for the health of the land. Health is the capacity of the land for 

self-renewal. Conservation is our effort to understand and preserve this capacity.” 

Aldo Leopold 

A Sand County Almanac, 1949 

“Please take the time and effort to study the history of the Gunnison Country. This 

will give you an understanding and appreciation for the pioneers who tamed this land and, 

in many cases, spent a hundred years and four generations of a family completing what 

might be called our first “land use change.” It is our hope that through this understanding, 

you will approach your construction and development in a thoughtful and sensitive manner, 

to protect our unique community, our natural resources and our historic way of life.” 

From The Code of the West

Gunnison County Planning Commission, July 1996 

“Some of you may have heard me say before that the Four C's is a guide to how I 

want Interior to move forward. They stand for communication, consultation and 

cooperation, all in the service of conservation. At the heart of the Four C's is the belief that 

for conservation to be successful, we must involve the people who live on, work on, and love 

the land.” The Honorable Gale Norton Secretary of the Interior, March 17, 2002 
APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

298 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 299

APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

Toolbox of Incentives 

i

Table of Contents

PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................................... 1

TOOLS FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION ............................................................................................. 2

Principles for Forging Long-Term, Sustainable Partnerships ..................................................................... 2

A Variety of Landowner Incentives ................................................................................................................. 3

General Considerations .................................................................................................................................. 3

Technical Assistance ....................................................................................................................................... 4

General Agreements ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Incentive Payments to Landowners ............................................................................................................. 4

Acquisition of Conservation Easements, or Other Property Interests ................................................... 5

Purchase and Retained Use and Occupancy ............................................................................................... 5

Fee Simple Acquisition from Willing Landowner...................................................................................... 5

Conservation Easements................................................................................................................................ 6

Advantages of Conserving Land ............................................................................................................... 6

Conservation Easements Explained ......................................................................................................... 7

Working with Land Trusts ........................................................................................................................ 7

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) .................................................................................................... 8

Endangered Species Incentives ..................................................................................................................... 9

Landowner Incentive Program.................................................................................................................. 9

Private Stewardship Grants Program ....................................................................................................... 9

Colorado Species Conservation Partnership ........................................................................................... 9

Cultural Resource Incentives ........................................................................................................................ 9

Tax Credits for Owners of “Listed” Properties ..................................................................................... 9

State Historical Fund Assistance.............................................................................................................10

Grazing and Open Space Incentives .........................................................................................................10

Potentially Effective Local Policies/Incentives for Resource Conservation ......................................12

Potential National Park Service Actions and Policies..............................................................................13

SOURCES OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE AND FUNDING ...........................15

FEDERAL.........................................................................................................................................................15

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)....................................................................................15

Land and Water Conservation Fund ..........................................................................................................15

NPS (National Park Service) – Challenge Cost-Share Program (CCSP) ..............................................16

NPS – Conservation Study Institute (CSI)................................................................................................16

NPS – National Natural Landmarks Program..........................................................................................16

NPS – National Register of Historic Places.............................................................................................. 17

NPS – Partnerships Beyond Public Lands ................................................................................................18

NPS – Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA) ..................................................18

Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area ........................................................18

TEA-21 The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century ..............................................................18

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) – Conservation Security Program (CSP)...........................19

USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) ...................................................................19

USFWS (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) – Grants-At-A-Glance..............................................................20

USFWS – Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) ......................................................................................20

USFWS – Private Stewardship Grants Program (PSGP)........................................................................20
APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

300 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Toolbox of Incentives 

ii

STATE OF COLORADO..............................................................................................................................21

Colorado Species Conservation Partnership.............................................................................................21

Colorado State Historical Fund...................................................................................................................21

Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund (GOCO) .....................................................................................21

PRIVATE, NONPROFIT..............................................................................................................................22

American Farmland Trust............................................................................................................................22

Black Canyon Land Trust ............................................................................................................................22

Colorado Association of Conservation Districts (CACD)......................................................................22

Colorado Cattlemen’s Agricultural Land Trust (CCALT).......................................................................23

Colorado Coalition of Land Trusts (CCLT)..............................................................................................23

Gunnison Ranchland Conservation Legacy ..............................................................................................24

Land Trust Alliance.......................................................................................................................................24

National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) ......................................................................25

National Trust for Historic Preservation...................................................................................................26

The Nature Conservancy .............................................................................................................................26

Sonoran Institute...........................................................................................................................................26

PUBLICATIONS.............................................................................................................................................26

INDEX OF INCENTIVES AND RELATED TERMS AND TOPICS ..................................................27
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 301

APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

Toolbox of Incentives 

1

PURPOSE

This toolbox identifies various methods that can be employed to encourage Curecanti area 

neighbors—private landowners, local communities, and city, county, state, and federal agencies—to 

work in partnership to manage their lands for more effective resource conservation. It has been 

developed in association with the Resource Protection Study at Curecanti National Recreation Area to 

help conserve the natural, cultural, recreational, and scenic resources within and surrounding Curecanti. 

Please be aware that some of the incentives in this toolbox, especially regarding technical 

assistance, are ideas that need additional consideration, and in some cases will require Congressional or 

legislative authorization and appropriations of funds. Also, we are not in a position to advise people on 

matters pertaining to legal issues, tax issues, estate planning, etc. For these matters readers should 

consider seeking professional advice. 

For additional information, or to provide comments, please contact one of the following: 

Superintendent 

Curecanti National Recreation Area 

102 Elk Creek 

Gunnison, CO 81230 

(970) 641-2337 

Long Range Planner 

Gunnison County 

200 E. Virginia Ave. 

Gunnison, CO 81230 

(970) 641-7620 
APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

302 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Toolbox of Incentives 

2

TOOLS FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

Principles for Forging Long-Term, Sustainable Partnerships 1

In 1970 Congress declared that the units of the National Park System were a cumulative expression of 

our national heritage. During the past 30 years there have been several cycles of expansion of the 

system to encompass different types of resources and different strategies for protecting them so they 

will be unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. Increasingly, the recent designations rely 

on partnerships and shared investment in planning and management. 

As the National Park Service (NPS) responds to demands for recognition, formal designation, and 

technical and financial assistance, discussions about the future of the agency often focus on three major 

questions: 

z How will the NPS reach out to the changing and diverse population of the United States? 

z How will the national parks address increasing public use pressures? 

z How will the national parks be protected from threats that originate primarily beyond park 

boundaries? 

Perhaps the "problem" of the burgeoning interest in establishing "nontraditional" areas is really the 

solution: that the agency must look beyond the traditional models and recognize the potential of 

partnerships to help the NPS fulfill its mission to protect our nation's natural and cultural heritage. 

Perhaps the distinction between "internal" and "external" programs is no longer valid because 

protecting the parks depends upon our ability to expand a stewardship ethic throughout the nation, to 

protect resources at the local level, and to see the units of the National Park System as hubs in a 

broader network of protected areas. 

As the NPS moves increasingly from a paradigm of management to one of stewardship, there is an 

accompanying challenge to create a broader vision that encompasses the concept of partnerships, and 

to realign policies and procedures to support this shift in approach. The future is seen in which units 

of the National Park System and the partnership areas outside the System are all part of a nationwide 

network of parks and conservation areas that are relevant to a diverse population. This network 

includes resources protected through traditional public ownership, areas protected through the efforts 

of private organizations such as land trusts, and the resources conserved through collaborative 

strategies. This future includes a strong, innovative private sector working with a variety of audiences. 

Nonprofit organizations, institutions, academia, businesses, and public sector agencies all play 

important roles. 

 

1 From Collaboration and Conservation - Lessons Learned in Areas Managed Through National Park Service Partnerships, a report on a 

workshop held May 15-17, 2000 at Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller NHP. 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 303

APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

Toolbox of Incentives 

3

In order to create and sustain effective partnerships to conserve resources for the enjoyment of future 

generations on either side of a boundary that designates a park, river, trail, or heritage area, the 

following principles are important to follow: 

z Build a common understanding and vision. 

z Listen and be responsive to the needs of others. 

z Build relationships and sustain trust. 

z Work openly and inclusively in ways that build a partnership team. 

z Be flexible and responsive to changing circumstances. 

z Be willing to share control, and work together in ways that empower the partners. 

z Have a realistic understanding of each partner's mission and perspective, and seek to resolve 

issues in ways satisfactory to all parties. 

z Tell the stories of people and place, providing accurate, well-focused information. 

z Clarify roles and expectations. 

z Move toward clarity and respect. 

z Accomplish one project together. 

z Explore commonalities. 

z Capitalize on differences. 

z Accept and cherish diversity of values. 

z Develop a shared vocabulary. 

z Check the environment for opportunities. 

z Begin looking out for each other. 

z Establish regular communication. 

z Maintain continuity, and transfer knowledge. 

z Develop ways to continually share experiences and understanding. 

z Check in periodically on the partnership. 

z Celebrate successes. 

A Variety of Landowner Incentives 

General Considerations

Conservation efforts that strive to protect and/or maintain the natural, cultural, recreational, and 

scenic values of the land, in combination with location adjacent to public lands, can enhance the future 

economic value of the property and be a positive contribution to quality of life. 

z “Study after study shows that communities that preserve their character and natural values 

consistently outperform the economies of those that don't.” 2

z “More and more gateway communities are finding that adjoining parks, wildlife refuges, or 

wilderness areas can be powerful economic assets. Tourism is an obvious way to capitalize on 

nearby public lands. But parks, refuges, and wilderness areas also are valuable for the 

contribution they make to local quality of life. Quality of life is a catchall term used to describe 

the non-economic amenities a community has to offer, including clean air and water, safe 

streets, open space, cultural events, recreational opportunities, uncongested roads, good 

schools, and scenic views.” 3

 

2 Howe, Jim, Ed McMahon, & Luther Propst, Balancing Nature and Commerce in Gateway Communities ( 1997, Island Press), p. 7. 3 Ibid., p. 9. 
APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

304 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Toolbox of Incentives 

4

Technical Assistance

The National Park Service (NPS) is currently able to provide some environmental education and 

technical assistance to landowners, and expects to be able to provide a broader range of assistance in 

the future, such as: 

z Offering advice regarding resource management and conservation measures, or directing 

individuals to appropriate sources of information. 

z Offering advice on siting and design considerations for environmentally sensitive development. 

z Offering jurisdictional advice, such as referring property owners to the appropriate government 

or organizational entity. 

z Offering wetlands advice on the location of wetlands, the need for permits, and ways to 

enhance wetlands habitat. 

z Providing information about appropriate resource conservation practices, including information 

on conservation easements and land trusts. 

z Providing assistance to obtain funding for worthwhile projects through government grants, 

such as U.S. Department of Agriculture cost-share grants to install animal waste-treatment 

units, to promote cleaner surface water and groundwater. 

General Agreements

General Agreements and Memorandums of Understanding set the stage for short-term and longterm commitments in cooperative assistance, usually benefiting all parties involved. 

z Examples include cost sharing on projects that mutually benefit the parties, or understandings 

on how certain activities or operations can occur. One party might agree to certain restrictions 

in return for other benefits, including technical assistance, labor, and/or materials needed to 

accomplish a project that will be of benefit to the property owner and NPS. Projects could 

include those that protect wildlife and habitat, or those that reduce impacts to viewsheds. 

z Agreements are especially useful if a conservation easement or fee simple acquisition is agreed 

upon, but funds are not yet available to implement. General Agreements and Memorandums of 

Understanding clarify policies or procedures, and can serve as the basis for cooperation among 

two or more parties. They are most likely to be useful for land owned by state or local 

governments, private non-profit organizations, and other federal agencies, and by individuals or 

corporations who are supportive of unit purposes. They may be terminated whenever any of 

the parties to the agreement wish, with proper notice. 

Incentive Payments to Landowners

Through a variety of grant programs, including those of NPS, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Colorado Division of Wildlife, and others, payments are made to property owners and other entities 

who enter into contracts to conserve or enhance recreational, cultural, and natural resources. 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 305

APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

Toolbox of Incentives 

5

Acquisition of Conservation Easements, or Other Property Interests

In this program, NPS, or another agency or organization, including land trusts, acquires an interest 

in the property on a willing-landowner basis, for conservation purposes. The types of tools used 

include acquisition of conservation easements or deed restrictions, mineral rights, and/or rights-of-way. 

Activities that are not in conflict with the purposes of the easement or deed are generally allowed, while 

specific restrictions ensure that uses of the property remain compatible with the conservation purposes 

spelled out in the easement or deed. 

z In appraising non-Federal land, development rights, or conservation easements for possible 

acquisition, the government shall disregard any adverse impacts on values resulting from 

inclusion within, or association with, the National Recreation Area; i.e., fair market value will be 

determined. 

z The terms and conditions of the easement are generally agreed upon through negotiation. 

Examples of activities that could be allowed include: 

− Retention and/or restricted development of residential structures 

− Livestock grazing 

− Other farming and ranching practices 

− Specified tree cutting 

− Hunting 

z Although the landowner continues to pay property tax, there may be significant income tax and 

estate tax benefits to the landowner. 

Purchase and Retained Use and Occupancy

In this scenario, NPS buys the property from a willing landowner at fair market value, and the 

owner gets to stay (rent free) until death (life estate), or some other agreed-upon time period, such as 25 

years. Life estates impact valuation, and appraisals are lowered using an actuary table on life 

expectancy. 

z In appraising non-Federal land for possible acquisition, the government shall disregard any 

adverse impacts on values resulting from inclusion within, or association with, the National 

Recreation Area; i.e., fair market value will be determined. 

z Types of leases include: 

− Life estate 

− 25-year lease 

z Federal government may provide payment-in-lieu-of-taxes to the county. 

Fee Simple Acquisition from Willing Landowner 

In this instance, NPS acquires all rights or interests in the land on a willing-landowner basis. The 

property owner is reimbursed, unless the land is donated. 

z In appraising non-Federal land for possible acquisition, the government shall disregard any 

adverse impacts on values resulting from inclusion within, or association with, the National 

Recreation Area; i.e., fair market value will be determined. 

z Land is acquired through means such as the following: 

− Direct purchase using funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, established 

under Section 2 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601-5), 

or funding from donated dollars. 
APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

306 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Toolbox of Incentives 

6

− Third party purchase through entities such as land trusts and conservation organizations. 

− Land exchange—exchanging parcels of like value. 

− Bargain sell—whereas the parcel is purchased for less than appraised value, and property 

owner receives a tax benefit for the difference (i.e., the donated portion). 

− Donation of the entire parcel, in which case there would be tax advantages property owner. 

z Federal government may provide payment-in-lieu-of-taxes to the county. 

Conservation Easements 

Advantages of Conserving Land 

Conserving land may be the single most important lasting contribution a landowner can make to future 

generations, because, as we all know – land is a limited resource! In addition, depending upon each 

landowner’s individual circumstances, there may be Federal and State income tax benefits, and property 

and/or estate tax benefits. These benefits can be maximized if the landowner donates a conservation 

easement, or a portion of the benefits may be available if the easement is sold at a discounted price. 

NOTE: Information pertaining to tax and other benefits is provided for general purposes only, and does not constitute 

legal advice or opinion in any way. As these laws and regulations change over time, you are urged to consult your attorney 

regarding specific legal questions you may have. 

Federal Income Tax Benefits 

The value of a conservation easement may qualify as a charitable deduction against the landowner’s 

federal income tax. This deduction may be used to offset up to 30% of the landowner’s adjusted gross 

income per year for a total of six consecutive years. 

Colorado State Tax Benefits 

On or after January 1, 2003, the first $100,000 of value of a donated conservation easement is treated as 

a credit against Colorado state income taxes. Then, 40% of the next $400,000 of the value of the 

donation may be claimed; but in no event can the total credit exceed $260,000 per donation. Any 

portion of the tax credit not used in the year of donation can be used in the 20 succeeding income tax 

years. The amount of donation exceeding $260,000 may be used as a charitable deduction against state 

income tax. In May 2000, legislation was passed to allow the transfer of the above tax credit to a third 

party, or, in years of state revenue surplus, to claim a refund for the tax credit. 

Estate Tax Benefits 

When a conservation easement is placed on a property, most often the property value will be decreased 

and this will decrease the taxable value of the deceased’s estate. In addition, if the easement qualifies 

under certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, then 40% of the property value remaining after 

the granting of an easement can be excluded from the value of the estate, up to a maximum exclusion 

of $400,000 (increasing to $500,000 in 2002). 

Property Tax Benefits 

If the property is being taxed at the agricultural rate at the time the easement is placed, the landowner 

may continue to receive the favorable agricultural tax treatment even if agricultural production is 

discontinued in the future. 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 307

APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

Toolbox of Incentives 

7

Conservation Easements Explained 4

"Conservation easements allow landowners to realize financial benefits from their land without selling 

or subdividing their property. Their flexibility and effectiveness make them applicable to a variety of 

land uses. 

"To understand how conservation easements work, it is first necessary to understand the nature of real 

estate. Legally, real estate can be thought of as a 'bundle' of property rights, which includes the right to 

farm or ranch, to construct buildings, to subdivide the land, to restrict access, to harvest timber, or to 

mine. In many instances, a right can be separated from the bundle and transferred to another party. 

Mineral rights to property, for example, are commonly bought and sold separately from surface rights. 

"Conservation easements involve the purchase or donation of a property's development rights. An 

easement permanently extinguishes these rights so that a property can never be developed. The land 

remains on the tax rolls, in private ownership, and can be sold to others or passed on to heirs. 

"Easements are tailored to each particular property and to the needs of each individual landowner. 

Agricultural preservation easements, for example, allow continued farming or ranching and do not 

include public access. Easements can be placed on an entire tract of land or on only part of a property. 

In many cases, conservation easements allow 'limited development' or commercial use of part of the 

land, so long as these activities do not affect the land's conservation value. 

"Easement restrictions are typically permanent and 'run with the land,' binding the original landowner 

and all future landowners. Like all property rights, conservation easements are recorded with the 

county clerk so that future owners and lenders will know about restrictions when they obtain title 

reports. 

"Easements can offer significant tax benefits to landowners. Landowners who donate easements or sell 

them below market value can receive income tax deductions for the value of their charitable donation. 

Landowners also can benefit from lower estate and property taxes since their property is stripped of its 

development rights." 

Working with Land Trusts 5

WHAT IS A LAND TRUST? A land trust is a non-profit organization organized as a charitable entity 

under the laws of the United States and Colorado. Land trusts work with landowners to voluntarily 

conserve open lands located in the area the land trust serves. Land trusts in Colorado are located in 

communities across the State, and are run primarily by volunteer boards, a few of whom have the 

assistance of some paid staff. Land trusts work with their neighbors to help voluntarily conserve 

Colorado lands without government regulation. 

 

HOW DOES A LAND TRUST CONSERVE LAND? Land trusts use a variety of tools to 

accomplish voluntary land conservation, including the acquisition (by donation or by purchase) of 

conservation easements, deed restrictions, and fee title to land, development of management 

agreements, and strategic estate planning. Land trusts are experts at working with willing landowners to 

craft the result that works best for the landowner and their community on each individual transaction. 

 

4 From Balancing Nature and Commerce in Gateway Communities 5 Source: Colorado Coalition of Land Trusts 
APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

308 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Toolbox of Incentives 

8

ARE LAND TRUSTS SUCCESSFUL? There are 38 land trusts located throughout Colorado - 33 

local land trusts and 5 regional or national land trusts. As of the end of 1999, these groups were 

responsible for the conservation of over 630,000 acres of special lands in the State of Colorado. 

Nationally, there are over 1,200 land trusts that have protected almost 4.7 million acres (an area larger 

than the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined). Across the country, approximately 1 

million people are members and financial supporters of land trusts, and more than 50,000 people are 

active volunteers. 

WHAT KINDS OF LANDS DO LAND TRUSTS PROTECT? Each land trust adopts specific 

priorities for the types of land it works to conserve; however, almost every land trust in Colorado 

prioritizes the conservation of agricultural lands and open space. Other examples of the types of land 

that Colorado land trusts generally work to conserve are: wildlife habitat, wetlands and riparian areas, 

river corridors, community separators, and watersheds. 

 

HOW DOES A LAND DONATION WORK? Donating land to a land trust can further conservation 

in Colorado in many ways. A landowner may be able to continue to live on the land, or to receive a life 

income, or to receive favorable income tax treatment from a land donation. A land donation might be 

used to provide a passive open space parcel for educational or public access purposes, or it might be 

used to generate income for a local land trust by allowing the trust to re-sell the land with restrictions 

and use the revenue to conserve additional lands. Flexibility is the key, and land trusts work with 

landowners to find the right solutions to the landowner’s needs. 

WHAT IF I CANNOT AFFORD TO DONATE MY LAND OR A CONSERVATION 

EASEMENT? Selling land or an easement to a land trust at less that its fair market value (a “bargain 

sale”) can make the purchase affordable for a land trust and provide tax benefits and some cash to the 

landowner. There are some limited sources of funds available to land trusts for such purchases, such as 

Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund monies. In addition, some land trusts, in some circumstances, 

can assist landowners with the costs associated with conserving their land, such as appraisal fees, legal 

fees, survey costs and the like. 

DO I HAVE TO WORK WITH A PARTICULAR LAND TRUST TO CONSERVE MY LAND? It 

is entirely up to the landowner to choose the entity he or she wishes to work with to conserve their 

land; however, local land trusts often are a good choice because of their knowledge of the local 

community, their closeness to the property and its owner, and the efficiency of having the conservation 

project monitored by a local entity. There are national or regional land trusts that work to conserve 

particular types of land (such as the American Farmland Trust or The Nature Conservancy), and a 

landowner might choose to work with such a land trust if the landowner’s property matches the type of 

land the larger land trusts work to conserve. The Colorado Coalition of Land Trusts can assist 

landowners in contacting a land trust to discuss conservation. 

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) 6

"The TDR program creates a framework under which landowners can transfer development rights 

from protection zones, or 'sending areas,' to growth centers, or 'receiving areas.' Sending areas are 

lands that warrant protection, which can include anything from farmlands to wetlands. By contrast, 

receiving areas are towns and other urban areas where future growth is desired. Once the county 

designated its sending and receiving areas, the marketplace took over." 

 

6 From Balancing Nature and Commerce in Gateway Communities 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 309

APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

Toolbox of Incentives 

9

Note: TDR programs are not yet established in either Gunnison or Montrose Counties. This information is provided in 

the event such programs do become viable in this area. 

Endangered Species Incentives

Landowner Incentive Program 

This is a program administered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), to provide money to 

states for preserving species of special concern. The program is still under development. $40,000,000 

will be available nation wide. The money will be made available through the state divisions of wildlife. 

States have up to $1,700,000 to distribute to landowners based on a competitive process. The purpose 

of the money is for the protection, restoration, and management of habitat that benefit species at-risk. 

It is anticipated that once the program is in place, landowners will apply directly to the Colorado 

Division of Wildlife (CDOW). For additional information, contact Ken Morgan, Private Lands Habitat 

Program Coordinator (CDOW) at (303) 291-7404. 

Private Stewardship Grants Program 

This is a program administered by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service that provides $10,000,000 in federal 

grants and other assistance on a competitive basis to individuals and groups engaged in voluntary 

conservation efforts on private lands that benefit at-risk species including Federally-listed endangered 

or threatened species as well as proposed or candidate species. Under this program, landowners and 

their partners will be able to submit proposals directly to USFWS for funding to support those efforts. 

Colorado Species Conservation Partnership 

This is a program run by the State of Colorado, involving the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Colorado Division of Wildlife, the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund, county governments, and 

non-governmental organizations throughout the state, that will pay landowners to help protect species 

that are listed, or have the potential to be listed, under the Endangered Species Act, via management 

agreements, conservation easements or leases. Landowners are paid through the partnership (according 

to the property's value) for the term of the agreement not to sell their land for development, or they are 

paid to help maintain or develop habitat on their property. For additional information, contact Ken 

Morgan, Private Lands Habitat Program Coordinator (CDOW) at (303) 291-7404. 

Cultural Resource Incentives 7

Tax Credits for Owners of “Listed” Properties 8

"Owners of properties listed in the National Register may be eligible for a 20% investment tax credit 

for the certified rehabilitation of income-producing certified historic structures such as commercial, 

industrial, or rental residential buildings. This credit can be combined with a straight-line depreciation 

period of 27.5 years for residential property and 31.5 years for nonresidential property ..... Federal tax 

deductions are also available for charitable contributions for conservation purposes of partial interests 

in historically important land areas or structures." 

 

7 For additional information contact The National Trust for Historic Preservation at (303) 623-1504 

8 Visit the website www.cr.nps.gov/nr/results.htm for additional information 
APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

310 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Toolbox of Incentives 

10

State Historical Fund Assistance 

The State Historical Fund of the Colorado Historical Society Office of Archeology and Historic 

Preservation has grant monies available to public entities and non-profit organizations for historic 

properties that are either listed in the National Register, the State Register, and/or are local landmarks. 

Their website is www.coloradohistory-oahp.org/programareas/shf/projecttypes.htm. 

Grazing and Open Space Incentives 9

NOTE: The following information relates to livestock grazing issues and recommendations at Grand Teton National 

Park. The ideas presented here are those that still need additional consideration if to be applied to the Curecanti area. 

With the 1996 death of the last surviving heir to certain livestock grazing permits in Grand Teton 

National park that were issued when the Park was established in 1950, whether or not to re-issue those 

Park grazing permits for some undetermined period of time became a nationally significant issue. 

Without summer grazing in the Park, there was a threat that ranches holding those grazing permits 

would no longer be economically viable operations, and would be subdivided into residential areas. 

Subdivision would irretrievably destroy the open spaces and pastoral character of lands near and 

adjacent to the Park. 

To address this concern, Public Law 105-81, approved November 13, 1997, mandated the Secretary of 

the Interior to assess, and report to Congress, the significance to the purpose and character of the Park 

of "the ranching use and pastoral character of the land" on those ranches, and to recommend "a variety 

of economically feasible and viable tools and techniques to retain the pastoral qualities of the land." 

PL 105-81 directed the Secretary of the Interior to "seek participation from the Governor of the State 

of Wyoming, the Teton County Commissioners, the Secretary of Agriculture, affected landowners and 

other interested members of the public." Recognizing the complexity of the issues and the variety of 

divergent viewpoints that needed to be considered, the National Park Service (NPS) chose a 

collaborative, facilitated study approach with a group of 14 people, called the Grand Teton National 

Park Open Space Work Group. Though the group did not necessarily represent the demographic 

proportions of the interests in the area, all area interests were included in the group. Work Group 

members held 16 meetings from February, 1999 to April, 2001. 

The significance of open spaces and the pastoral character of ranch lands to the Park, to Jackson Hole, 

and to the visitor experience has been recognized since the earliest rimes. The Work Group reached 

consensus that protecting open spaces on those ranches holding livestock grazing permits in the park is 

still important - to the Park, to area residents, and to the national public. Most Work Group members 

also agreed that preserving ranching use on those lands is the most effective means of protecting the 

open space and pastoral character of the area, although preserving ranching by itself would not offer 

permanent protection. 

 

9 A Model: Economically Feasible and Viable Tools and Techniques to Retain the Pastoral Qualities of the Land; from 

Report of the Grand Teton National Park Open Space Work Group, Pursuant to Public Law 105-81, Jackson, Wyoming, May 1, 

2001, a Recommendation to Congress. (Related to the Grazing Use and Open Space Study and Environmental Analysis for Grand 

Teton National Park and Teton County, Wyoming, April 1, 2001.) 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 311

APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

Toolbox of Incentives 

11

Key findings of the Work Group include: 

z Current tax laws inhibit the transfer of large land holdings between family members. 

z The loss of summer grazing options in the Park threatens the viability of the affected working 

ranches. 

z There is an economic value for the ranchers derived from grazing permitted in the Park, and 

there are significant, unrecovered costs to the NPS to manage and maintain the grazing permits. 

z Preservation of open space near and adjacent to the Park is important for maintaining scenic, 

wildlife, and cultural values. 

z Permanent protection of open space requires formal, legal arrangements with the landowners, 

such as conservation easements or outright purchases of the Study Area lands. 

Therefore, per their charge set forth in PL 105-81, the Work Group recommended the following 

incentives to Congress: 

1. Modify inheritance and estate tax law to avoid forcing ranching families to sell or subdivide their 

land to pay these taxes. 

2. Legislatively fund and/or encourage the acquisition of easements using tools such as modification 

of income and estate tax laws and outright funding through cash and exchanges. 

3. Direct the NPS to define, in consultation with permittees, base properties associated with each 

grazing permit and restriction of activities on those base properties which will protect open space, if 

grazing permits appurtenant to the ranchlands in the Study Area should continue. 

4. If Congress determines that these grazing permits should continue, the NPS should review grazing 

lands management and permitting policies and modify if necessary with a goal of accomplishing the 

Park's mission. 

5. If Congress determines that these grazing permits should not continue, Congress should fund 

programs that will maintain the ranching operations or otherwise protect the pastoral character of 

the open space on the base properties. 

6. Authorize and fund use of these recommended tools by the Department of the Interior, either 

alone or in partnership with other public or private entities. 

The same Grand Teton report also offered the following tools for preserving open space, which were 

considered to be less feasible: 

z Change cow-calf operations to yearling operations. 

z Adjust boundaries. 

z Allow grazing on National Forest allotments. 

z Allow grazing on private lands outside Teton County. 

z Encourage grassbanking (providing grazing in other areas). 

z Allow grazing or grassbanking on the National Elk Refuge. 

z Acquire land in fee simple. 
APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

312 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Toolbox of Incentives 

12

Potentially Effective Local Policies/Incentives for Resource Conservation 10

Just as federal land managers need to understand the economic and social interests of local 

communities, local officials need to understand the mission, purpose, goals and objectives of federal 

land managers. Potential local policies and incentives include: 

Enact land-use policies, and use creative methods to insure that development is compatible with 

resource protection goals. (The economic impact of wildlife habitat, historic preservation, and an 

aesthetic environment is significant.) 

z Adopt land-use plans that seek to preserve resources and community character. 

z Set siting and design standards that preserve aesthetically attractive views; incorporating proper 

location, size, height, color, reflectivity, and landscaping with indigenous materials. 

z Encourage fencing that is "wildlife-friendly." 

z Provide a density bonus to developers who protect a portion of their land with conservation 

easements. 

z Allow for the transfer of development rights, and provide a revolving loan fund to support land 

conservation. 

z Restrict or prohibit development in sensitive areas. 

z Encourage farms, ranches, parks, and open space outside the city's core, rather than sprawling, 

low-density residential development, to reduce the requirement for expensive services, such as 

schools, road maintenance, water and sewer, police and fire protection, and trash collection, 

which might not be offset by tax revenues. 

z Limit commercial development. 

z Institute an awards program that recognizes excellence in design and resource preservation. 

z Provide economic incentives. 

− Provide tax abatements that promote the rehabilitation of historic buildings. 

− Provide tax credits to landowners that implement resource protection/enhancement methods, 

such as erosion control or stream-bank restoration. 

− Encourage local banks to provide low-interest loans for rehabilitating historic buildings. 

− Provide incentives that encourage developers to plan projects with the needs of the larger 

community in mind. 

z Conduct public education campaigns, and encourage voluntary action by citizens regarding 

resource protection. 

z Appeal to the philanthropic spirit of citizens who might donate land or easements; and pay for 

the landowners' legal expenses. 

z Encourage local leaders to step forward and get involved in resource preservation efforts, 

especially in their relationships with landowners. 

z Acquire sensitive lands, open space, and conservation easements via income from innovative 

programs, such as: 

− Fundraising campaigns 

− A "tourist impact tax" on hotel and motel rooms (e.g., 1%) 

− A one-time impact fee on each new development in the county 

− Occupancy fees on commercial and retail outlets 

− A voluntary sales tax (e.g., 0.5%) 

 

10 Many of these ideas are found in "Balancing Nature and Commerce in Gateway Communities." 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 313

APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

Toolbox of Incentives 

13

− A transfer tax on local real estate transactions (Crested Butte imposes a 2.25% real estate 

transfer tax, and Vail imposes a transfer tax.) 

− Donations from local developers for every home or lot they sell (e.g., $100 to $500) 

− ISTEA funding (Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act). This is a program to 

fund projects protecting natural areas, parks, wildlife habitat and historic sites, especially 

related to transportation enhancement projects. This has been interpreted by some states to 

be protection of viewsheds and natural areas.

z Enhance visual aesthetics. 

− Insure that architecture is compatible with a landscape's or community's unique setting and 

character, in terms of siting and design, size, form, height, external materials, color, texture, 

and reflectivity. 

− Protect critical views. 

− Respect the integrity of mountains and ridge lines. 

− Restrict building heights. 

− Restrict billboards. 

− Incorporate appealing elements in developed areas that create pedestrian-friendly 

environments: tree-lined streets; well-landscaped walkways; attractive signs; historic facades; 

compatible lighting and landscape furniture. 

z Actively involve a broad cross-section of residents in determining and planning for the future, 

and capitalize on the community's distinctive assets -- architecture, history, and natural 

surroundings. Use a variety of private-sector tools and market incentives to influence design, 

such as: 

− Develop a widely shared vision. 

− Create an inventory of local resources. 

− Build on local assets. 

− Minimize the need for regulations. 

− Meet the needs of both landowner and community. 

− Team up with public land managers. 

− Recognize the role of nongovernmental organizations. 

− Provide opportunities for leaders to step forward. 

− Pay attention to aesthetics. 

Potential National Park Service Actions and Policies

The National Park Service can look out for local economic interests, strengthen the local economy, 

assist with resource preservation outside the NRA, and enhance quality of life by: 

z Establishing and maintaining good relations with the local communities 

z Partnering with the local city and county governments in resolving issues of mutual concern, 

and staying involved with community planning efforts, through park staff and agency support 

groups such as the Rivers, Trail and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA) 

z Raising the level of consciousness in the park staff about the importance of park resources, 

their preservation, and their relationship to the local economy and quality of life, to improve 

outreach and partnership possibilities 

z Educating people about the importance and methods of resource conservation, through on-site 

interpretive/educational programs, and outreach activities 
APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

314 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Toolbox of Incentives 

14

z Promoting the NRA's attractiveness in the off-season, to encourage more visitation distributed 

throughout the year 

z Encouraging visitors to frequent local businesses 

z Purchasing supplies from local businesses 

z Hiring local residents 

z Providing financial and technical assistance 

z Minimizing camping and staff housing within park boundaries, so that more of it occurs on 

private land outside the park 

z Helping the Counties obtain federal funding to designate local roads as scenic byways 

z Providing trail networks connecting local communities with the NRA 

z Assessing user fees to restore damaged areas within and surrounding the NRA 

z Enlisting the help of independent land trusts to negotiate conservation easements which to 

protect land, while accommodating local needs for economic development and property-tax 

revenue 

z Supervising local volunteers to enhance resource protection and recreation opportunities within 

and surrounding the NRA on projects such as environmental data collection, water quality 

monitoring, wildfire management activities, erosion control measures, and construction and 

maintenance of fences, trails, and back-country camping areas 

z Managing, with the involvement of the local communities, a nationally significant resource 

which attracts a million visitors per year that will spend money at local businesses; which 

contributes to increased property values of surrounding land; and which provides unique 

recreational opportunities that enhance the local quality of life. 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 315

APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

Toolbox of Incentives 

15

SOURCES OF RESOURCE 

CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE AND 

FUNDING 

FEDERAL 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)

www.cfda.gov 

The online Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance provides access to a database of all Federal 

programs, including grants, available to State and local governments (including the District of 

Columbia); federally-recognized Indian tribal governments; Territories (and possessions) of the United 

States; domestic public, quasi-public, and private profit and nonprofit organizations and institutions; 

specialized groups; and individuals. This site deals with all types of assistance, not just financial aid. 

Therefore, it uses "Assistance Program" as a generic term rather than speaking specifically of a grant, 

loan, or other sort of program. 

For more direct access to Federal grants relating to many topics, including Environmental Quality and 

Natural Resources, go to "Grants.gov," at www.grants.gov. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund

www.ahrinfo.org/lwcf_overview.html 

Created by Congress in 1964, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) provides money to 

federal, state and local governments to purchase land, water and wetlands for the benefit of all 

Americans. Such lands and waters are used to: 

z Provide recreational opportunities 

z Provide clean water 

z Preserve wildlife habitat 

z Enhance scenic vistas 

z Protect archaeological and historical sites 

z Maintain the pristine nature of wilderness areas. 

Land is bought from landowners at fair-market value (unless the owner chooses to offer the land as a 

donation or at a bargain price). The Fund receives money mostly from fees paid by companies drilling 

offshore for oil and gas. Other funding sources include the sale of surplus federal real estate and taxes 

on motorboat fuel. LWCF is administered on a regional and national level by the National Park 

Service. 
APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

316 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Toolbox of Incentives 

16

NPS (National Park Service) – Challenge Cost-Share Program (CCSP)

Through its Challenge Cost-Share Program, the National Park Service provides a maximum 50% costshare grant to expedite and complete mutually beneficial projects with outside sources. The purpose is 

to increase awareness and participation by both neighboring communities and the public at large in the 

preservation and improvement of NPS recreational, cultural and natural resources. Partners (outside 

sources) include individuals, groups, companies, corporations, state and local agencies, and other nonfederal entities that will donate funds, equipment, supplies, or in-kind labor to complete a project. 

Projects are generally intended to be small, able to be completed in one year and consistent with park 

planning documents. Projects are nominated for funding each year by parks and support offices, along 

with eligible partners. CCSP funds may be used to support all NPS programs - both inside and outside 

of parklands, and on national trails. The Challenge Cost-Share Program encourages multiple partners, 

nontraditional partners, and private-sector partners. 

z A "partner" is defined as a person, group or organization that shares a common interest with 

NPS in preserving natural or cultural resources or enhancing public enjoyment or public 

understanding of a resource and collaborates with NPS to achieve similar goals. 

z The NPS share of any one CCSP project shall not exceed $30,000. 

z For additional information contact Mary Padilla, National Park Service, at (505) 988-6809. 

NPS – Conservation Study Institute (CSI) www.nps.gov/csi 

The Conservation Study Institute was established in 1998 by the National Park Service (NPS) to 

enhance leadership in the field of conservation. In collaboration with the NPS and academic and 

nonprofit partners, the Institute provides a forum for the conservation community to discuss 

conservation history, contemporary issues and practice, and future directions for the field. The 

Institute's vision of conservation is inclusive and interdisciplinary. Its vision encompasses natural and 

cultural heritage in defining sense of place, and emphasizes the role of people in stewardship. 

Reflecting this vision, the Institute's approach is founded on collaborative leadership and communitybased conservation involving cooperation and partnerships. The Institute is located at the MarshBillings-Rockefeller National Historical Park in Woodstock, Vermont, because this national park tells 

the story of conservation history and the evolving nature of land stewardship in America. 

NPS – National Natural Landmarks Program www.nature.nps.gov/nnl 

Established in 1962, the goal of the National Natural Landmarks (NNLs) Program is to encourage the 

preservation of sites illustrating the geological and ecological character of the United States, to enhance 

the scientific and educational value of sites thus preserved, to strengthen public appreciation of natural 

history, and to foster a greater concern for the conservation of the nation's natural heritage. 

The NNLs Program recognizes and encourages the conservation of outstanding examples of our 

country's natural history. It is the only natural areas program of national scope that identifies and 

recognizes the best examples of biological and geological features in both public and private ownership. 

NNLs are designated by the Secretary of the Interior, with the owner's concurrence. The National Park 

Service administers the NNLs Program, and if requested, assists NNL owners and managers with the 

conservation of these important sites. 

The NNLs Program offers participants the opportunity to share information, solve problems 

cooperatively, and conserve important natural areas. For nearly 40 years, the NNL Program has 

involved private, municipal, state, and federal landowners, all working together toward the conservation 

of natural resources. Land acquisition by the federal government is not a goal of this program; NNLs 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 317

APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

Toolbox of Incentives 

17

are nationally significant sites owned by a variety of land stewards, and participation in the program is 

voluntary. Strong partnerships are key to the program's success. 

To date, there are 587 NNLs. They vary in size. For example, there is a 7-acre bog, and a 960,000-acre 

glacier. NNLs include public and private lands with a variety of uses, including ranching, agriculture, 

recreation, nature preserves, research areas, camps, conference centers, and commercial ventures. All 

of these uses can be compatible with NNL designation. 

Some of the benefits to landowners who participate in the NNLs Program are: 

x The landowner(s) is in a position to voluntarily preserve a resource which indirectly benefits all 

citizens. A plaque and certificate are provided by NPS which honors that commitment, and a 

public ceremony can be arranged. 

x Based on section 170 (h) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, some owners of NNLs may be 

eligible to take a charitable contribution deduction on their Federal income tax for a "qualified 

conservation purpose" to a qualified "conservation organization." 

x For those NNLs operated as commercial enterprises, natural landmark status might enhance 

the site's attractiveness to visitors. 

x If any federal agency were to propose some action not desired by the NNL landowner (e.g., 

highway construction, river channelization), the requirements specified in the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 would apply. This could be a potential benefit because 

impacts to NNLs would need to be scrutinized. This is a form of protection, though there is 

no guarantee that such a federal project will not damage the NNL. 

x The National Park Service may arrange for technical assistance to better manage an NNL, if it 

is solicited by an NNL landowner. The Park Service lacks the authority to provide NNL 

landowners with funds to better mange their property. However, such funds may be available 

from other sources (e.g., the 1996 Farm Bill administered by the US Department of 

Agriculture's Forest Service and the National Resources Conservation Service). 

NPS – National Register of Historic Places

www.cr.nps.gov/nr 

The National Register of Historic Places is the Nation's official list of cultural resources worthy of 

preservation. Authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Register 

is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, 

and protect our historic and archeological resources. Properties listed in the Register include districts, 

sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, 

engineering, and culture. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service, which is 

part of the U.S. Department of the Interior. The Register includes all historic areas in the National 

Park System; and over 2,300 National Historic Landmarks, which have been designated by the 

Secretary of the Interior because of their importance to all Americans. 

Owners of properties listed in the National Register may be eligible for a 20% investment tax credit for 

the certified rehabilitation of income-producing certified historic structures such as commercial, 

industrial, or rental residential buildings. 
APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

318 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Toolbox of Incentives 

18

NPS – Partnerships Beyond Public Lands

http://nps.sonoran.org 

A Web resource that shares information and tools for creating partnerships between public land 

managers and neighboring communities, to take advantage of tremendous opportunities for addressing 

threats and challenges facing public land managers, while meeting the economic and social aspirations 

of neighboring communities. 

NPS – Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA)

www.nps.gov/rtca --- Click onto "Helpful Tools" and then "Community Tool Box" for tried and true 

methods that help communities work together to improve their special places. 

The Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program, also known as Rivers & Trails or RTCA, is a 

division of the National Park Service that works with community groups and local and State 

governments to conserve rivers, preserve open space, and develop trails and greenways. Rivers & 

Trails provides assistance to non-profit organizations, community groups, tribes or tribal governments, 

and local or State government agencies. This assistance includes: 

z Building partnerships to achieve community-set goals 

z Assessing resources 

z Developing concept plans 

z Engaging public participation 

z Identifying potential sources of funding. 

Projects include: 

z Trails and greenway planning 

z Open space protection 

z River conservation 

z Watershed planning 

z Rail-trail conversions 

z Urban greening 

Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area 11

This area is a good model for using incentives, partnerships, and cooperative efforts for resource 

conservation. PL 106-399 designates the Steens Mountain Wilderness Area and the Steens Mountain 

Cooperative Management and Protection Area in Harney County, Oregon. 

TEA-21 The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21 

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was enacted June 9, 1998 as Public Law 

105-178. The TEA 21 Restoration Act, enacted July 22, 1998, provided technical corrections to the 

original law. TEA-21 authorizes the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway 

safety, and transit for the 6-year period 1998-2003. TEA-21 also makes provisions for the following 

environmental enhancements: 

z National Scenic Byways: Funding for improvements to roads of scenic or historic value. 

z Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths: Provisions to make bicycling and walking safer and more viable 

ways of travel. 

z Recreational Trails: Funding to create and maintain recreational trails. 

 

11 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, Public Law 106-399, October 30, 2000: 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 319

APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

Toolbox of Incentives 

19

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) – Conservation Security Program 

(CSP)

www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/csp 

CSP 12 is a voluntary program that provides financial and technical assistance to promote the 

conservation and improvement of soil, water, air, energy, plant and animal life, and other conservation 

purposes on Tribal and private working lands. Working lands include cropland, grassland, prairie land, 

improved pasture, and range land, as well as forested land that is an incidental part of an agriculture 

operation. 

CSP can assist landowners to implement and maintain conservation practices that will help farms and 

ranches be environmentally sustainable, while providing a variety of natural resources benefits to all 

Americans. 

CSP works as follows: 

1. Potential participants must sign up for CSP assistance. The sign-up will be offered annually in 

selected watersheds across the Nation. A different set of watersheds will be selected each year 

between FY-2005 and FY-2014. Selected watersheds are listed on the above Web-site, and in 

NRCS offices nationwide. 

2. The applicant completes a self-assessment, including description of conservation activities on 

their operations, to help determine eligibility for CSP. The self-assessment is available at the 

above Web-site and in NRCS state offices on compact disk or as a printed workbook. 

3. Eligible landowners in the selected watersheds complete the self-assessment and schedule an 

interview to submit an application at their local NRCS office. 

4. Based on the application, description of current conservation activities, and the interview, 

NRCS determines CSP eligibility and in which program tier and enrollment category the 

applicant may participate. 

Additional information is available at the above Web-site; at the following Web-site: 

www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/farmbill/2002; or by contacting a local USDA Service Center, listed in 

the telephone book under U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

www.nrcs.usda.gov 

Mission: The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help 

people conserve, maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment. 

Vision: Harmony between people and the land. 

NRCS puts nearly 70 years of experience to work in assisting America's private landowners with 

conserving their soil, water, and other natural resources. Local, state and federal agencies and 

policymakers rely on their expertise. NRCS delivers technical assistance based on sound science, suited 

to a customer's specific needs. Cost shares and financial incentives are available in some cases. Most 

work is done with local partners. Partnerships with local conservation districts serve almost every 

 

12 The Conservation Security Program (CSP) is authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended by the Farm 

Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 107-171), and is administered by the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 
APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

320 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Toolbox of Incentives 

20

county in the nation, and the Caribbean and Pacific Basin. Participation in NRCS programs is 

voluntary. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) – Grants-At-A-Glance

www.fws.gov/grants 

The Fish and Wildlife Service administers a variety of natural resource assistance grants to 

governmental, public and private organizations, groups and individuals. This website provides links to 

information about and applications for available grants. 

USFWS – Landowner Incentive Program (LIP)

This is a new program administered by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, to provide money to states for 

preserving species of special concern. Grants are assigned by state divisions of wildlife to landowners 

through a competitive process. Contact person is Ken Morgan, Private Lands Habitat Program 

Coordinator, Colorado Division of Wildlife, at (303) 291-7404 

USFWS – Private Stewardship Grants Program (PSGP) 

http://endangered.fws.gov/grants/private_stewardship/index.html 

This is a program administered by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service that provides $10,000,000 in federal 

grants and other assistance on a competitive basis to individuals and groups engaged in voluntary 

conservation efforts on private lands that benefit at-risk species including Federally-listed endangered 

or threatened species as well as proposed or candidate species. Under this program, landowners and 

their partners will be able to submit proposals directly to USFWS for funding to support those efforts. 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 321

APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

Toolbox of Incentives 

21

STATE OF COLORADO 

Colorado Species Conservation Partnership

This is a program run by the State of Colorado, involving the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Colorado Division of Wildlife, the Great Outdoors Colorado trust fund, county governments, and nongovernmental organizations throughout the state, that will pay landowners to help protect species that 

are listed, or have the potential to be listed, under the Endangered Species Act, via management 

agreements, conservation easements or leases. 

z Landowners are paid through the partnership (according to the property's value) for the term of 

the agreement not to sell their land for development, or they are paid to help maintain or 

develop habitat on their property. 

z CDOW also has many other private lands incentive programs available. 

z Point of Contact: Ken Morgan, Private Lands Habitat Program Coordinator, CDOW: (303) 

291-7404. 

Colorado State Historical Fund www.coloradohistory-oahp.org/programareas/shf/projecttypes.htm 

Operated as a component of the Colorado Historical Society Office of Archeology and Historic 

Preservation, the fund provides grant monies to public entities and non-profit organizations for historic 

properties that are either listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the State Register, and/or are 

local landmarks. 

Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund (GOCO)

www.goco.org 

The GOCO Amendment to the state constitution dedicates a portion of state lottery proceeds to 

projects that preserve, protect, and enhance Colorado's wildlife, parks, rivers, trails, and open spaces. 

GOCO's Mission is to help the people of Colorado preserve, protect, enhance, appreciate and enjoy 

our parks, wildlife, trails, rivers and open space through strategic grants, partnership and leadership. 

z In 1992, Coloradans took a major step toward preserving their state's outdoor heritage by 

voting to create the Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) Trust Fund, which now forms Article 

XXVII of the Colorado Constitution. The GOCO Amendment dedicates a portion of state 

lottery proceeds to projects that preserve, protect, and enhance Colorado's wildlife, parks, 

rivers, trails, and open spaces. Since it began awarding grants in 1994, GOCO has awarded 

almost $290 million for 1,700 projects throughout the state. 

z GOCO awards grants to projects that preserve and enhance Colorado's open space, parks, 

outdoor recreation, wildlife, rivers and trails. There are five competitive grant programs: Legacy, 

Open Space, Local Government Parks, Outdoor Recreation & Environmental Education 

Facilities, Trails, and Planning/Capacity Building. GOCO also awards grants through the 

Colorado Division of Wildlife and Colorado State Parks. 

z Local governments, non-profit land conservation organizations, the Colorado Division of 

Wildlife and Colorado State Parks are eligible to receive GOCO grants. 

z Individuals cannot receive GOCO funding. However, many ideas for projects come from 

citizens and neighborhood groups. For example, if you have an idea for a local park, you could 

share the idea with your local parks department or planning office to see if they would sponsor 

an application for a GOCO grant to help fund the project. If you have an idea for a land 

preservation project, you can contact your local land trust or open space department. 
APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

322 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Toolbox of Incentives 

22

PRIVATE, NONPROFIT 

American Farmland Trust

www.farmland.org 

American Farmland Trust is a private, nonprofit organization founded in 1980 to protect our nation's 

farmland. AFT works to stop the loss of productive farmland and to promote farming practices that 

lead to a healthy environment. AFT identifies "strategic" farmland—productive farmland threatened 

by sprawl—through mapping and other analysis, then works with communities to plan and effect 

farmland conservation. At the state and national level, AFT partners with other groups—from farm 

bureaus to environmentalists—to develop land conservation tools. Using public appearances, 

publications, media outreach and the Web, AFT builds awareness of the need to protect our nation's 

agricultural resources. Through land protection projects and consulting, AFT works with landowners 

to protect farmland and to develop sustainable farming practices. 

Black Canyon Land Trust

(Website under construction.) 

This locally based organization can provide information regarding conservation easements. Contact 

Adell Heneghan at (970) 252-1481. 

Colorado Association of Conservation Districts (CACD)

www.cacd.us 

The CACD, consisting of 77 separate Conservation Districts, provides guidance to landowners in the 

wise and proper management of natural resources. It also provides assistance in seeking funding to 

implement programs aimed at enhancing and protecting Colorado’s natural resources. Each 

Conservation District provides leadership within its geographic area to promote the conservation of 

natural resources, which in turn helps ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of 

the state through a responsible conservation ethic. 

Three Conservation Districts are located within the Curecanti area, and include: 

• Delta Conservation District 

690 Industrial Blvd. 

Delta, CO 81416 

Tel: (970) 874-5726 or (970) 874-0407 

Fax: (970) 874-7768 

e-mail: deltacd@hotmail.com 

• Gunnison Conservation District 

216 N. Colorado 

Gunnison, CO 81230 

Tel: (970) 642-4461 

Fax: (970) 642-4425 

e-mail: beth.ozyp@co.usda.gov 

• Shavano Conservation District --- Web-site: www.shavanoscd.org 

102 Par Place, Suite 4 

Montrose, CO 81401 

Tel: (970) 249-8407, ext. 113 

Fax: (970) 249-5718 

e-mail: shavanocd@ocinet.net 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 323

APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

Toolbox of Incentives 

23

In cooperation with various organizations, universities, and government agencies, conservation districts 

have developed conservation guidelines and other educational material to help manage natural 

resources, including water, weeds, wildlife habitat, soils, pasture land, and range land. Two such 

publications by the Shavano Conservation District (available on the web-site) serve as examples of the 

type of material available: 

• A Manual for Western Colorado Landowners

• Best Management Practices in the Uncompahgre Valley 

CACD publishes a periodic newsletter entitled Colorado Conservator, also available on the web-site. Visit 

the web-site for additional information, or contact: 

Colorado Association of Conservation Districts 

743 Horizon Court, Suite 322 

Grand Junction, CO 81506 

Phone: (970) 248-0070 

Fax: (970) 248-9229 

Colorado Cattlemen’s Agricultural Land Trust (CCALT)

www.ccalt.org 

The mission of the Colorado Cattlemen's Agricultural Land Trust is to help Colorado's ranchers and 

farmers protect their agricultural lands and encourage continuing agricultural production for the benefit 

of themselves, their families and all of Colorado's citizens. 

CCALT’s primary emphasis is to increase awareness among agricultural landowners about the use of 

conservation easements as a means of protecting land and as a tool for facilitating the inter-generational 

transfer of productive lands. CCALT was created with the primary interest of the landowner in mind. 

It is a land trust OF landowners, BY landowners, and FOR landowners. CCALT is proving to be an 

important mechanism in preserving agricultural opportunities and protecting the open space that is 

valued by both Colorado residents and visitors. Contact (303) 431-6422. 

Colorado Coalition of Land Trusts (CCLT)

www.cclt.org 

Formed in 1990, the Colorado Coalition of Land Trusts (CCLT) is the statewide, membership 

organization of local, statewide, regional and national land trusts. Several municipal open space 

programs and state and federal agencies also support the organization. CCLT’s mission is to increase 

the amount of land protected in perpetuity through the voluntary conservation of agricultural land, 

critical wildlife habitat, and other important open lands. Formed to strengthen the land trust 

movement in Colorado, CCLT operates as a clearinghouse for information and services, providing 

technical and organizational assistance to land trusts, educational conferences and workshops, expert 

referrals to assist with land transactions, and educational updates concerning legislation impacting land 

conservation. By encouraging an integrated approach to land conservation, CCLT also aims to 

facilitate collaborative partnerships with local land trusts, landowners, and government agencies, and 

municipal open space programs. To date, CCLT Members have helped to protect over 718,000 acres 

of valuable agricultural, wildlife, and natural resources across the state. 
APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

324 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Toolbox of Incentives 

24

Gunnison Ranchland Conservation Legacy

www.gunnisonlegacy.org 

This organization’s mission statement is to "To create a legacy for future generations by preserving 

ranching and conserving ranchlands in the Gunnison Country." 

Goals: 

z Be a resource to landowners, working with them to accomplish their land preservation goals 

and educating them about various conservation options. 

z Remain at all times a grassroots organization, driven by the expressed conservation needs of the 

landowners themselves. 

z Maintain good relationships with donors and grantors to our organization. 

z Educate the general public about the importance of agricultural land preservation. 

z Be creative and innovative in applying agricultural land preservation techniques. 

z Improve opportunities for the continuity of ranching business from one generation to the next. 

The Gunnison Ranchland Conservation Legacy (GRCL) is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization that was 

established in 1996. This scenic Colorado mountain valley, home of Crested Butte Mountain Resort 

and the Black Canyon National Park, is experiencing tremendous growth. GRCL is working to ensure 

that productive agricultural lands can remain a part of our changing community. Acting on behalf of 

landowners in conjunction with established land trusts, the GRCL facilitates the placement of 

conservation easements on agricultural lands. Ranch families benefit by knowing their land is available 

for agriculture forever. Additionally, their land is significantly reduced in value for estate tax purposes. 

Wildlife species benefit through the permanent protection of large expanses of hay meadows, riparian 

areas, and other habitat. Local residents and visitors benefit from the assurance that these beautiful 

agricultural open spaces will never be developed. 

As of August 2002, the GRCL has permanently protected 18 ranches (7,461 acres) in Gunnison County 

by facilitating the placement of conservation easements. In addition, there are 42 families representing 

over 30,000 acres on the GRCL's waiting list to complete conservation easements. 

Land Trust Alliance www.lta.org 

Founded in 1982, the Land Trust Alliance is the national leader of the private land conservation 

movement, promoting voluntary land conservation across the country and providing resources, 

leadership and training to the nation's 1,200-plus nonprofit, grassroots land trusts, helping them to 

protect important open spaces. "The resources that LTA makes available to us are extraordinary," 

wrote one Montana land trust executive director. "Whether I need technical assistance on a particular 

issue or just someone's ear to bounce an idea off, I have always found the support and assistance I have 

needed, and it has been rendered professionally, quickly, impartially and effectively." The Land Trust 

Alliance provides an array of programs, including direct grants to land trusts, training programs, 

answers to more than 3,000 inquiries for technical assistance each year, and one-on-one mentoring to 

help land trusts build organizations that are equipped to protect open space. Among LTA's services to 

land trusts are: Technical Assistance, Public Policy, Training, Funding, Regional Programs, Getting The Word Out, 

and Standards and Practices.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 325

APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

Toolbox of Incentives 

25

National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD)

www.nacdnet.org 

NACD is the nonprofit organization that represents the nation's 3,000 conservation districts, and 

17,000 men and women who serve on their governing boards. Conservation districts, local units of 

government established under state law to carry out natural resource management programs at the local 

level, work with more than 2.5 million cooperating landowners and operators to help them manage and 

protect land and water resources on nearly 98 percent of the private lands in the United States. 

The idea for soil and water conservation districts was born in 1935. NACD was formed in 1946 by 

conservations districts and their state associations. Today there is a conservation district for almost 

every county in the United States. They serve all the conservation needs of the nation, providing 

education, and helping local citizens conserve land, water, forests, wildlife, and other natural resources. 

The association was founded on the philosophy that conservation decisions should be made at the local 

level with technical and funding assistance from federal, state and local governments, and the private 

sector. As the national voice for all conservation districts, NACD supports voluntary, incentive-driven 

natural resource conservation programs that benefit all citizens. 

The mission of NACD is: "To enable conservation districts to pool their resources to accomplish 

collectively what would be difficult or impossible to accomplish individually." On behalf of 

districts, NACD develops national conservation policies, influences lawmakers, and builds partnerships 

with other agencies and organizations. NACD provides services to its districts to help them share ideas 

in order to better serve their local communities. "Conservation -- Development -- Self-Government". 

NACD maintains relationships with organizations and government agencies; publishes information 

about districts; works with leaders in agriculture, conservation, environment, education, industry, 

religion and other fields; and provides services to its districts. NACD is financed primarily through the 

voluntary contributions of its member districts and state associations. 

Among the goals of the NACD are to: 

• Represent districts as their national voice on conservation issues; 

• Provide useful information to conservation districts and their state associations; 

• Build partnerships with federal and state agencies and other organizations in order to carry out 

district priorities and programs; 

• Analyze programs and policy issues that have an impact on local districts; and 

• Offer needed and cost-effective services to districts. 

Among other things, conservation districts help: 

• Implement farm conservation practices to keep soil in the fields and out of waterways; 

• Conserve and restore wetlands, which purify water and provide habitat for birds, fish and 

numerous other animals; 

• Protect groundwater resources; 

• Plant trees and other land cover to hold soil in place, clean the air, provide cover for wildlife, 

and beautify neighborhoods; 

• Developers and homeowners manage the land in an environmentally sensitive manner; and 

• Communities and schools to teach the value of natural resources and encourage conservation 

efforts. 
APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

326 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Toolbox of Incentives 

26

National Trust for Historic Preservation www.nationaltrust.org 

The National Trust for Historic Preservation provides leadership, education and advocacy to save 

America's diverse historic places and revitalize our communities. The National Trust, founded in 1949, 

is a private nonprofit organization with more than a quarter million members. It supports preservation 

through a wide range of programs and activities, and provides technical and financial assistance to state 

and local organizations. 

The Nature Conservancy www.nature.org 

The mission of the conservancy is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that 

represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. Since 

1951, TNC has been working with communities, businesses and people like you to protect more than 

98 million acres of valuable lands and waters around the world. 

z Over 86% of all funds are used directly for conservation. 

z Total acres protected by the Conservancy in the United States: 14,553,000 

z Acres protected by the Conservancy outside the United States: 83,506,000 

z Current number of Conservancy preserves: about 1,400 

z Conservancy members: approximately 1 million 

 

We can't buy all these preserves, and we certainly can't protect them single-handedly. But by joining 

together with communities, businesses, governments, partner organizations and people like you, we can 

preserve our lands and waters for future generations to use and enjoy. 

Sonoran Institute www.sonoran.org 

A nonprofit organization that works collaboratively with local people and interests to conserve and 

restore important natural landscapes in western North America, engaging partners such as landowners, 

public land managers, local leaders, community residents, and nongovernmental organizations, in an 

innovative approach to conservation called Community Stewardship. 

PUBLICATIONS 

Jim Howe, Ed McMahon, & Luther Propst, Balancing Nature and Commerce in Gateway 

Communities, 1997, Island Press, 166 Pages: This book provides lessons in how to preserve the 

character and integrity of communities and landscapes without sacrificing local economic well-being. 

The authors describe economic development strategies, land-use planning processes, and conservation 

tools that communities from all over the country have found effective. 

Nancy S. Greif and Erin J. Johnson, Editors, The Good Neighbor Guidebook for Colorado, 

2000, Johnson Printing, 274 Pages: The book begins with a series of articles on stewardship, then 

moves on to deal with such topics as water law, land use planning, the law of nuisance, real estate 

transfers, eminent domain and water rights. Public land law and tribal law are examined in some detail. 

The book concludes with an excellent discussion of the alternatives to subdivision: conservation 

easements, sustainable ranching, and tax and estate planning.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 327

APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

Toolbox of Incentives 

27

INDEX OF INCENTIVES AND RELATED 

TERMS AND TOPICS

Advantages to Landowners for Conserving Land .......................................................................... 6 

Advice for Landowners Regarding Resource Conservation.......................................................... 2 

American Farmland Trust ..................................................................................................... 8 and 22 

Awards Program ................................................................................................................................ 12 

Balancing Nature and Commerce in Gateway Communities...................................................... 26 

Black Canyon Land Trust................................................................................................................. 22 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) ........................................................................ 15 

Challenge Cost-Share Program (CCSP - NPS).............................................................................. 16 

City, County, and Community Policies and Incentives................................................................ 12 

Colorado Association of Conservation Districts (CACD) .......................................................... 22 

Colorado Cattlemen’s Agricultural Land Trust (CCALT) ........................................................... 23 

Colorado Coalition of Land Trusts (CCLT).................................................................................. 23 

Colorado Species Conservation Partnership....................................................................... 9 and 21 

Colorado State Grants............................................................................................................ 9 and 21 

Colorado State Historical Fund (Colorado Historical Society)................................................... 21 

Conservation District ........................................................................................................... 22 and 25 

Conservation Easements ......................................................................................................... 6 and 7 

Conservation Security Program (CSP - USDA)............................................................................ 19 

Conservation Study Institute (CSI – NPS)..................................................................................... 16

Cooperative Agreements .................................................................................................................... 4 

Cultural Resource Incentives.............................................................................................................. 9 

Delta Conservation District ............................................................................................................. 22 

Department of Agriculture Grants.................................................................................................. 19 

Direct Purchase.................................................................................................................................... 5 

Donation ............................................................................................................................................... 6 

Endangered Species Incentives.......................................................................................................... 9 

Enhancing Visual Aesthetics............................................................................................................ 12 

Federal Grants.................................................................................................................................... 15 

Fee Simple Acquisition ....................................................................................................................... 5 

Good Neighbor Guidebook for Colorado .................................................................................... 26 

Grazing and Open Space Incentives............................................................................................... 10 

Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund (GOCO).......................................................................... 21 

Gunnison Conservation District ..................................................................................................... 22 

Gunnison Ranchland Conservation Legacy................................................................................... 24 

Incentive Payments to Landowners.................................................................................................. 4 

Information Sources for Resource Conservation Funding and Partnerships........................... 15 

Land and Water Conservation Fund...............................................................................................15 

Land Exchange..................................................................................................................................... 6 

Land Trust Alliance ........................................................................................................................... 24 

Land Trusts........................................................................................................................................... 7 
APPENDIX A: TOOLBOX OF INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION

328 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Toolbox of Incentives 

28

Landowner Incentive Program (LIP - USFWS)............................................................................ 20 

Landowner Incentives......................................................................................................................... 3 

Life Estate............................................................................................................................................. 5 

Livestock Grazing Incentives........................................................................................................... 10 

Low Interest Loans............................................................................................................................ 12 

Management Agreements ................................................................................................................... 4 

Memorandums of Understanding ..................................................................................................... 4 

Mineral Rights ........................................................................................................................... 5 and 7 

National Association of Conservation Districts............................................................................ 25 

National Natural Landmarks Program ........................................................................................... 16

National Park Service Actions and Policies ................................................................................... 13

National Park Service Grants........................................................................................................... 16 

National Register of Historic Places (NPS) ............................................................9, 10, 17 and 21 

National Trust for Historic Preservation .......................................................................................26 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS - USDA)......................................................... 19 

Nature Conservancy ............................................................................................................... 8 and 26 

Open Space Conservation .................................................................................................................. 8 

Partnership Principles............................................................................................................... 2 and 3 

Partnerships Beyond Public Lands (NPS)............................................................................. 2 and 3 

Payment in Lieu of Taxes ................................................................................................................... 5 

Private Stewardship Grants Program (PSGP - USFWS) ............................................................. 20 

Public Education................................................................................................................................ 12 

Purchase and Retained Use and Occupancy.................................................................................... 5 

Quality of Life ...................................................................................................................3, 13 and 14 

Rights of Way ....................................................................................................................................... 5 

Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA - NPS)........................................ 18 

Shavano Conservation District ........................................................................................................ 22 

Sonoran Institute................................................................................................................................ 26 

Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000................................. 18 

Tax Abatements for Owners of Historic Buildings...................................................................... 12 

Tax Benefits to Landowners ................................................................................................. 6 and 12 

Tax Credits for Landowners Who Implement Resource Protection Measures ....................... 12 

Tax Credits for Owners of Properties Listed on the National Register...................................... 9 

TEA-21: The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century .................................................. 18 

Technical Assistance............................................................................................................................ 4 

Third Party Purchase........................................................................................................................... 6 

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR).......................................................................................... 8

Twenty-Five Year Lease...................................................................................................................... 5 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Grants..................................................................................... 9 and 20 

Voluntary Action................................................................................................................................ 12 

Willing Landowners.................................................................................................................. 5 and 7 

April 4, 2005
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 329

APPENDIX B – CURECANTI: GREAT SCENERY, OUTSTANDING RESOURCES, AND GOOD NEIGHBORS

Curecanti: Great Scenery, 

Outstanding Resources, 

and Good Neighbors 

This booklet offers ideas about how agencies and landowners can work together 

to maintain the outstanding qualities that we commonly value - the natural, 

cultural, recreational, and scenic resources that make the area within and 

surrounding Curecanti such a great place to live, work and play. 

Working as a community to conserve 

the resources of the Curecanti area 
APPENDIX B – CURECANTI: GREAT SCENERY, OUTSTANDING RESOURCES, AND GOOD NEIGHBORS

330 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Introduction 

If you own property in the Curecanti Area, you probably chose this area for its scenic 

beauty, wildlife, sense of history, and recreational potential. Or, perhaps you grew up in 

this area, it is a part of your heritage, and you value it for many of the same reasons. 

Nestled in Gunnison and Montrose Counties, the reservoirs and canyons of Curecanti 

National Recreation Area offer a premier wild setting that contains a variety of 

magnificent resources – natural, cultural, scenic, and recreational. Thousands of visitors 

– those who aren’t as fortunate as we are to call this place home - come here to enjoy 

these resources, and this tourism contributes greatly to our local economy. 

The Curecanti area is recognized nationally and locally for its abundant wildlife, 

archeological and historic values, recreational potential and high scenic qualities. This 

has been acknowledged in numerous ways, including: 

x Designating the National Park Service to manage Curecanti National Recreation Area 

(NRA), in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation; 

x Establishing special management areas, such as the Bureau of Land Management's Areas 

of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), and Colorado Division of Wildlife's State 

Wildlife Areas; and 

x Designating the West Elk Loop Scenic and Historic Byway by the State of Colorado, where 

segments of Highway 92 and Highway 50 play an important role. 

The National Park Service has been a part of the 

Gunnison and Montrose communities for over 30 

years now, as caretaker and steward of Curecanti 

NRA. The Park Service shares in the heritage of 

the Gunnison and Montrose communities, and 

shares in the attendant responsibilities 

associated with being a member of a 

community. With you we share in a common 

appreciation for the various qualities of the 

land and the need for a healthy economy. We 

are looking toward the future of our community. 

Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton has set the standard in the Department of the 

Interior by implementing a land management strategy that incorporates her vision of 

the four “Cs” – using Communication, Consultation and Cooperation, all in the service of 

Conservation. We recognize that the magnificent resources and the beauty of the land 

transcend what the National Park Service traditionally thinks of as the NRA boundary. 

Together, as a community, we must explore opportunities to conserve and enhance 

these resources for ourselves, for our future generations that will come to regard this 

area as part of their heritage, and for the many visitors that come to enjoy this part of 

Colorado. 

For additional ideas on how communities and agencies can work together, visit the “Community 

Stewardship Exchange” website referenced on the back cover. 

2 

Working together... 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 331

APPENDIX B – CURECANTI: GREAT SCENERY, OUTSTANDING RESOURCES, AND GOOD NEIGHBORS

What Can a Landowner Do to Move Toward Our 

Common Goals? 

Here are some initial ideas— 

Sustaining our Scenic Resource 

SITING AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 

A carefully located building site can provide lasting and significant 

value to properties that become developed. The landowner 

should consider a variety of factors, including prevailing winds, 

slope, suitable locations for wells and septic systems, vegetation 

removal, access, visual impact of the building, and the angle of 

the sun throughout the year. 

The visual impact of houses and other structures on the natural scene can be minimized 

by using a number of techniques. The building might be located so that the 

surrounding terrain hides the building from nearby roads, trails and recreation sites. 

Trees and shrubbery can be used to shield the site. Buildings can be set back from the 

top of the slope or below the crest of a ridge to lessen visual impact. Buildings with low 

profiles and architectural designs that fit into the surrounding natural landscape result 

in less visual impact. Roads and driveways designed to minimize cut and fill will cause 

less visual impact while reducing erosion and drainage problems. The visual impact of 

power lines and other utilities can be reduced through careful siting or by placing them 

underground. Antennas can be made less conspicuous by limiting their height and 

keeping them in unobtrusive locations. 

For additional design and construction ideas, visit the “Sustainable Design” and “CSU Cooperative 

Extension” websites; and for general information on living in rural areas, visit the “Code of the West” 

website, all referenced on the back cover.

BUILDING MATERIALS OF LOW VISUAL IMPACT 

Proper selection of materials used for siding and roofing can help your home 

complement the natural areas around it. These materials include sidings with muted 

natural shades or "earth tones" on rough-textured material; and dark (gray, green or 

brown) roofs of non-reflective metal, imitation shake, or earth-tone composition 

shingles. Certain building materials may also be preferable because they help reduce 

fire hazard, as described later under "Ensuring Wildfire Safety." 

EXTERIOR LIGHTING 

The Curecanti area offers excellent nighttime “skyscapes”-- opportunities 

for residents and visitors to enjoy stargazing unparalleled in most other 

areas of the country. Use of shielded lighting, and low light fixtures that 

direct the light downward, can reduce glare and sky glow. Try to avoid the 

use of mercury vapor lights, which produce glare and detract from views of 

the night sky. Many local governments prohibit the use of mercury vapor 

luminaries in order to protect views of the night sky. Energy costs can be 

lowered by carefully considering where and how much light is needed. Also 

consider the use of lights activated by motion detectors, which further reduce energy 

costs while increasing security. 

For ideas and resources to help keep our skies dark, visit the “International Dark Sky Association” 

website referenced on the back cover.

3 

...to conserve the resources of the Curecanti area 
APPENDIX B – CURECANTI: GREAT SCENERY, OUTSTANDING RESOURCES, AND GOOD NEIGHBORS

332 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Preserving and Improving Natural Habitat 

Habitats are closely interrelated systems that include natural or native vegetation, rivers 

and streams, food and protection for a variety of animals. There are several ways that 

an owner can improve the habitat on his or her land, thus benefiting area wildlife. 

One of the easiest methods of preserving and improving the habitat is the use of plants. 

When considering new construction, minimize the amount of area that will be cleared 

of vegetation. Keeping as much original vegetation as is reasonable will not only help 

maintain the natural habitat, but also helps in reducing excessive runoff of storm water, 

thereby decreasing erosion. 

Once construction is finished, consider landscaping with native plants. Natives will 

generally have a better chance of survival with less care than introduced species, and 

should be less expensive to maintain. Native plants also provide shelter and food for 

native birds and other animals. 

Avoid the use of exotic, invasive, or non-native plants, because they can spread, and may 

compete with and crowd out native species. If you suspect that exotic species exist on 

your property, and would like information on how to control or eradicate them, you 

may contact officials in Gunnison County or at the National Recreation Area for 

technical assistance. 

Aquatic habitat can be protected and improved with 

vegetation, too. Trees can provide shade and shelter for fish 

that cannot tolerate high water temperature. Plantings along 

a stream bank help anchor the soil and reduce erosion. 

Trees and shrubs can be used to lessen the visual impact of a 

new or existing structure without sacrificing the view from 

porches or balconies. A visual barrier created by plants need 

not be a solid wall. Rather, judiciously placed plants will help 

blend the building into the natural landscape and still offer 

scenic vistas, while providing nesting places for birds and 

other animals. Appropriate landscaping can also reduce 

wildfire hazard, as described later under Ensuring Wildfire 

Safety. 

For additional information on how to conserve wildlife and natural habitat, visit the “Grants at a 

Glance” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website referenced on the back cover. For information regarding 

exotic, or non-native plants, visit the “Colorado Noxious Weeds” and “Exotic, Invasive, or Non-Native 

Species” websites referenced on the back cover. 

Protecting Water Quality 

Maintaining a pure water supply is critical for all of us. A properly placed and 

maintained well protects the water quality on the property where the well is located 

and also on the surrounding properties. Several wells are often drilled into the same 

water source, or aquifer, which make it imperative that the shared water stays clean. 

A site where the land falls away from the wellhead in all directions is the best location. 

At such a site, the chance for impurities to drain into the well is minimized. A well on 

level ground is acceptable, but is not considered to be as safe as a well with positive 

drainage away from the wellhead. A site where surface water moves to or into the 

wellhead should be avoided in all cases. 

4 

Working together... 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 333

APPENDIX B – CURECANTI: GREAT SCENERY, OUTSTANDING RESOURCES, AND GOOD NEIGHBORS

The well must also be separated from potential sources 

of contaminants. Parking areas, septic tanks and drain 

fields, manure storage, and animal feed storage areas 

are sources of possible contamination. The well should 

be located away from areas such as these, and 

whenever possible, uphill from them. 

Protecting water quality also can be applied to surface 

water on the property. Like the water in an aquifer, 

the water in streams, lakes, wetlands, and ponds is a resource that is shared with your 

neighbors, not to mention wildlife. The quality of surface water also has a significant 

impact on the value of a property. Many of the techniques that help protect wellheads 

can also be applied to surface water. In this case, however, the placement of new 

structures or other improvements must be done with regards to potential impact on the 

stream or other waterway. 

Natural or created wetlands can provide protection from flooding and help filter some 

contaminants out of water before it enters the subterranean aquifer. Allowing clean 

water to drain into wetlands can help protect or even improve the quality of the 

aquifer. Areas that are moist or wet throughout most of the year are also less likely to 

burn, thus providing protection from wildfire. 

Techniques for maintaining quality water sources are available on the “Ground and Drinking Water” 

website referenced on the back cover.

Protecting Yourself and Property from Wildfire 

Fire is a naturally occurring event in forested and other rural areas. However, there are 

a number of proven strategies to reduce the likelihood of damage to your home and 

other structures if your property is in an area potentially threatened by wildland fires. 

The added "insurance" of these methods can contribute to your peace of mind. 

Ideas for selecting building sites and materials: 

x Build away from the crest of a hill – Fire can move rapidly up a slope. The steeper the 

slope, the faster the fire can travel. 

x Use composite, slate, tile, or Class–A treated materials on the roof instead of untreated 

cedar or shake shingles. 

x Cover the chimney openings with 1⁄4–inch wire mesh to prevent embers from escaping (or 

entering!). 

Landscaping to Reduce Fire Hazard: 

x Reduce the amount of fuel materials (dead leaves, branches, etc.) near the 

house. 

x Maintain a clearing or “defensible space” of at least 30 feet around the 

house. The defensible space does not need to be only rock or concrete, but 

should be free of trees and other volatile materials. This area can also 

provide easier access for emergency vehicles. 

x Create a landscape design that provides a transition into the natural setting. The design 

may include the defensible space, a zone of irrigated low–growing plants, shrubs, and 

widely spaced trees, and then into the natural environment surrounding the home site. 

For additional details on ways to reduce the threat of fire to your property, visit the 

“Firewise” website referenced on the back cover. 

5 

...to conserve the resources of the Curecanti area 
APPENDIX B – CURECANTI: GREAT SCENERY, OUTSTANDING RESOURCES, AND GOOD NEIGHBORS

334 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

What Assistance is Available to Landowners? 

Landowners who are interested in conserving the natural and scenic character of their 

land have several options for assistance, including working in partnership with counties 

and land-management agencies. Although a few are listed here, we recommend visiting 

the “Curecanti Toolbox of Incentives for Resource Conservation” website referenced on 

the back cover, or request a copy from the Superintendent at the address on the back 

cover. These incentive opportunities include: 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

The National Park Service is currently able to provide some technical assistance, and 

expects to be able to provide a wider range of assistance in the future, including: 

x Advice regarding resource management for topics such as: 

}Conservation of natural and cultural resources, including archeological sites and 

historic structures; 

}Conservation of various plant and animal species, especially those that may be rare or 

threatened; 

}Reduction or elimination of exotic species that are not native to the area; 

x Advice on siting and design considerations for environmentally sensitive development; 

x Working with the county planning process early on to 

identify ways to permit development yet minimize impacts; 

x Determination of the location of regulated wetlands and 

need for permits; 

x Directing landowners to other organizations with expertise 

in certain fields, such as land trusts; 

x Directing landowners to funding sources for worthwhile 

conservation projects; 

x Education programs that inform park neighbors about the 

Curecanti environment and stimulate thinking toward 

sustainable development. 

FUNDING FOR CONSERVATION PROJECTS 

Landowners may be able to obtain funding to assist with 

conservation oriented projects, especially if there is a local “match” available to assist in 

the project. Development and submission of grant applications is more successful when 

done in partnership and cooperation with an agency, the county government, or a local 

or national organization. Examples of funding sources include: 

x Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund (GOCO)—uses a portion of state lottery proceeds for 

projects that preserve, protect, and enhance Colorado's wildlife, parks, rivers, trails, and 

open spaces. 

x National Park Service Challenge Cost Share Program—provides a maximum 50% cost 

share grant for projects that benefit natural, cultural, scenic or recreational resources. 

x Landowner Incentives Program, Private Stewardship Grants Program and the Colorado 

Species Conservation Partnership—the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado 

Division of Wildlife have grants available for landowners and organizations involved in 

voluntary conservation projects that benefit wildlife. 

For a more thorough listing of grant opportunities, visit the “Federal Grants” and “Grants at a Glance” 

websites referenced on the back cover. 

6 

Working together... 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 335

APPENDIX B – CURECANTI: GREAT SCENERY, OUTSTANDING RESOURCES, AND GOOD NEIGHBORS

ALTERNATIVES FOR LAND OWNERSHIP 

As an alternative to owning their properties outright, many landowners find it to their 

advantage for a land trust or a land-management agency (such as the National Park 

Service) to acquire an interest in their property, on a willing-seller basis, for conservation 

purposes. Three common methods include: 

x Conservation, nondevelopment, and/or scenic easements: Easements allow specified 

activities in designated areas, with certain deed restrictions, usually pertaining to 

development, to ensure that private uses will remain compatible with the 

conservation of resource values, and/or public use of the land. The landowner is 

reimbursed for the fair market value of the interest acquired. Although the 

landowner continues to pay property tax, it may be at a reduced amount, and there 

may be significant income tax and estate tax benefits. 

x Purchase and retained use and occupancy: In this situation, the agency buys the 

property at fair market value, but the landowner can continue to live on the land for 

an agreed-upon time period, or for the remainder of his or her life. Although the 

property is taken off the tax rolls, the federal government may provide payment in 

lieu of taxes to the county. Two common forms of retained use are 25-years and life 

estates. 

x Fee simple acquisition: In this situation, the agency acquires all rights or interests in 

the property. Four common methods of acquisition are: 

 Direct purchase at fair market value with appropriated funds. 

 Third party purchase through entities such as land trusts and conservation 

 organizations. 

 Exchange for other government land of equal value. 

 Donation, in which case there would be tax advantages to the landowner. 

An increasingly popular alternative is the conservation easement. It provides 

permanence to land protection, allows owners to retain title to their lands, and provides 

immediate monetary compensation, as well as long-term tax advantages. It is a property 

deed that specifies terms and conditions for managing the land, and specifies what, if 

any, future development can occur. Some landowners wish to leave a legacy to their 

family or future generations—and establishing a conservation easement is one process 

to achieve this. By selling a conservation easement to a land trust or government entity, 

the landowner receives monetary compensation based on appraised value. 

Occasionally, a landowner will donate all or some of the easement, thus receiving state 

and federal tax benefits. Reduced estate taxes may be another benefit. In addition, a 

conservation easement will sometimes lower property taxes which the landowner must 

pay, due to reduced value of the property, based upon the terms of the easement. 

Terms and conditions of the conservation easement are tailored to individual situations. 

The entity holding the easement is responsible for future monitoring of the site to 

ensure the conditions of the easement are met. 

For additional information on conservation easements, visit the websites of the following 

organizations, which are referenced on the back cover; or call the American Farmland Trust at 

(800) 370-4879, the Black Canyon Regional Land Trust at (970) 252-1481, the Colorado Cattlemen’s 

Agricultural Land Trust at (303) 431-6422, Colorado Coalition of Land Trusts (refer to website for 

contact information), the Gunnison Ranchland Conservation Legacy at (970) 641-4386, or the Nature 

Conservancy at (970) 252-0034.

7 

...to conserve the resources of the Curecanti area 
APPENDIX B – CURECANTI: GREAT SCENERY, OUTSTANDING RESOURCES, AND GOOD NEIGHBORS

336 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

For information on local land use policies and development procedures within Gunnison 

County, visit www.co.gunnison.co.us or call the Gunnison County Planning Department at 

(970) 641-0360; and within Montrose County, visit www.co.montrose.co.us or call the 

Montrose County Planning Department at (970) 249-6688. June 2, 2004 

We hope the ideas presented in this booklet will be of value to you, 

and invite your suggestions and comments for future revisions. Thank you. 

This booklet has been produced cooperatively by Gunnison County, Montrose County, and the 

National Park Service.

Looking for Additional Information? 

A variety of information is available over the Internet on the World Wide Web (www). We 

recommend visiting some of these websites for additional information. If you do not have your 

own Internet access, visit a library that offers computers with web access and ask a librarian for 

assistance. 

USEFUL WEBSITES: 

American Farmland Trust — www.farmland.org 

Black Canyon Regional Land Trust (website under construction) 

Code of the West — www.co.gunnison.co.us 

Colorado Cattlemen’s Agricultural Land Trust — www.ccalt.org 

Colorado Coalition of Land Trusts — www.cclt.org 

Colorado Noxious Weeds — www.ext.colostate.edu/ptlk/2103.html 

Community Stewardship Exchange — www.sonoran.org 

CSU Cooperative Extension (landscaping, gardening & other advise) — www.ext.colostate.edu 

Curecanti: Great Scenery, Outstanding Resources, and Good Neighbors (this booklet) — www.planning.nps.gov/

document/good_neighbor.pdf 

Curecanti Toolbox of Incentives for Resource Conservation — www.planning.nps.gov/document/

toolbox_incentives.pdf 

Exotic, Invasive, or Non-Native Species — www.invasivespecies.gov 

Federal Grants (links to a variety of funding sources) — www.grants.gov 

Firewise (making sensible choices in the wildland/urban interface) — www.firewise.org 

Grants at a Glance (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) — www.grants.fws.gov 

Ground and Drinking Water (EPA) — www.epa.gov/safewater 

Gunnison Ranchland Conservation Legacy — www.gunnisonlegacy.org 

International Dark-Sky Association — www.darksky.org 

Land Trust Alliance — www.lta.org 

The Nature Conservancy — www.nature.org 

Sustainable Design: (U.S. Green Building Council) — www.usgbc.org

...to conserve the resources of the Curecanti area 

NOTE: Please be aware that some of the incentives in the "Toolbox of Incentives for Resource Conservation," and the offers of 

"Technical Assistance" in this booklet are ideas that need additional consideration, and in some cases will require Congressional 

or legislative authorization and appropriations of funds. Also, we are not in a position to advise people on matters pertaining 

to legal issues, tax issues, estate planning, etc. For these matters readers should consider seeking professional advice. 

Working together... 

Long Range Planner 

Gunnison County 

200 E. Virginia Ave. 

Gunnison, CO 81230 

(970) 641-7645 

Superintendent 

Curecanti National Recreation Area 

102 Elk Creek 

Gunnison, CO 81230 

(970) 641-2337 

County Planner 

Montrose County 

317 S. Second St. 

Montrose, CO 81401 

(970) 252-4550 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 337

APPENDIX C: LEGISLATION AND POLICY

 APPENDIX C: LEGISLATION, POLICIES, AND OTHER 

DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE CURECANTI NATIONAL 

RECREATION AREA AND THE RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY 

The following laws, policies, and other documents that relate to the Curecanti National 

Recreation Area (NRA) and the Resource Protection Study (RPS) are incorporated by reference. 

For some citations, sections that are particularly relevant to the RPS and are reasonably short 

are quoted. Due to its importance to the NRA and RPS, the 1965 Memorandum of Agreement 

between the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Park Service is provided in its entirety.

 LEGISLATION

Federal Reclamation laws (Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof 

or supplementary thereto)

 Colorado River Storage Project Act of April 11, 1956 (PL 84-485)

Referred to as the CRSP, this Act authorized the creation of the area that has come to be 

known as Curecanti National Recreation Area. Section 8 of that Act, as amended, reads as 

follows:

“Sec. 8. (Recreational and fi sh and wildlife facilities.) — In connection with the 

development of the Colorado River storage project and the participating projects, the 

Secretary is authorized and directed to investigate, plan, construct, operate, and maintain 

(1) public recreational facilities on lands withdrawn or acquired for the development of 

said project or of said participating projects, to conserve the scenery, the natural, historic, 

and archeologic objects, and the wildlife on said lands, and to provide for public use and 

enjoyment of the same and of the water areas created by these projects by such means 

as are consistent with the primary purposes of said projects; and (2) facilities to mitigate 

losses of, and improve conditions for, the propagation of fi sh and wildlife. The Secretary 

is authorized to acquire lands necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance 

of the facilities herein provided, and to dispose of them to Federal, State, and local 

governmental agencies by lease, transfer, exchange, or conveyance upon such terms and 

conditions as will best promote their development and operation in the public interest. 

All costs incurred pursuant to this section shall be nonreimbursable and nonreturnable. 

(70 Stat. 110; 43 U.S.C. 620g)”

Federal Water Project Recreation Act of July 9, 1965 (Public Law 89-72, 79 Stat. 213), as 

amended by the Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992 (Title XXVIII of the 

Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of October 30, 1992 (Public 

Law 102-575, 106 Stat. 4600))

“An act to provide uniform policies with respect to recreation and fish and wildlife 

benefits and costs of Federal multiple-purpose water resource projects, and for 

other purposes.”
APPENDIX C: LEGISLATION AND POLICY

338 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

 Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National 

Conservation Area Act of 1999 (PL 106-76, October 21, 1999): Sec. 11 – Study of Lands 

Within and Adjacent to Curecanti National Recreation Area (Authorizing this Resource 

Protection Study.)

“(a) IN GENERAL. – Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary, acting through the Director of the National Park Service, shall conduct a study 

concerning land protection and open space within and adjacent to the area administered 

as the Curecanti National Recreation Area.

“(b) PURPOSE OF STUDY. – The study required to be completed under subsection (a) shall –

(1) assess the natural, cultural, recreational and scenic resource value and character 

of the land within and surrounding the Curecanti National Recreation Area 

(including open vistas, wildlife habitat, and other public benefi ts);

(2) identify practicable alternatives that protect the resource value and character 

of the land within and surrounding the Curecanti National Recreation Area;

(3) recommend a variety of economically feasible and viable tools to achieve the 

purposes described in paragraphs (1) and (2); and

(4) estimate the costs of implementing the approaches recommended by 

the study.

“(c) SUBMISSION OF REPORT. – Not later than 3 years from the date of the enactment 

of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress that –

(1) contains the fi ndings of the study required by subsection (a);

(2) makes recommendations to Congress with respect to the fi ndings of the study 

required by subsection (a); and

(3) makes recommendations to Congress regarding action that may be taken with 

respect to the land described in the report.

16 USC 4601-9(c)(2) (Referenced in Section 3.5 of NPS Management Policies 2006)

The Secretary of the Interior may “acquire by donation, purchase with donated funds, 

transfer from any other Federal agency, or exchange, lands, waters, or interests therein 

adjacent to such area, except that in exercising his authority under this clause (ii) the 

Secretary may not alienate property administered as part of the national park system 

in order to acquire lands by exchange, the Secretary may not acquire property without 

the consent of the owner, and the Secretary may acquire property owned by a State or 

political subdivision thereof only by donation. Prior to making a determination under this 

subsection, the Secretary shall consult with the duly elected governing body of the county, 

city, town, or other jurisdiction or jurisdictions having primary taxing authority over the 

land or interest to be acquired as to the impacts of such proposed action, and he shall 

also take such steps as he may deem appropriate to advance local public awareness of the 

proposed action. Lands, waters, and interests therein acquired in accordance with this 

subsection shall be administered as part of the area to which they are added, subject to 

the laws and regulations applicable thereto.”
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 339

APPENDIX C: LEGISLATION AND POLICY

 MANAGEMENT POLICIES

Department of Interior Manuals and Policies

 Bureau of Reclamation Manuals and Policies

National Park Service Manuals and Policies

NPS Management Policies 2006

Chapter 1— The Foundation

Section 1.6— Cooperative Conservation Beyond Park Boundaries

“Cooperative conservation beyond park boundaries is necessary as the 

National Park Service strives to fulfi ll its mandate to preserve the natural and 

cultural resources of parks unimpaired for future generations. Ecological 

processes cross park boundaries, and park boundaries may not incorporate 

all of the natural resources, cultural sites, and scenic vistas that relate to 

park resources or the quality of the visitor experience. Therefore, activities 

proposed for adjacent lands may signifi cantly aff ect park programs, 

resources, and values. Conversely, NPS activities may have impacts outside 

park boundaries. Recognizing that parks are integral parts of larger regional 

environments, and to support its primary concern of protecting park 

resources and values, the Service will work cooperatively with others to

 anticipate, avoid, and resolve potential confl icts;

 protect park resources and values;

 provide for visitor enjoyment; and

 address mutual interests in the quality of life of community residents, 

including matters such as compatible economic development and resource 

and environmental protection.

“Such local and regional cooperation may involve other federal 

agencies; tribal, state, and local governments; neighboring landowners; 

nongovernmental and private sector organizations; and all other concerned 

parties. The Service will do these things because cooperative conservation 

activities are a vital element in establishing relationships that will benefi t the 

parks and in fostering decisions that are sustainable.

“The Service will use all available tools to protect park resources and values 

from unacceptable impacts. The Service will also seek to advance opportunities 

for conservation partnerships. Superintendents will monitor land use 

proposals, changes to adjacent lands, and external activities for their potential 

impacts on park resources and values. It is appropriate for superintendents to 

engage constructively with the broader community in the same way that any 

good neighbor would. Superintendents will encourage compatible adjacent land 
APPENDIX C: LEGISLATION AND POLICY

340 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

uses and seek to avoid and mitigate potential adverse impacts on park resources 

and values by actively participating in the planning and regulatory processes 

of other federal agencies and tribal, state, and local governments having 

jurisdiction over property aff ecting, or aff ected by, the park. If a decision is 

made or is imminent that will result in unacceptable impacts on park resources, 

superintendents must take appropriate action, to the extent possible within the 

Service’s authorities and available resources, to manage or constrain the use to 

minimize impacts. When engaged in these activities, superintendents should 

fully apply the principles of civic engagement to promote better understanding 

and communication by (1) documenting the park’s concerns and sharing them 

with all who are interested, and (2) listening to the concerns of those who are 

aff ected by the park’s actions.”

Chapter 3— Land Protection

Section 3.5— Boundary Adjustments

“The boundary of a national park may be modifi ed only as authorized by 

law. For many parks, such statutory authority is included in the enabling 

legislation or subsequent legislation that specifi cally authorizes a boundary 

revision. Where park-specifi c authority is not available, the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, provides an additional but 

limited authority to adjust boundaries.

“The act provides for boundary adjustments that essentially fall into three 

distinct categories: (1) technical revisions; (2) minor revisions based upon 

statutorily defi ned criteria; and (3) revisions to include adjacent real property 

acquired by donation, purchased with donated funds, transferred from any 

other federal agency, or obtained by exchange. Adjacent real property is 

considered to be land located contiguous to but outside the boundary of a 

national park system unit.

“As part of the planning process, the Park Service will identify and evaluate 

boundary adjustments that may be necessary or desirable for carrying out the 

purposes of the park unit. Boundary adjustments may be recommended to:

 protect signifi cant resources and values, or to enhance opportunities for 

public enjoyment related to park purposes;

 address operational and management issues, such as the need for access 

or the need for boundaries to correspond to logical boundary delineations 

such as topographic or other natural features or roads; or

 otherwise protect park resources that are critical to fulfi lling park purposes.

“If the acquisition will be made using appropriated funds, and it is not merely 

a technical boundary revision, the criteria set forth by Congress at 16 USC 

4601-9(c)(2) must be met. All recommendations for boundary changes must 

meet the following two criteria: 

 The added lands will be feasible to administer considering their size, 

confi guration, and ownership; costs; the views of and impacts on local 

communities and surrounding jurisdictions; and other factors such as the 

presence of hazardous substances or exotic species.

 Other alternatives for management and resource protection are not adequate.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 341

APPENDIX C: LEGISLATION AND POLICY

“These criteria apply conversely to recommendations for the deletion of 

lands from the authorized boundaries of a park unit. For example, before 

recommending the deletion of land from a park boundary, a fi nding would 

have to be made that the land did not include a signifi cant resource, value, 

or opportunity for public enjoyment related to the purposes of the park. 

Full consideration should be given to current and future park needs before a 

recommendation is made to delete lands from the authorized boundaries of 

a park unit. Actions consisting solely of deletions of land from existing park 

boundaries would require an act of Congress.”

Chapter 4— Natural Resource Management

Section 4.1.4— Partnerships

“The Service will pursue opportunities to improve natural resource 

management within parks and across administrative boundaries by pursuing 

cooperative conservation with public agencies, appropriate representatives 

of American Indian tribes and other traditionally associated peoples, and 

private landowners in accordance with Executive Order 13352 (Facilitation 

of Cooperative Conservation). The Service recognizes that cooperation 

with other land and resource managers can accomplish ecosystem stability 

and other resource management objectives when the best eff orts of a single 

manager might fail. Therefore, the Service will develop agreements with 

federal, tribal, state, and local governments and organizations; foreign 

governments and organizations; and private landowners, when appropriate, 

to coordinate plant, animal, water, and other natural resource management 

activities in ways that maintain and protect park resources and values. Such 

cooperation may include park restoration activities, research on park natural 

resources, and the management of species harvested in parks. Cooperation 

also may involve coordinating management activities in two or more separate 

areas, integrating management practices to reduce confl icts, coordinating 

research, sharing data and expertise, exchanging native biological resources 

for species management or ecosystem restoration purposes, establishing 

native wildlife corridors, and providing essential habitats adjacent to or 

across park boundaries. 

“In addition, the Service will seek the cooperation of others in minimizing 

the impacts of infl uences originating outside parks by controlling noise 

and artifi cial lighting, maintaining water quality and quantity, eliminating 

toxic substances, preserving scenic views, improving air quality, preserving 

wetlands, protecting threatened or endangered species, eliminating exotic 

species, managing the use of pesticides, protecting shoreline processes, 

managing fi res, managing boundary infl uences, and using other means of 

preserving and protecting natural resources.”

Chapter 8— Use of the Parks

Section 8.1—General

“Many diff erent types of uses take place in the hundreds of park units that 

make up the national park system. Some of those uses are carried out by 

the National Park Service, but many more are carried out by park visitors, 

permittees, lessees, and licensees. The 1916 Organic Act, which created 
APPENDIX C: LEGISLATION AND POLICY

342 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

the National Park Service, directs the Service to conserve park resources 

“unimpaired” for the enjoyment of future generations. The 1970 National 

Park System General Authorities Act, as amended in 1978, prohibits the 

Service from allowing any activities that would cause derogation of the 

values and purposes for which the parks have been established (except 

as directly and specifi cally provided by Congress). Taken together, these 

two laws establish for NPS managers (1) a strict mandate to protect park 

resources and values; (2) a responsibility to actively manage all park uses; 

and (3) when necessary, an obligation to regulate their amount, kind, 

time, and place in such a way that future generations can enjoy, learn, and 

be inspired by park resources and values and appreciate their national 

signifi cance in as good or better condition than the generation that preceded 

them. (Throughout these Management Policies, the term “impairment” is 

construed to also encompass “derogation.”)”

Section 8.2—Visitor Use

“Enjoyment of park resources and values by the people of the United States 

is part of the fundamental purpose of all parks. The Service is committed to 

providing appropriate, high-quality opportunities for visitors to enjoy the 

parks, and the Service will maintain within the parks an atmosphere that is 

open, inviting, and accessible to every segment of American society.

“However, many forms of recreation enjoyed by the public do not require a 

national park setting and are more appropriate to other venues. The Service 

will therefore 

 provide opportunities for forms of enjoyment that are uniquely suited 

and appropriate to the superlative natural and cultural resources found 

in the parks;

 defer to local, state, tribal, and other federal agencies; private industry; 

and nongovernmental organizations to meet the broader spectrum of 

recreational needs and demands.

“To provide for enjoyment of the parks, the National Park Service will 

encourage visitor activities that

 are appropriate to the purpose for which the park was established; and

 are inspirational, educational, or healthful, and otherwise appropriate to 

the park environment; and

 will foster an understanding of and appreciation for park resources and 

values, or will promote enjoyment through a direct association with, 

interaction with, or relation to park resources; and

 can be sustained without causing unacceptable impacts to park resources 

or values . . .”

8.2.2—Recreational Activities 

“The National Park Service will manage recreational activities according to the 

criteria listed in sections 8.1 and 8.2 (and 6.4 in wilderness areas). Examples 

of the broad range of recreational activities that take place in parks include, 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 343

APPENDIX C: LEGISLATION AND POLICY

but are not limited to, boating, camping, bicycling, fi shing, hiking, horseback 

riding and packing, outdoor sports, picnicking, scuba diving, cross-country 

skiing, caving, mountain and rock climbing, earth caching, and swimming. 

Many of these activities support the federal policy of promoting the health and 

personal fi tness of the general public, as set forth in Executive Order 13266. 

However, not all of these activities will be appropriate or allowable in all parks; 

that determination must be made on the basis of park-specifi c planning. 

“Service-wide regulations addressing aircraft use, off -road bicycling, hang 

gliding, off -road vehicle use, personal watercraft, and snowmobiling require 

that special, park-specifi c regulations be developed before these uses may be 

allowed in parks . . .

“The Service will monitor new or changing patterns of use or trends in 

recreational activities and assess their potential impacts on park resources. 

A new form of recreational activity will not be allowed within a park until a 

superintendent has made a determination that it will be appropriate and not 

cause unacceptable impacts. Restrictions placed on recreational uses that have 

been found to be appropriate will be limited to the minimum necessary to 

protect park resources and values and promote visitor safety and enjoyment. 

“Sounds that visitors encounter aff ect their recreational and/or educational 

experience. Many park visitors have certain expectations regarding the sounds 

they will hear as part of their experience. The type of park unit (for example, 

national battlefi eld, national seashore, national recreation area, national park) 

and its specifi c features often help shape those expectations. In addition to 

expectations of muted to loud sounds associated with nature (such as wind 

rustling leaves, elk bugling, waves crashing on a beach), park visitors also expect 

sounds refl ecting our cultural heritage (such as cannons fi ring, native drumming, 

music) and sounds associated with people visiting their parks (such as children 

laughing, park interpretive talks, motors in cars and motorboats).

“Park managers will (1) identify what levels and types of sounds contribute 

to or hinder visitor enjoyment, and (2) monitor, in and adjacent to parks, 

noise-generating human activities— including noise caused by mechanical or 

electronic devices—that adversely aff ect visitor opportunities to enjoy park 

soundscapes. Based on this information, the Service will take action to prevent 

or minimize those noises that adversely aff ect the visitor experience or that 

exceed levels that are acceptable to or appropriate for visitor uses of parks.”

 MANAGEMENT PLANS

Curecanti National Recreation Area General Management Plan (GMP) (July 1980)

Provides long-term management direction for natural and cultural resources, visitor use 

and understanding, and facilities development for the NRA; including initial recreational 

facility development agreed-upon by Reclamation and NPS, and funded by Reclamation 

in accord with Section 8 of the CRSP Act.
APPENDIX C: LEGISLATION AND POLICY

344 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

General Management Plan – Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument (now a 

National Park) and Curecanti National Recreation Area (September 1997)

Provides long-term management direction for natural and cultural resources, visitor use 

and understanding, and potential facilities improvements. Supersedes the 1980 GMP for 

Curecanti NRA.

GENERAL AGREEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS PERTAINING THERETO

Letter from Conrad L. Wirth, NPS Director to Fred A. Seaton, Secretary of the 

Interior – Subject: Designation of Responsibility for Carrying Out the Provisions of 

Section 8, Public Law 485, Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) and Participating 

Projects (Written February 17, 1958; Concurred by Alfred R. Gloze, Commissioner of 

Reclamation on March 12, 1958; Approved by Seaton on April 21, 1958)

This letter was a precursor to the 1965 Memorandum of Agreement between Reclamation 

and NPS (next citation), which describes agency responsibilities for the management of 

the area that has come to be known as the Curecanti National Recreation Area. In this 

letter, Reclamation and NPS jointly recommended that the Secretary designate NPS as 

the agency responsible for carrying out the Department’s obligation under Section 8 of 

the CRSP Act, except as it relates to provision number (2) concerning fi sh and wildlife. 

The Secretary approved this.

Memorandum of Agreement Between the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Park 

Service Relating to the Development and Administration of Recreation on the Curecanti 

Unit of the Colorado River Storage Project (February 11, 1965) (entire text below)

THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 11th day of 

February 1965, between the BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, hereinafter referred to as the 

Bureau, and the NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, hereinafter referred to as the Service as 

agencies of the United States of America:

WITNESSETH THAT:

WHEREAS the Bureau is proceeding with the construction of the Curecanti Unit as a 

part of the Colorado River Storage Project authorized by the Act of April 11, 1956 (70 Stat. 

105); and

WHEREAS the Service has been designated as the agency responsible for carrying out the 

provision of Section 8 of the said Act of April 11, 1956; and

WHEREAS lands are being acquired and public lands have been withdrawn for the 

purposes of the project, as authorized by the aforesaid Act of April 11, 1956; and

WHEREAS a large number of persons are expected to use the lands and waters of such 

withdrawn area for the purposes of recreation; and

WHEREAS the Act of August 7, 1946 (60 Stat. 885) authorizes the use of appropriated 

funds by the Service for the administration, protection, improvement, and maintenance 

of areas under the jurisdiction of other agencies of the Government when such areas are 

devoted to recreational use pursuant to cooperative agreements; and

WHEREAS the Service is experienced in administering areas devoted to recreational use:
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 345

APPENDIX C: LEGISLATION AND POLICY

NOW, THEREFORE, the Bureau and the Service do hereby mutually agree as follows:

ARTICLE I

GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. The Bureau shall retain complete authority over and responsibility for construction, 

operation and maintenance of the Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, and Crystal Dams 

and Reservoirs for primary project purposes together with all engineering works in 

connection therewith. Except for the areas required by the Bureau for construction, 

operation and maintenance of the dams, the Service shall administer all lands and 

waters within the project area, providing for recreation therein. The agreed areas 

of authority between the Bureau and the Service include all those lands acquired, 

withdrawn, or segregated by the Bureau for project purposes under the authority 

of the aforesaid Act of April 11, 1956. These lands are generally depicted on the 

enclosed drawing marked Exhibit “A” and numbered SA-CUR-7101. This Exhibit 

may be revised at any time to illustrate changes in the project area as a result of land 

acquisition, or additional withdrawls (sic).

2. The parties to this agreement acknowledge that, as authorized by Congress, each 

has an interest in the storage, release, and utilization of the water which is to be 

impounded by the Curecanti Unit, and that such unit was authorized, and is being 

constructed, for the primary purposes of irrigation, fl ood control, and the generation 

of hydro-electric power and the incidential (sic) purposes of recreation, and fi sh 

and wildlife conservation. This agreement shall not be construed to confl ict with 

the primary purposes of the project or to alter the Bureau’s control over storage 

and release of water. However, to the extent consistent with the authorized primary 

purposes of said project, the Bureau shall operate the dams and reservoirs in keeping 

with the Secretarial policy which provides for full consideration of public recreation 

and fi sh and wildlife conservation on reservoir projects undertaken by the Federal 

Government. The Service shall determine the optimum and minimum pool levels 

desirable for public recreational use and provide the Bureau with this information for 

consideration in carrying out the purposes of this paragraph.

3. Prior to making any new development or granting any concession, lease, license or 

permit which, because of its nature or location will aff ect the bureau’s activities at the 

Curecanti Unit Dams, the Service shall obtain the concurrence of the Bureau. Before 

making any new development or granting any concession, lease, license, or permit at 

the Curecanti Unit Dams which will aff ect the recreational and tourist facilities on the 

remainder of the project area, the Bureau shall obtain the concurrence of the Service. 

If either party does not concur in such proposed development, concession, lease, 

license, or permit the proposal shall be held in abeyance until agreement is reached by 

the Bureau and the Service or the Secretary has resolved any diff erences of opinion.

4. The parties to this agreement acknowledge and understand that the fulfi llment of the 

agreement is contingent upon the availability of funds for the purposes thereof.

ARTICLE II

FUNCTIONS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Subject to the primary purposes of the project, area limitations, and other provisions 

contained in Article I hereof, the Service in its administration of the project area for 

recreation, shall be responsible for:

1. Preparing plans for and constructing recreational facilities, including roads and trails.
APPENDIX C: LEGISLATION AND POLICY

346 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

2. Advertising for, evaluating and approving or rejecting bids and negotiating contracts 

for the installation or construction of recreational facilities.

3. Negotiating and executing contracts, with private individuals, partnerships or 

corporations for supplying necessary visitor services related to recreational use of 

the project area, including, but not limited to, use of the waters for boating, canoeing, 

bathing, and sightseeing; and prescribing and enforcing reasonable rates and 

standards for the supplying of such services.

4. Establishing and enforcing policies regarding the recreational use of lands and waters 

in the project area. It is understood that grazing activities within that portion of the 

project area administered by the Service shall be controlled and supervised by the 

Service in consultation with the Bureau of Land Management.

5. Promulgating and enforcing such rules and regulations as are necessary or desirable 

for the conservation of any historic or archeological remains, and control of all 

archeological excavation and historical or archeological research or as may be needed 

for recreational use and enjoyment of the area and for the safety of visitors.

6. Establishing and maintaining protective, interpretive, and other facilities and 

services as may be necessary for the safe and full use and enjoyment of the area for 

recreational purposes. Public information activities and services shall be provided by 

the Service through coordination with other Interior agencies in order to facilitate 

public understanding of the interrelated programs of these agencies within the area.

7. Control of transportation in the area under its jurisdiction, whether by land, water, 

or air, to the extent consistent with Federal law, but such control shall not aff ect 

transportation the Bureau may require for the performance of its functions or 

transportation governed by Article III, paragraphs numbered 3 and 4.

8. Extending to the Bureau and other agencies involved technical assistance in the 

planning and development of exhibits and interpretive devices oriented toward visitor 

understanding and enjoyment of the project and related resources.

9. Negotiation of agreements or coordination of activities with State and Federal wildlife 

agencies as desirable for the conservation, protection and interpretation of wildlife 

consistent with applicable law.

10. Such other functions as are reasonably related to, or necessary for, its administration 

of the project area.

ARTICLE III

FUNCTIONS OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Subject to the area limitations and provisions contained in Article I hereof, the Bureau 

shall be responsible for:

1. Construction, operation and maintenance of the Blue Mesa, Morrow Point and 

Crystal Dams and Reservoirs and all engineering works incidental thereto or in 

connection therewith, together with all appurtenances thereof for the proper storage, 

release, protection and utilization of water under the Federal Reclamation Laws.

2. Consultation with the Service on matters involving the development or administration 

of recreational facilities or public information services to be provided in the areas 

required by the Bureau for construction, operation and maintenance of the three 

dams in the Curecanti Unit.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 347

APPENDIX C: LEGISLATION AND POLICY

3. Establishment and enforcement of rules and regulations governing public access 

to the Curecanti Unit Dams and the engineering works appurtenant thereto, and 

the control of traffi c on the roads providing immediate access to the dams and their 

appurtenant engineering works.

4. Establishment of and, in cooperation with the Service, enforcement of such 

limitations governing approach to the dams by water as may be necessary either for 

their effi cient functioning or for safety of the public.

5. Coordination and preparation of reservoir management plans in cooperation with the 

Service and other concerned Federal, State, and local agencies, for management of the 

three dams and reservoirs in the project area.

6. Consultation with the Service so that recreational development and administration 

of the project area will be coordinated with construction and operation of the 

Curecanti Unit.

ARTICLE IV

TERMINATION

This memorandum shall remain in force unless the parties thereto mutually agree to its 

termination or termination is directed by the Secretary of the Interior, or until enactment 

by the Congress of inconsistent or superseding legislation.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: Signed by George B. Hartzog on December 21, 1964

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: Signed by Floyd E. Dominy on January 8, 1965

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR: Approved and Signed by Stewart L. Udall on 

February 11, 1965

Memorandum of Understanding Between the Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture and the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior (July 11, 

1966), and supplemental letters of extension pertaining thereto

This document, as amended, relates to the management of lands and provides approval 

for construction and maintenance of facilities on USFS lands withdrawn by Reclamation 

and other lands supplementally agreed to. The document clarifi es responsibilities for each 

agency on these lands that are included within the NRA. 

Agreement regarding final funding for development of facilities at Curecanti 

National Recreation Area under Section 8 of the Colorado River Storage Project Act 

(August 30, 1979)

This agreement between NPS and Reclamation includes a list of Development Packages 

for Section 8 Funding, and a list of Recreation Facility Criteria agreed-upon by NPS and 

Reclamation in accordance with and drawn from Curecanti’s 1980 GMP. The agreement 

also recognizes that “Legislation for fi nal establishment of Curecanti National Recreation 

Area will be recommended to congress by the National Park Service in a timely fashion 

such that enactment coincides approximately with completion of this construction 

program.” The recommendations in the Proposed Action of the RPS satisfy this intent, 

albeit later than originally intended.

The agreement was signed by Glen T. Bean, then NPS Rocky Mountain Regional 

Director, and N. W. Plummer, then Reclamation Upper Colorado Regional Director. The 

text on the fi rst page of that agreement appears below. The details of the development 
APPENDIX C: LEGISLATION AND POLICY

348 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

packages and facilities are not included here. It will be noted that the text refers to 

“Curecanti’s 1979 General Management Plan”. The fi nal version of that GMP was 

published in July 1980, and is previously referenced in this Appendix.

“It is herewith agreed that the attached list of development packages shall constitute the 

minimum level of development necessary to satisfy Curecanti National Recreation Area’s 

public recreation needs at the initial level of use. This list is in accordance with and is 

drawn from Curecanti’s 1979 General Management Plan.

“Funding for completion of facility development to this level shall be the responsibility 

of the U.S.B.R. in accord with Section 8 of the CRSP Act. The U.S.B.R. will program this 

construction over approximately fi ve years beginning in FY 1980.

“The NPS shall assume all responsibilities for operation, maintenance, construction 

of future facilities, and replacement of existing facilities upon the completion of 

this construction program. Legislation for fi nal establishment of Curecanti National 

Recreation Area will be recommended to Congress by the National Park Service in a 

timely fashion such that enactment coincides approximately with completion of this 

construction program.” 

Interagency Agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau of Land 

Management (Signed by Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation and Director, Bureau of 

Land Management on March 25, 1983)

“This agreement sets forth the basic principles of the Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for coordinating land use 

planning, land resource management, land conveyance and exchange, and cooperative 

services.” (from Section 1.)

Master Interagency Agreement, No. 86-SIE-004, Between the Bureau of Reclamation 

[Reclamation], Department of the Interior and the Forest Service [Service], U. S. 

Department of Agriculture, Concerning Water Resource Related Projects of the Bureau 

of Reclamation Within or Adjacent to National Forest System Lands (Signed by Chief, 

Forest Service on 1/16/87, and Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation on 4/6/87)

“The purpose of this Master Agreement is to establish procedures for planning, 

developing, operating, and maintaining water resource projects and related programs 

of Reclamation located on or aff ecting lands and resources administered by the Service, 

and for the Service’s planning and implementation of activities on National Forest System 

(NFS) lands within the total area of project infl uence.” (from Section II.)

Memorandum of Understanding between the Bureau of Reclamation and the National 

Park Service for Planning, Program Coordination, and Technical Assistance (Signed by 

Reclamation Commissioner and NPS Director in September 1988)

This agreement establishes the policy framework for formal and informal coordination 

and communications between offi cials at every level of Reclamation and NPS, to improve 

public services and the management of natural and cultural resources, and recreation and 

visitor use, through cooperative eff orts. The provisions of this agreement extend to all 

planning and program activities of each bureau that may have impacts on the plans and 

programs of the other. The Resource Protection Study falls under this agreement, and has 

been conducted in accordance with the stipulations and intent thereof.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 349

APPENDIX C: LEGISLATION AND POLICY

General Agreement Between National Park Service (Curecanti National Recreation 

Area), and US Bureau of Reclamation (Upper Colorado Region), Relating to the 

Resource Protection Study and Associated Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Curecanti National Recreation Area (Signed for Reclamation on 3/8/01 by Arlo H. Allen, 

acting for the then acting Upper Colorado Regional Director, Rick L. Gold; and signed 

for NPS on 4/6/01 by Sheridan Steele, then Superintendent, Curecanti NRA)

Describes NPS and Reclamation roles and responsibilities for this Resource 

Protection Study.
APPENDIX C: LEGISLATION AND POLICY

350 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 351

APPENDIX D: NEEDED AGREEMENTS, RESEARCH, AND ACTION PLANS

 APPENDIX D: NEEDED AGREEMENTS, RESEARCH, 

AND ACTION PLANS 

The following items are needed to fully and successfully implement Alternative 2 (The Proposed 

Action) of this Resource Protection Study (RPS). Many of them would be dependent upon 

congressional action regarding the Proposed Action.

New Memorandum of Agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Park Service

The existing Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) and the National Park Service (NPS), “Relating to the Development and 

Administration of Recreation on the Curecanti Unit, Colorado River Storage Project,” was 

approved by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI) on February 11, 1965. That 

MOA describes the roles and responsibilities of the two agencies in managing the reservoirs, 

dams, natural and cultural resources, recreation, and associated facilities, within the area 

generally known as the Curecanti National Recreation Area (NRA). Although these roles and 

responsibilities would remain the same with the legislated establishment of the NRA, a new MOA 

would need to be written to respond to new legislation for the NRA, and to changes that have 

occurred since 1965, such as completion of development of the originally intended recreational 

and administrative facilities, and the maturing of the relationship between Reclamation and the 

National Park Service.

The new MOA would be coauthored by the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Park 

Service, and it would describe in detail the responsibilities of the two agencies regarding the 

administration and management of everything within the new NRA. The preparation of a new 

MOA would likely be encouraged, and/or mandated, by the legislation. It is expected to be 

similar to the existing 1965 MOA, wherein the following responsibilities would continue.

 The National Park Service would manage the natural, cultural, and recreational resources, 

and associated facilities.

 Reclamation would manage all facilities associated with Reclamation Projects.

 In areas where management responsibility overlaps, the two agencies would work 

together, when necessary, to resolve confl icting uses with consideration for the legislative 

mandate for each agency, in a manner that is consistent with the primary purposes of 

Reclamation’s Aspinall and Uncompahgre projects.

 There would likely be some clarifi cation as to management responsibilities for lands 

within the NRA that are not withdrawn for Reclamation project purposes (such as NPS 

acquired land and land transferred to the NRA from other agencies).

 Land Protection Plan

This RPS has identifi ed a Conservation Opportunity Area (COA) of privately-owned lands 

surrounding the NRA that contain natural, cultural, scenic, and potential recreational resources 

that warrant special conservation measures that would be compatible with NRA goals and 

objectives. The RPS has also described various tools of resource conservation that could be 

employed in partnership between the National Park Service and neighboring landowners. Those 

tools have varying degrees of commitments and costs associated with them. A land protection 

plan (LPP) is needed to specify in detail which tool, or set of tools, would be necessary and 

appropriate to apply to each parcel of land within the COA, to satisfy the mutual conservation 

goals and objectives of both the landowner and the National Park Service. The LPP would 

establish a priority of needs for conserving each parcel of land, and the estimated costs involved. 

An environmental assessment and a public involvement process would accompany the LPP.
APPENDIX D: NEEDED AGREEMENTS, RESEARCH, AND ACTION PLANS

352 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Land Appraisals

For those parcels identifi ed within the LPP for acquisition, either in fee simple or less-than-fee 

interest (for example, a conservation easement), and subject to the willingness of the landowner 

to sell such interest or interests, government ordered land appraisals would be needed to 

determine fair market value, and provide other information that would be used in negotiations 

with landowners. An environmental hazard assessment would additionally be required prior to 

any such acquisition.

Boundary Surveys, Posting, and Fencing

After agreed-upon interests have been acquired from participating landowners, or other 

agreements have been consummated, the National Park Service would need to conduct and 

document boundary surveys and mark new boundaries that have been created. The National 

Park Service would work with landowners along boundary segments in locations where fencing 

would be necessary because of individual circumstances, such as the need to control livestock.

Specifi c Implementation Plans for New Lands

The existing NPS GMP, under which the NRA is managed, was approved in 1997. Specifi c 

Implementation Plans, or a revised GMP, would have to be produced to address resource 

management; visitor use, recreation, and interpretation; and associated development that would 

be required for the new lands added to the NRA.

Agreement(s) Pertaining to Curatorial Collections Associated with Land Transfers

Just as the National Park Service conducts research on cultural resources within the NRA, 

partnering agencies have conducted research on the archeological and/or historical resources on 

some of their lands that would come under NPS administration as part of the new NRA. Many 

artifacts have been collected as a result of that research. The National Park Service and the other 

agencies would continue to conduct such research on their lands, which are connected by history, 

regardless of the location of modern boundaries. In order to maintain the integrity of these 

curatorial collections, and the sites where the artifacts were discovered, it would be necessary 

for the National Park Service to enter into agreements with the other agencies pertaining to the 

management of both the collections and the sites.

Additional Strategy and Long-Term Goals and Objectives for the Joint Agency Management 

Eff ort 

The National Park Service would need to increase its eff orts to identify and meet common goals 

and objectives among agencies and across jurisdictional boundaries for conservation of resources. 

Input to Development of Gunnison County Comprehensive Plan

The National Park Service would need to participate in the development of that portion of the 

 Gunnison County Comprehensive Plan that includes planning for the area surrounding the 

NRA. Also, the potential exists for working with the county to establish a special geographic area 

(SGA) for the Curecanti area. This would include identifying strategies and policies that allow 

development and/or encourage conservation practices that minimize impacts to area resources.

Increased Interaction with Montrose County

The National Park Service would increase its participation with the Montrose County planning 

staff and management to mutually identify resources worthy of conservation measures, and 

to identify and implement tools to achieve goals and objectives. A potential tool would be the 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 353

APPENDIX D: NEEDED AGREEMENTS, RESEARCH, AND ACTION PLANS

establishment by the county of a conservation zone, or overlay zone, that would include the NRA 

and COA. Such a zone could be used to guide development decisions in that area. However, 

establishment of such a zone would likely occur only during or after revision of the county 

master plan.
APPENDIX D: NEEDED AGREEMENTS, RESEARCH, AND ACTION PLANS

354 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 355

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

 PUBLISHED MATERIAL

Andrews and Righter 

1992 Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of 

Natural History. 

Bio-Environs, Inc.

2001 Protection for the Gunnison River Great Blue Heron Colony, Curecanti National 

Recreation Area, Gunnison, Colorado. September 5, 2001.

Bodine, Jennifer and Tomas M. Koontz

2003 Impact of Federal Lands on Local Government Tax Bases. Policy Summary Series # 

JB2002. Environmental Communication, Analysis and Research for Policy Working 

Group. School of Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

 Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Department of the Interior

1991 USDOI, BLM, Montrose District, CO. Gunnison Resource Area Resource 

Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Draft, March 1991.

1998 Uncompahgre Basin Area Resource Management Plan, Montrose District. Final, 

September 1998.

2001 Gunnison Sage-grouse Conservation Plan. Available on the Internet at <www.co.blm.

gov/gra/sagegrouse.htm>.

2003 Payments in Lieu of Taxes, Total Payments and Total Acres by State/County, Summary 

by State and County, Fiscal Year 2003, from Washington DC offi ce - viewed 12/30/03. 

Available on the Internet at <www.blm.gov/pilt>.

2004 Payments in Lieu of Taxes, PILT Question and Answer, from Washington DC offi ce, 

last dated 11/19/04. Available on the Internet at <chriscannon.house.gov/wc/Features/

PILT_QandA.pdf>.

 Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), U. S. Department of the Interior, 

1998 January 30, 1998, Land Withdrawal Handbook, United States Government Printing 

Offi ce, Denver, CO. 

Colorado Department of Local Aff airs (CDOLA), Demography Section

2002 U.S. Bureau of the Census data, April 1990 April 2000; Prepared by the Colorado 

Demography Section, December 2002, Denver, CO; viewed 12/31/03 and 1/29/04. 

Available on the Internet at <www.dola.state.co.us/dlg/demog/pop_totals.html >.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)

 2002 Water Quality Control Commission. Regulation Number 35 – Classifi cations and 

Numeric Standards for Gunnison and Lower Delores River Basins.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

356 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)

2005 Colorado Department of Transportation. Right of Way Manual Chapter 11, State and 

Federal Lands Acquisition. December 2005.

Colorado Division of Housing (CDH) 

nd Housing Cost Projections. Available on the Internet at <www.region10.net>.

 Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW)

2000 Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Wildlife Commission. Colorado Listing of 

Endangered, Threatened and Wildlife Species of Special Concern. Available on the 

Internet at <wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern>.

2002a The Boreal Toad. Available on the Internet at <wildlife.state.co.us/Research/Aquatic/

BorealToad>. 

2002b Coldwater Reservoir Ecology. Available on the Internet at <wildlife.state.co.us/

Research/Aquatic/ColdwaterResEcology>. 

2003 Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Wildlife Commission. Colorado Listing 

of Endangered, Threatened and Wildlife Species of Special Concern. Updated 

April 2003. Available on the Internet at <wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/

SpeciesOfConcern>.

2004a Colorado Division of Wildlife web page, listing and information on state wildlife areas, 

available on the Internet at <wildlife.state.co.us/LandWater/StateWildlifeAreas>. 

Accessed on 1/23/04. 

2004b The Economic Impacts of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in Colorado; 

Prepared for Colorado Division of Wildlife by Todd Pickton, BBC Research & 

Consulting, and Linda Sikorowski, Colorado Division of Wildlife; October 31, 2004. 

Available on the Internet at <wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/7F348ECE-AF04-4162-

A4D1-3C7975285004/0/Report.pdf>.

Colorado Labor Market Information

2004 Accessed January 5, 2004. Available on the Internet at <lmigateway.coworkforce.com/

lmigateway/labormarket.asp >. 

Colorado Native Plant Society (CNPS)

1997 Colorado Native Plant Society and the Rocky Mountain Nature Association. Rare 

Plants of Colorado. 2nd Edition.

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP)

1999 Colorado Natural Heritage Program Rare Plant Field Guide. Available on the Internet 

at <www.cnhp.colostate.edu/rareplants/intro.html>.

2000 Colorado Natural Heritage Program Rare Plant Field Guide Update. Available on the 

Internet at < www.cnhp.colostate.edu/documents/2002/rare_plant_guide_update.pdf 

>.

2002 Gunnison County Wetland Survey.

Colorado Plateau Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit (CPCESU) 

2002 Colorado Plateau Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit. Available on the Internet at 
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 357

BIBLIOGRAPHY

<www.cens.nau.edu/Orgs/CPCESU>.

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Task Force

2001 Conservation agreement and strategy for Colorado River cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) in the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

 Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins. 87p. accessed at: < wildlife.state.co.us/

Research/Aquatic/CutthroatTrout>.

Emslie, Steven D. 

2003 Department of Biological Sciences, University of North Carolina, Wilmington. <www.

cpluhna.nau.edu/Research/gunnisonchange1.htm> accessed fall, 2003.

Espey, Molly and Kwame Owusu-Edusei

2002 “Federal Land Acquisition and Payments-in-lieu of Taxes: One Piece in the Puzzle of 

County Finance.” Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm and Resource Issues. Spring, 

2002. 

Fiorillo, Anthony R., Richard L. Harris, and Cathleen L. May 

1996 Late Jurassic Dinosaur Remains from Curecanti National Recreation Area. In: Park 

Science. Volume 16, No 4. National Park Service, US Department of the Interior. Fall 

1996. 

Fitzgerald, James P., Carron A. Meaney, and David M. Armstrong. 

1994 Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History.

Grand Mesa Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG)

2005 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Management Indicator 

Species Assessment. Available on the Internet at <www.fs.fed.us/r2/gmug/policy>. 

Last amendment May 2005.

 Gunnison County

2001a Gunnison County Board of County Commissioners and Dave Michaelson, 

Powerpoint slide show on Gunnison County Comprehensive Plan Process. Power 

point slide 10. March 2001.

2001b Gunnison County Land Use Resolution. Adopted by the Gunnison County, Board of 

Commissioners, January 8, 2001. Available on the Internet at <www.gunnisoncounty.

org/dept/plan/index.php?Regulations_and_Guidelines:Land_Use_Resolution>.

Houk, Rose

1991 Southwest Parks and Monuments Association 1991. Curecanti National Recreation 

Area.

Hyde, Dr. A.S., and Kevin J. Cook

1980 A checklist to the Birds of Curecanti National Recreation Area. Southwest Parks and 

Monuments Assoc. Unpaginated. Jamestown, ND.

Kingery, Hugh E.

1998 Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership with Colorado 

Division of Wildlife. 

Landis, T.W. 

2000 Triangulate T-Rex! Modern Mapping Enters Jurassic Park. Accessed at: <www.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

358 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

geoplace.com/gw/2000/0008/0800tri.asp >. Note: Article no longer available on the 

Internet.

Loomis, John, PhD and Robert Richardson, MBA

2002 Economic Values of Protecting Roadless Areas in the United States. An analysis 

prepared for the Wilderness Society and Heritage Forests Campaign. Department of 

Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Michaelson, Dave

nd Powerpoint presentation on “The Gunnison County/National Park Service 

Experience” and the “ Gunnison County Comprehensive Plan: A Cooperative MultiAgency Approach” by Dave Michaelson, Long Range Planning and GIS, Gunnison 

County, Colorado.

 Montrose County Master Plan

2001 Prepared by Balloff et – Entranco. Adopted October 25, 2001.

Mueller and Marsh 

2003 Bonytail and Razorback Sucker in the Colorado River Basin – Gordon Mueller 

(National Biological Service) and Paul Marsh (Arizona State University). <biology.

usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/r166.htm>.

National Park Service (NPS), U. S. Department of the Interior

nd Curecanti National Recreation Area – Offi cial NPS Website: < www.nps.gov/cure/

naturescience/index.htm > accessed 04/12/2005.

nd-a “List of Classifi ed Structures.” Park fi les.

nd-b Historic Structures and Resources. Available on the Internet at <www.nps.gov/cure/

historyculture/cimarron.htm> accessed 11/24/03.

nd-c Old Spanish National Historic Trail Website. Available on the Internet at <www.nps.

gov/olsp>.

nd-d NPS Map: tes_63.rtl 10/23/00 - CNHP potential conservation areas/outstanding 

signifi cance areas.

1994 “Curecanti National Recreation Area: Archeological Overview and Assessment 

(Revised).” Park fi les.

1995a How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Available on the Internet at 

<www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15>. 

1995b Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 

Available on the Internet at <www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/standards_guidelines.htm >.

1996 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and the 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. Washington, DC.

1997 General Management Plan for Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument 

and Curecanti National Recreation Area. Available at the Technical Information 

Center, Denver Service Center, fi le number D-63B. Denver, CO. Also available on the 

Internet at <www.nps.gov/cure/parkmgmt/index.htm>.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 359

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2000 Park Staff Workshop and Photo Assessment Open Houses, by Jeff Heywood. Trip 

Report. Intermountain Support Offi ce, December 4-8, 2000.

2001a Director’s Order #12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision-making; and DO-12 Handbook. Washington, DC. Available on the Internet at 

<www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DOrder12.html> and <www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/

RM12.pdf>.

2001b “Strategic Plan for Curecanti National Recreation Area, October 1, 2001 – September 

30, 2005.”

2002a “ American Indian Affi liation: Curecanti National Recreation Area,” by David Ruppert. 

Technical paper. Intermountain Support Offi ce, Denver, CO. 

2002b Recreation Opportunities Workshop (ROW), by Jeff Heywood. Trip Report. 

Intermountain Support Offi ce, March 5-7, 2002.

2002c Economic Analysis of Personal Watercraft Regulations in Curecanti National 

Recreation Area, Draft Report, September 2002. Prepared for NPS, Environmental 

Quality Division by LAW Engineering and Environmental Services, BBL Sciences, and 

RTI.

2002d Environmental Assessment for the Wind Cave National Park Boundary Expansion 

Study – Public Review Draft. Wind Cave National Park, Hot Springs, South Dakota. 

2003a Personal Watercraft Use Environmental Assessment; Curecanti National Recreation 

Area. Available at the Technical Information Center, Denver Service Center, fi le 

number D-89 (April 2003). Denver, CO. 

2003b Curecanti National Recreation Area Website. Dams and Reservoirs. Available on 

the Internet at <www.nps.gov/cure/historyculture/aspinall_unit.htm> Accessed 

November 7, 2003.

2005 The National Parks: Index 2005-2007; Government Printing Offi ce, 2005; available on 

the Internet at <www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/nps/index2005_07.pdf>.

2006a National Park Service Management Policies 2006. Washington, DC, August 31, 2006. 

Available on the Internet at <www.nps.gov/policy/MP2006.pdf>.

2006b National Park Visitor Spending and Payroll Impacts, Fiscal Year 2005. Daniel J. Stynes, 

PhD, Michigan University; August 2006. Available on the Internet at <web4.canr.msu.

edu/mgm2>.

Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS)

nd Colorado Division of Wildlife <www.ndis.nrel.colostate.edu>.

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 

2004 Personal Communication with Tom Weber, NRCS on January 22, 2004 RE: Prime 

Farmlands.

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page

nd Available on the Internet at <www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/chekbird/r6/

curecan.htm>. (Version 18JUL00). 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

360 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Region 10, League for Economic Assistance and Planning

2005 Region 10 Review, Volume 12, Winter 2005. Also available on the Internet at <www.

region10.net/pdf/review_2005.pdf>.

Seidl, Andy and Stephan Weiler

2001 Economic Impacts of the National Park designation of the Black Canyon of the 

Gunnison on Montrose County, Colorado. Department of Agricultural and Resource 

Economics, Colorado State University, and Center for Research on the Colorado 

Economy (CRCE), Fort Collins, Co. < dare.agsci.colostate.edu/csuagecon/extension/

docs/impactanalysis/apr01-08.pdf >.

State of Colorado, Legislative Council

2002 Paper on growth in assessed land values statewide. <www.state.co.us/gob_dir/leg_dir/

Econ/2002>. Accessed on January 28, 2004. Note: Article no longer available on the 

Internet.

 Trust for Public Land (TPL)

1999 “Short-term Eff ect of Land Conservation on Property Tax Bills.” Trust for Public Land 

website under Massachusetts. From a TPL New England Region Report, 1999.Viewed 

on January 28, 2004 at <www.tpl.org/tier3_cdl.cfm?content_item_id=1136&folder_

id=827>.

University of Colorado Museum (CU)

nd Vascular plant species list for Montrose and Gunnison Counties, available on the 

Internet at: <cumuseum.colorado.edu/Research/Botany/Databases/county_species.

html> accessed March 15, 2005. 

U.S. Census Bureau

nd Population Statistics. Available on the Internet at <www.census.gov>.

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

2002 National Wetlands Inventory.

 U.S. Forest Service (USFS)

2004a Cirsium perplexans (Rydb.) Petrak (Rocky Mountain Thistle): A Technical 

Conservation Assessment.

2004b Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests web page, Revision of 

Forest Plan. Accessed on January 22, 2004. <www.fs.fed.us/r2/gmug/policy/plan_rev>.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

2003 2001-2002 Mammalian Inventory Final Report for Selected Northern Colorado 

Plateau Network Parks. Submitted to: Angela Evenden, National Park Service, 

Northern Colorado Plateau Network, Moab, UT. Prepared by: Shauna Haymond, 

Michael A. Bogan, and Ernest W. Valdez, U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science 

Center, Arid Lands Field Station, Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, 

Albuquerque, NM.

2005 Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Status of Listed Species and Recovery 

Plan Development, Uncompahgre Fritillary Butterfl y. Accessed online 03/14/2005 at: 

<www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/others/recoprog/states/species/boloacro.htm>.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 361

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Water and Power Resources Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, 

1981 Project Data, United States Government Printing Offi ce, Denver, CO. 

 Western Area Power Administration (Western)

2004 Correspondence provided by Susan Starcovich of Western’s Lakewood Corporate 

Services Offi ce.

 Wilderness Society

1999 “Colorado County Economic Profi les.” Profi les for Montrose and Gunnison 

Counties. Updated in August 2000. Wilderness Society, Washington D.C. Accessed on 

1/29/04. <www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/EconProfi le_ColoradoCounties.

cfm>.

2002 Colorado’s National Forests and the Colorado Economy. Accessed February 5, 2004 

<www.wilderness.org>. Note: the document is on longer available at the website.

 PERSONAL COMMUNICATION

June 28, 2001 memo from USFWS Ecological Services, Grand Junction regarding threatened 

and endangered species in the vicinity of Curecanti National Recreation Area. Sent to Ken 

Stahlnecker, CURE Chief of Resource Stewardship and Science (USFWS 2001). The information 

was updated by USFWS on March 17, 2005.

March 21, 2002 letter from Sheridan Steele to Gunnison County Commissioners regarding 

County’s Land Use Resolution.

2004 personal communication from Norma Davis, Deputy Assessor of Gunnison County.

2004 personal communication from Dave Roberts, Management Assistant, Curecanti NRA and 

Black Canyon of the Gunnison NP regarding land uses in the RPS study area.

2004 personal communication with Ken Stahlnecker, NDIS, Impact Analysis Matrix.

April 5, 2005 personal communication from Dangoule Bockus, Ecologist, Black Canyon of the 

Gunnison NP and Curecanti NRA, regarding vegetation.

November 27, 2007 personal communication from Daniel Kowalski, Fisheries Biologist, Colorado 

Division of Wildlife (Montrose), reconfi rming CDOW’s Colorado River cutthroat trout stocking 

program, including occasional stocking of the Gunnison River below Crystal Reservoir.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

362 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 363

GLOSSARY

 GLOSSARY 

Acquired Land (Reclamation): Lands purchased or otherwise obtained for Reclamation 

project purposes, as opposed to withdrawal of federal public domain lands; acquired lands 

were usually private lands necessary for project purposes (adapted from CRSPA and general 

Reclamation usage).

Aff ected Environment: Associated with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

“Aff ected Environment” includes those environments and/or resources (also called “impact 

topics”) that are expected to be impacted by a major federal action. Such impact topics are 

identifi ed in the Purpose and Need chapter, and in the Aff ected Environment chapter of the 

Environmental Impact Statement. The aff ects, or impacts, are evaluated in the Environmental 

Consequences chapter. Environments and/or resources that are not likely to be aff ected by 

the Proposed Action or alternatives to the Proposed Action need not be evaluated in detail. In 

other words, they may be dismissed from further evaluation. The key impact topics that are 

dismissed are listed in the Purpose and Need chapter.

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC): This program is managed by the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM). The ACEC program was conceived in the 1976 Federal Lands 

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which established the fi rst conservation mandate 

for the BLM. The ACEC mandate directs the BLM to protect important riparian corridors, 

threatened and endangered species habitat, cultural and archeological resources and unique 

scenic landscapes that the agency believes need special management attention.

Conservation: The words “conservation,” “preservation,” and “protection” are used throughout 

this document. Although they have similar meanings, there are fi ne diff erences. In the 

context of this RPS, Conservation is defi ned as follows: Planned action or non-action to 

protect, preserve or renew natural and cultural resources in a manner that will ensure social 

and economic benefi ts to meet the needs and aspirations of this and future generations. It 

includes additional levels of resource management than either preservation or protection, 

and includes such actions that can sustain, restore, and/or enhance such resources and the 

environment. See also the defi nitions for “preservation” and “protection.”

Conservation Easement: A restriction deeded to a qualifi ed third party, usually a land trust 

or government body, that permanently limits certain activities on real property, in order to 

protect conservation values such as biodiversity, wildlife habitat, open space, or scenic values. 

The restriction stays with the property through successive owners. The restriction reduces 

the “highest and best” economic use of the property so that the property’s value refl ects only 

the allowed uses. If the landowner donates the easement as a gift, this reduction in value 

may be eligible as a charitable tax deduction. An easement also can be sold to non-profi t 

or government agencies to provide revenue. Sometimes an easement is sold at less than its 

appraised value (bargain sale), resulting in a combination of income and a tax deduction.

Conservation Opportunity Area (COA): An area outside and adjacent to the proposed NRA 

boundary, comprised of 24,300 acres of private land, where the National Park Service would 

be authorized by Congress to use various tools to partner with park neighbors to conserve 

resources and values identifi ed as important to the NRA. These tools would range from 

technical assistance, to conservation easements, to fee-simple acquisition, subject to the 

willingness of the landowners to participate.
GLOSSARY

364 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Cooperating Agency: A federal agency other than the one preparing the NEPA document (lead 

agency) that has jurisdiction over the proposal by virtue of law or special expertise, and that 

has been deemed a cooperating agency by the lead agency.

Curecanti Area Conservation Study (CACS): An eff ort begun by Gunnison County just prior 

to the beginning of the Resource Protection Study (RPS), and conducted in parallel with the 

fi rst few years of the RPS process, to make recommendations which would help conserve 

the natural, cultural, recreational and scenic resources surrounding Curecanti NRA that are 

important to county residents and area visitors.

Curecanti: Great Scenery, Outstanding Resources, and Good Neighbors: A booklet of ideas 

about how government land-managing agencies and private landowners can work together 

to maintain the outstanding resource qualities that are commonly valued. Although the 

document was created specifi cally for the Resource Protection Study at Curecanti National 

Recreation Area in Colorado, the ideas may be applicable throughout the country. The 

booklet is contained in Appendix B of this Final RPS/EIS. 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A detailed NEPA document that is prepared 

when a proposed action or alternatives have the potential for significant impact on the 

human environment.

Fee Simple Acquisition: Acquisition of all rights or interests in land through means such as 

direct purchase, third party purchase, land exchange, bargain sale, or donation. For the 

purposes or the RPS, acquisition would not occur unless the landowner is willing. 

General Management Plan: A broad umbrella document that sets the long-term goals for a 

National Park Service unit, in terms of desired natural and cultural resource conditions to be 

achieved and maintained over time; necessary conditions for visitors to understand, enjoy, 

and appreciate the unit’s signifi cant resources; the kinds and levels of management activities, 

visitor use, and development that are appropriate for maintaining the desired conditions; 

and indicators and standards for maintaining the desired conditions. The long-term goals 

are based on the unit’s foundation statement, which in turn is based on the unit’s enabling 

legislation or presidential proclamation, and is a statement of the unit’s purpose, signifi cance, 

fundamental resources and values, primary interpretive themes, and relevant laws and 

executive orders that apply to NPS or to the individual unit. 

Impairment: A major or severe adverse impact resulting from NPS activities in managing the 

NRA, visitor activities, or activities undertaken by concessioners, contractors, and others 

operating in the area, on NRA resources or values that are necessary to fulfi ll specifi c 

purposes identifi ed in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the area; key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the area, or to opportunities for enjoyment of the area; or 

identifi ed for conservation by the area’s general management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents. There would be no impairment of the NRA’s resources or values from 

the implementation of either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 of the RPS.

Implementation Plan: A plan that provides project-specifi c details needed to implement an 

action(s) in an area of a National Park Service unit, and explains how the action(s) helps 

achieve long-term goals identifi ed in the unit’s general management plan. 

Joint Agency Management Eff ort (JAME): A continuing eff ort initiated by the Resource 

Protection Study whereby the National Park Service, American Indian tribes, and other 

federal, state, and local government agencies in the Curecanti area are working in partnership 

to address resource management and visitor use issues of mutual concern that extend beyond 

the NRA.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 365

GLOSSARY

Land Acquisition Ranking System (LARS): A system through which park units propose lands 

for acquisition. Such lands generally need to be already authorized for acquisition consistent 

with NPS land policy, by congressional approval, or by existing legislation. Land parcels 

entered into the LARS system are then evaluated and ranked in priority, fi rst at the regional 

level (in competition with other parks in that region), and then nationally (in competition 

with all parks nationwide).

Land Protection Plan: Land protection plans identify the conservation methods that will 

be sought or applied to protect resources and to provide for visitor use and park facility 

development. Each plan will identify acquisition priorities, what level of acquisition might 

be needed (fee simple, conservation easement, right-of-way for access, etc.), and whether 

alternatives to acquisition are available (for example, conservation agreements) that meet the 

needs of the NPS unit. The plan will also identify the legal authorities for the NPS unit (for 

example, statute providing for acquisition and any willing seller requirements).

Land Trust: A private, nonprofi t organization that, as all or part of its mission, actively works 

to conserve land. The purpose is generally to ensure long-term stewardship of important 

resources, whether natural, cultural, scenic, or agricultural, through the acquisition of full 

or partial interests in property. Land trusts may receive donations of money, property or 

development rights, and may use its assets and/or partnered funds to purchase property or 

development rights.

Land Units: Defi ned for purposes of resource analysis during the development of alternatives, 

 Land Units refer to sections of public and/or private land adjacent to and outside the existing 

National Recreation Area, in which the natural, cultural, and scenic resources, and potential 

recreational opportunities were considered by the study team to be most important to 

conserve for NRA purposes. Eight land units were identifi ed (letters A through H), according 

to geographical location, similarity of resource values, reasonably foreseeable activities, and 

land ownership (public or private). The land units are shown on the Alternative 2 map, and 

constitute the “proposed lands,” as defi ned later in this Glossary. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): The National Environmental Policy Act was 

passed by Congress in 1969 and took eff ect on January 1, 1970. It established this country’s 

environmental policies, and provided the tools to carry out these goals by mandating that 

every federal agency prepare an in-depth study of the impacts of “major federal actions 

having a signifi cant eff ect on the environment” and alternatives to those actions, and 

requiring that each agency make that information an integral part of its decisions. NEPA 

also requires that agencies make a diligent eff ort to involve the interested and aff ected public 

before they make decisions aff ecting the environment.

National Recreation Area (NRA): National Recreation Area is a designation for a protected 

area in the United States that provides diverse recreation opportunities for a large number 

of people. Many of these areas are centered on large reservoirs and emphasize water-based 

recreation. Many NRAs are administered by the National Park Service; however, other 

agencies manage NRAs as well. Table 17 summarizes current NRAs, grouped by administering 

agencies.

National Recreation Area Boundary: This document from time to time refers to an existing 

NRA boundary that contains: (1) lands administered under the 1965 Memorandum of 

Agreement between Reclamation and NPS; (2) lands administered under supplemental 

agreements with other agencies; and (3) lands acquired by NPS for addition to the NRA 

as specifi cally authorized by Congress. The reader should be aware that Congress has yet 

to legislatively establish a boundary for the NRA. Therefore, the term “boundary” in this 
GLOSSARY

366 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

instance is to be interpreted as an informal descriptor, and not as an offi cial line authorized by 

Congress.

Payments in Lieu of Taxes: Federal payments to local governments that help off set losses in 

property taxes due to nontaxable Federal lands within their boundaries.

Preservation: The words “conservation,” “preservation,” and “protection” are used throughout 

this document. Although they have similar meanings, there are fi ne diff erences. In the context 

of this RPS, Preservation is defi ned as follows: The protection of natural and cultural resources, 

through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical mechanisms, in such a way that, 

so far as is practicable, the intrinsic values are safeguarded from unnatural disturbance. It does 

not imply preserving an area or structure forever in its present state, because natural events and 

natural ecological processes are expected to continue. Preservation is part of, and not opposed 

to, conservation. Preservation suggests that natural resources will be left undisturbed, while 

conservation usually implies that some resource management action will be taken. See also the 

defi nitions for “conservation” and “protection.”

Proposed Lands: The term “proposed lands” refers to (1) Public lands adjacent to the NRA that 

were identifi ed through the study process to warrant transfer to NPS for inclusion within 

the NRA for more overall effi cient management for all agencies concerned, in keeping with 

each agency’s mission; and (2) Private lands that warranted increased conservation measures 

relating to NRA goals and objectives, to be included within a Conservation Opportunity Area 

National Recreation Area, State Administered By 

 !*&+%*!%)*!&%#(*!&%(#)" +(+&
%%$%*

$!)**!&%#(*!&%(.) *!&%#("(,!

! &(%%/&%*!&%#(*!&%(&%*% *!&%#("(,!

&)*&%
(&()#%)*!&%#(*!&%()) +)**) *!&%#("(,!

 ** && !,(*!&%#(*!&%(	&(! *!&%#("(,!

 !")-*!&%#(*!&%("# &$ *!&%#("(,!

+(%*!*!&%#(*!&%(&#&(& *!&%#("(,!

#-(*(	'*!&%#(*!&%(%%)/#,%! *!&%#("(,!

	*-/*!&%#(*!&%(-&(" *!&%#("(,!

	+#/!,(*!&%#(*!&%()*!(!%! *!&%#("(,!

	#%%/&%*!&%#(*!&%((!0&% *!&%#("(,!

	&#%	**!&%#(*!&%(#!&(%! *!&%#("(,!


" #%*!&%#(*!&%() !%*&% *!&%#("(,!


"*!&%#(*!&%(, *!&%#("(,!


"(!* *!&%#(*!&%(.) *!&%#("(,!


"&&),#**!&%#(*!&%() !%*&% *!&%#("(,!

&))
"*!&%#(*!&%() !%*&% *!&%#("(,!

%*&%!&+%*!%)*!&%#(*!&%(#!&(%! *!&%#("(,!

 !)"/*&-%*!&%#(*!&%(#!&(%! *!&%#("(,!

#$!%	&(*!&%#(*!&%(*  &()*(,!


##)%/&%*!&%#(*!&%((&% &()*(,!


%*-% 
")*!&%#(*!&%(%*+"/ &()*(,!

(&%+%)*!&%#(*!&%((&% &()*(,!

!%!*!&%#(*!&%(()" &()*(,!

**#)%"*!&%#(*!&%(&%*% &()*(,!

-*&&* *!&%#(*!&%( & &()*(,!

 )*1 (!%!*/*!&%#(*!&%(#!&(%! &()*(,!

Table 17: National Recreation Areas Throughout the United States
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 367

GLOSSARY

(COA), outside the proposed NRA boundary. As defi ned for this study, the “proposed lands” 

do not include lands within the existing NRA that were identifi ed as having the potential 

to be deleted from the NRA, via transfer to neighboring government agencies, or exchange 

for private lands within the COA. The proposed lands are a feature of Alternative 2 – the 

 Proposed Action, and are a subset of the larger “study area” that was initially examined at the 

beginning of the study. The proposed lands are divided into eight “land units,” A through H, 

to facilitate analysis.

Protection: The words “conservation,” “preservation,” and “protection” are used throughout 

this document. Although they have similar meanings, there are fi ne diff erences. In the context 

of this RPS, Protection is defi ned as follows: The use of legal and physical mechanisms 

to protect resources and the environment from further degradation. It does not include 

management actions that might serve to restore or sustain, but emphasizes lessening or 

preventing adverse impacts to resources from external infl uences and activities. It may 

be more narrow in its perspective than conservation or preservation, such as to protect a 

single species, geographic area, or structure. See also the defi nitions for “conservation” and 

“preservation.”

Purchase and Retained Use and Occupancy: Purchase of property from a willing landowner 

at fair market value; wherein the owner can reside on the property rent free until death (life 

estate), or some other agreed-upon time period, such as 25 years (25-year lease).

Reclamation Facilities: Those structures and features necessary to, and constructed, operated, 

maintained, and reconstructed for the furtherance of Reclamation project purposes. Such 

structures and features may include, but are not necessarily limited to: dams, reservoirs, 

diversion structures, roads, ditches, canals, tunnels, telephone lines, power plants, electrical 

transmission lines, substations, switchyards, communications sites, towers, rights-of-way, real 

property, buildings, storage yards, fences, and borrow areas.

Reclamation Lands: Real property administered by the Secretary of the Interior, acting 

through the Commissioner of Reclamation, including all acquired and withdrawn lands and 

water areas under jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation (Section 2803 of P.L. 102-575). 

Reclamation retains administrative jurisdiction on its lands for project purposes.

Reclamation Project: Any water supply or water delivery project constructed or administered 

by the Bureau of Reclamation under the Federal reclamation laws (the Act of June 17, 1902 

[32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093; 43 U.S.C. 371], and Acts supplementary thereto and amendatory 

thereof (from Section 2803 of P.L. 102-575).

Reclamation Works: The structures, facilities, and appurtenances necessary to meet 

Reclamation project purposes, together with the lands and land interests, and water and 

water interests necessary for such works. Generally, Reclamation project works may 

include, but are not necessarily limited to, dams, reservoirs, canals, laterals, ditches, roads, 

transmission lines, substations, buildings, power plants, offi ces, warehouses, residences, 

telephone lines, parking areas, gates, fences, siphons, and the necessary land and land 

interests, and water and water interests, such as leases, rights-of-way, and easements.

Relinquishment: A notifi cation to BLM by a Federal holding agency (such as Reclamation) that:

The public lands withdrawn or reserved for its use are no longer needed, or

The withholding or segregation of land from settlement, sale, location, or entry is no 

longer required. (Reclamation, 1998)
GLOSSARY

368 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Revocation: The actual cancellation of a withdrawal by BLM, but does not necessarily open 

the land to settlement, sale, location, or entry under some or all of the general land laws. 

(Reclamation, 1998)

Section 106: The section of the National Historic Preservation Act which requires that federal 

agencies take into account the eff ects of their actions or undertakings on historic properties, 

and aff ord the State Historic Preservation Offi cer and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation an opportunity to comment.

Special Status Species: Special status species include any species which is listed, or proposed for 

listing, as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine 

 Fisheries Service under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act; any species designated 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a “listed,” “candidate,” “sensitive” or “species of 

concern;” and any species which is listed by the State as state endangered, state threatened, or 

a species of special concern. In addition, within the context of this document, Special Status 

Species includes NRA Sensitive Species. This includes a variety of species found in the NRA, 

which the staff considers to be native species of concern.

 Subordinate (verb): To place a senior real property interest in a position of lower priority to that 

of an otherwise junior real property interest in the same real estate. (adapted from a portion of 

the defi nition of “Subordination agreement” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1990)

Subordination: The act or process by which a person’s rights or claims are ranked below those of 

others. (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1990)

Substantive Comment: In regards to comments made in response to the Draft RPS/EIS during 

the public review and comment period, comments are considered substantive if they 

suggest changes in the stated alternatives; suggest new alternatives; or debate or question 

the method of impact analysis or a point of fact. In particular, they are substantive if they 

(1) cause changes or revisions in any of the alternatives, including the Proposal Action; (2) 

suggest diff erent viable alternatives; (3) question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of the 

environmental analysis; or (4) question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of information in 

the environmental impact statement. Comments that only agree or disagree with any of the 

alternatives or NPS policy are not considered substantive.

Toolbox of Incentives for Resource Conservation: A handbook of ideas for neighbors in the 

Curecanti area, to encourage private landowners, local communities, and city, county, state, 

and federal agencies to work in partnership to manage their lands for more eff ective resource 

conservation. Although this document was created specifi cally for the Resource Protection 

Study at Curecanti National Recreation Area in Colorado, the ideas can be applied to other 

areas throughout the country. The Toolbox is contained in Appendix A of this Final RPS/EIS.

Tract: For the purposes of this study, an area of land identifi ed for potential deletion from the 

NRA. For example, 10 such tracts of land are shown on the Alternative 2 map. 

Withdrawal: A withholding of an area of Federal land from settlement, sale, location, or entry 

under some or all of the general land laws, to:

 Limit activity under those laws in order to maintain other public values in the area,

 Reserve the area for a particular public purpose or program, or

 Transfer jurisdiction of the area from one Federal agency to another.

(From Reclamation, 1998, Land Withdrawal Handbook).

Withdrawn Lands (Reclamation): Federal lands and land interests requested and set aside for 

Reclamation project purposes through a withdrawal process.
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 369

INDEX

INDEX

A

Abbreviations and Acronyms: xix-xx, 210

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP): 164, 167

Air Quality: 29-30, 49, 341

American Indian: iv, 10-11, 16, 27, 33, 99, 101, 164, 167, 209, 216, 218-219, 290, 293-295, 341, 359, 364

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC): xix, 97, 126-127, 172, 203, 242, 266-267, 269, 330, 363

Aspinall Unit (Wayne N. Aspinall Storage Unit): iii, v, ix, 1, 5, 7, 9, 12-15, 28, 36, 60-62, 81, 84, 100, 124-125, 127, 

129, 137, 203, 214, 223-225, 228, 238-240, 351

B

Backpacking: 76, 103-105, 169, 172, 174

Bicycling (Bicycle, Biking): 19, 76, 103, 105, 131, 172, 174, 178, 225, 233, 243, 246-247, 318, 343

Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park (BLCA): i, iii, ix, 2, 6-7, 14, 41, 44, 47, 62, 86, 95, 102, 105, 109, 

112-113, 115, 122-123, 136-137, 139, 158, 207, 213, 216, 221, 249, 270, 278, 288-289, 292, 324, 338, 344

Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of 

1999: i, iii, 6-7, 136, 338

Blue Mesa Dam: 1, 3, 13-14, 43, 50, 55, 86-87, 100, 104, 109, 111-114, 124, 128-129, 172, 205, 345-346 

Blue Mesa Reservoir (BMR): 1, 3, 10, 13, 19-21, 25, 41, 47, 84, 86-88, 90-91, 100, 103-114, 119, 125-128, 132, 138, 

142, 170, 172-173, 177-179, 181, 190, 193, 195, 199, 203, 206, 216, 247, 274, 276

Boating (Motorboats, Motorized boats, Sailboats): 13-14, 102-103, 107-108, 161-162, 343, 346

Bureau of Land Management (BLM): 1, 3, 8, 24, 27, 29, 32, 41, 43-44, 47, 49-51, 54-55, 64, 70-71, 81, 89-90, 94, 

97, 102-103, 115, 122-128, 136-137, 139, 142, 151, 159, 162, 171-173, 176, 180, 185, 197-201, 203-207, 210-213, 219, 

221, 223, 226, 232, 234-236, 242, 244-245, 252, 254, 266-269, 274, 288, 290-291, 330, 346, 348, 355, 363, 

367-368

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation): i-vi, viii, ix-xi, 1, 3, 5-9, 12-18, 24, 27-29, 32, 35-36, 39-41, 43-45, 47, 

49-52, 54-55, 60-64, 70-71, 75, 80-81, 84, 99-100, 102, 114-115, 117, 119-120, 122-125, 127-129, 136-137, 139, 141, 

158-159, 161-162, 166, 168, 189, 193, 195, 197-198, 201, 203-204, 207, 209-214, 218-219, 223-232, 235-236, 238-

240, 249, 255-261, 278, 288, 291, 330, 337, 339, 343-344, 346-351, 355, 363, 365-368

C

Camping (Boat-in Camping): 13-14, 18, 76, 101, 103-105, 108-109, 128, 169-172, 174, 236-237, 248, 314, 343

Canoeing: 103, 108, 346

Climbing (Ice Climbing, Rock Climbing): 76, 104, 106, 121-122, 170, 172, 174, 343

Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW): 3, 8, 15, 20, 27, 29, 39, 41, 43-44, 46-47, 49, 53, 55, 70, 72, 81, 89-91, 

93-95, 102-103, 106, 108, 122-123, 127, 152, 187, 197, 200, 205-207, 210-213, 219, 223, 225, 228, 234, 240, 262, 

267, 291, 304, 309, 320-321, 330, 334, 356-357, 359, 361

Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA): 210-211, 219, 291

Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP): i, iii, ix, xi, 1, 5-6, 9-15, 24, 32, 40, 43, 55, 61-62, 69, 84, 100, 103, 110, 

118-119, 124, 126, 137, 140, 168, 223-225, 229-231, 238, 256-257, 259-260, 337, 343-344, 347-348, 351, 363

Conservation Easement(s): ii, vi-vii, xi, 17, 24, 40, 45-47, 51-53, 56-59, 66-67, 69, 71, 76, 78-80, 120, 133, 136, 

139, 142, 149, 151, 155, 159, 162, 166-167, 176, 180-183, 185, 187-190, 193-195, 198-199, 202, 206-207, 246, 248, 

250, 253, 270, 279, 299, 304-307, 309, 311-312, 314, 321-324, 326, 335, 363

Conservation Opportunity Area (COA): ii, vi-vii, xi, 23-24, 27, 37-38, 41, 45-47, 49-52, 54-58, 60, 63-66, 69, 

71, 73-78, 80, 83-85, 107, 114, 120-122, 131-136, 139-142, 144, 148-152, 156-157, 159-160, 162-163, 167, 169-174, 

176-182, 184, 186-187, 192-195, 199, 202-203, 206-208, 215, 217, 233-235, 238, 241, 244-246, 249-250, 266, 

270, 277, 280-281, 285, 351, 353, 363, 366-367

Conservation Potential: 29, 30, 32, 34

Cross-Country Skiing: 14, 18, 103, 105-106, 169, 172, 343

Crystal Dam: 1, 3, 6, 13-14, 43, 55, 84, 86, 124, 129, 136, 205, 345-346

Crystal Reservoir: iii, 1, 3, 10, 13, 18, 21, 25, 37, 41, 43, 47, 55, 84, 86-87, 95, 103-105, 107, 110-111, 113, 124-126, 128,

132, 135, 178-179, 181, 201, 205-206, 228-229, 345-346, 361

Cultural Landscapes: 17, 31, 33, 358
INDEX

370 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Cultural Resources: i, iii, v, 5, 8-9, 11, 18, 25, 31, 46, 51, 59, 73, 76, 99-101, 104, 120, 122, 140-141, 143, 145, 152, 157, 

161, 164-169, 175, 177, 190, 197-198, 202, 204, 208, 218, 234, 240-242, 250, 263-265, 280-281, 288-290, 316-

317, 334, 339, 342-344, 348, 351-352, 363, 366

Curecanti Area Conservation Study (CACS): 209-211, 214, 364

Curecanti: Great Scenery, Outstanding Resources, and Good Neighbors: 17, 27, 329-336, 364

D

Depletable Resource: 32, 34, 65

E

Ecologically Critical Areas: 29-30

Energy Requirements: 29-30

Environmental Justice: 32, 34

Ethnographic Resources: 31, 33, 164, 167

F

Fee Simple Acquisition (Fee Simple, Land Acquisition): ii, vii, xi, 24, 40, 45, 47, 51-53, 56-58, 64, 66-67, 71, 

73, 78, 80, 107, 136, 140, 142, 151, 159, 162, 181-182, 184, 187, 193-195, 199, 202, 231, 233, 299, 304-305, 311, 335, 

352, 363-365

Fisheries: 17, 30, 73-74, 91, 148-149, 151, 228, 271, 361, 368

Fishing: xi, 72, 103, 106-108, 126, 170, 173, 186-187, 223, 248-249, 356

Floodplain(s): 17, 29, 30, 84

Four Cs – Communication, Consultation, and Cooperation: all in the service of Conservation: 24, 46, 330

G

General Management Plan (GMP): x, 7, 9, 19, 29, 61, 63, 67, 73, 77, 103, 109, 112-113, 139-145, 149, 152, 155, 157, 

159-160, 162-163, 166-167, 171, 174, 181, 183, 234, 246-247, 289, 343-344, 347-348, 352, 358, 364

Geology: 17, 30, 36, 38, 73, 85, 87, 97, 105, 134, 143-145, 288, 290

Grazing: 17, 59, 66-67, 76, 88, 92, 94, 120-121, 123, 125-126, 128, 136, 142, 146, 148, 151, 170-171, 173, 193, 195, 197-

198, 200-201, 204-207, 212, 215-216, 299, 305, 310-311, 327-328, 346

Gunnison, City of: 19, 105, 114-116, 211, 216, 243, 271-272, 274, 276

Gunnison County: v, ix, 3, 21, 25, 41, 47, 56-57, 62, 88, 94, 96, 102, 105, 115-117, 119-120, 122, 138-139, 155, 158-159, 

162, 180, 183, 185-188, 193, 195, 206, 209-213, 215, 219-220, 242-244, 266, 273-274, 292, 297, 301, 324, 332, 

336, 352, 356-358, 361, 364

Gunnison County Comprehensive Plan (Master Plan): 138, 159, 162, 180, 185, 193, 195, 352, 357-358

Gunnison County Land Use Resolution (LUR): xx, 138, 158, 210-211, 357, 361

Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area: i, iii, 2, 6-7, 105, 136-137, 207, 278, 338

H

Hang Gliding: 19, 76, 103, 125-126, 170, 172, 174, 204, 220, 244-245, 252, 343

Hiking: 13-14, 18-19, 103-104, 108, 116, 169, 172, 225, 236, 343

Horseback Riding: 14, 18, 104-105, 169, 172, 178, 343

Hunting: xi, 13-14, 39, 46, 72, 95, 99, 103-104, 106-108, 121, 123, 126-128, 148, 153, 170, 173, 187, 237, 240, 248-249, 

305, 356

I

Ice Skating: 103

Impairment: 67, 86, 140, 142-145, 149, 152-153, 156-157, 159-160, 162-163, 166-167, 169, 175, 181, 183-184, 190, 193, 

197, 342, 364

Implementation Plan (IP): x, 19, 29, 58-59, 61, 63, 73, 77, 103, 109, 112-113, 139, 141, 171, 174, 198, 234, 246-247, 

352, 364

Indian Trust Resources: 31, 33

J

Joint Agency Management Eff ort (JAME): v, viii, 17, 27, 35, 43-44, 46, 55-56, 59, 72-73, 80-81, 89, 148-149, 151, 

198, 203, 208, 210-212, 218, 352, 364
FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 371

INDEX

K

Kayaking: 103, 108, 116

L

Land Protection Plan (LPP): vii, 28, 50-53, 56-58, 61, 67, 71, 136, 156, 187, 198, 351, 365

Land Trust(s): vii, 28, 40, 43-44, 52-53, 56-57, 59, 61, 136, 139, 180, 185, 189, 194-195, 199, 216, 219, 245-246, 250, 

253, 279, 299-300, 302, 304-308, 314, 321-324, 327, 334-336, 363, 365

Land Unit(s): 33, 37-38, 47, 66-67, 73-78, 83-85, 88-91, 93-97, 100, 101, 105-107, 109-113, 120-121, 123, 125-129, 131-

135, 139, 144, 146-158, 160-161, 163, 166, 169-177, 179, 181-182, 185, 188, 193, 196-197, 199-204, 206, 223, 226, 

238, 245, 266-267, 281, 365, 367

Land Use: ii, vi, 54, 57, 73-75, 77-80, 86, 88, 119-120, 126, 138-139, 142-144, 146-149, 151, 153-159, 161-162, 169-173, 

175, 177, 179-180, 182, 189-196, 208, 219, 226-229, 238, 246, 297, 307, 312, 326, 336, 339, 348, 357, 361

Lightscape (Night Sky): vi-vii, 12. 30, 75, 77, 97-98, 104, 157-160, 175-177, 208, 246, 271, 331

M

Montrose, City of: 115, 116, 219

Montrose County: i, iii, 1-3, 13-14, 19, 21, 24-25, 27, 41, 44, 47, 56-57, 94, 96, 98-99, 101, 109-110, 113-117, 119-120, 

122, 138-139, 142, 158-159, 162, 179-180, 183, 185-187, 193-195, 210-214, 216-217, 219-221, 244, 277, 292, 309, 

330, 336, 352, 358, 360-361

Montrose County Master Plan (Comprehensive Plan): 138, 358

Morrow Point Dam: 1, 3, 13-14, 43, 55, 86, 104, 122, 124, 129, 345-346

Morrow Point Reservoir: iii, 1, 3, 10, 13-14, 18, 21, 25, 35, 37, 41, 43, 47, 54-55, 73, 83-84, 86-88, 96, 103-105, 107-

108, 110-111, 113, 120-122, 124-126, 128-130, 132, 135, 144, 170, 172, 176, 178-179, 181, 201, 205-206, 345-346

Mountain Biking: See Bicycling

Museum Collection(s): 31, 33

N

National Recreation Area (NRA) Boundary: i-vii, x-xi, 3, 5-6, 8, 17, 21, 23-25, 27-28, 35-41, 44-45, 47, 49-52, 

54-55, 57-61, 63-64, 66-67, 69-71, 73, 76, 83-85, 97, 121, 125, 127, 131-134, 141, 145, 166-167, 172, 189, 193-195, 

197-198, 200-204, 206, 210-213, 216-217, 227, 233-237, 242-243, 245, 273, 277, 279, 330, 340-341, 352, 363, 

365, 367

Natural Resources: 10, 25, 29-30, 38, 46, 49, 53, 65, 73, 76, 84-98, 114, 134, 137, 140-163, 171, 213, 233, 244, 252, 

266-267, 270-273, 277-281, 297, 299, 304, 315-316, 319-320, 322-323, 325, 328, 339, 341, 359, 366

Night Sky Viewing: 101, 130, 175-176, 205

Notice of Intent (NOI): 16, 28, 210

P

Paleontology: 30, 36, 38, 73, 85, 87, 134, 143, 290

Parasailing: 103, 125, 244

Photographic (Photo) Assessment: 16, 19, 20, 35, 113, 178, 214, 217

Prime and Unique Farmlands: 18, 29-30

Property (Landowner) Rights: v, 34, 36, 53, 71, 80, 133, 194-195, 307

Property (Land) Values: 8, 28, 57, 80, 121-122, 192-196, 306, 314, 360

Proposed Lands: 23-24, 32, 37, 47, 49-50, 57, 66, 73-76, 79-80, 84, 87, 89-92, 94-97, 101, 105, 109-111, 120-122, 

125, 127-129, 131-133, 135, 138, 141-151, 153-159, 161-162, 168-171, 173-177, 180, 183-185, 188, 192-193, 195-196, 

204, 234, 238, 365-367

Public Health and Safety: viii, 9, 32, 34, 55, 65, 86, 105, 107, 127, 138, 145, 157, 198, 202, 246, 331-332, 342-343, 

346-347, 355

Purchase and Retained Use and Occupancy (Life Estate, 25-Year Lease, etc.): vii, 53, 71, 305, 335, 367

R

Railroad: 1, 33, 36, 38, 66, 85, 88, 99-101, 109, 123, 126, 134, 166

Report to Congress (RTC): i, iv, 6, 60, 218, 223, 227, 310, 338

Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA): 209, 299, 313, 318
INDEX

372 CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

S

Scenic Resources: i, iii-vii, xi, 1, 6-9, 11, 17-19, 21, 24-25, 27, 29, 32, 39-40, 45-46, 68-69, 73, 76-78, 83, 106, 110-

114, 120, 126, 129, 131, 140, 170-174, 177-183, 185-186, 208-209, 212, 214-215, 246, 251, 253, 301, 329, 331, 338, 

364-365

Sightseeing: 13-14, 103-104, 106, 116, 169-170, 172, 346

Skiing: See Cross-Country Skiing

Snowmobiling: 103-104, 128, 161, 343

Snowshoeing: 103-104

Soundscape: vi, viii, 30, 75-76, 98, 160-163, 208, 271, 343

Special Status Species (Candidate, Critical Habitat, Endangered, Imperiled, Listed, Rare, Sensitive, Special 

Concern, Species of Concern, Threatened, Vulnerable): viii, 10, 17, 20, 25, 30, 36, 38, 49, 52, 65, 73-76, 

79, 85-86, 91-97, 134, 137, 140, 145, 152-157, 169, 171-172, 186, 217, 228, 233, 237-238, 242-243, 259, 281, 290, 

309, 312, 320-321, 334, 341, 356, 360-361, 363, 368

Study Area: ix, 16-17, 20, 29, 33-36, 62, 83, 131-132, 361, 367

Swimming: 103-104, 107, 170, 173, 343

T

Toolbox of Incentives for Resource Conservation (Toolbox): 17, 23-24, 43, 52, 54, 69, 71, 197, 249, 297-328, 334, 

336, 368

Tract(s): 24, 47, 50-51, 121, 123, 167, 200, 204, 226, 234-236, 241-242, 368

Trust for Public Land (TPL): 188, 211, 247, 279, 294, 360

U

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): 53, 88, 91-93, 152-153, 211, 217, 219, 237-238, 294, 304, 309, 320, 332, 

334, 336, 360-361, 368

U.S. Forest Service (USFS): 1, 3, 8, 24, 27, 29, 40-41, 43-44, 47, 49-51, 54-55, 64, 67, 70-71, 81, 89, 101-103, 105, 

115, 122-123, 128, 135, 137, 139, 142, 159, 162, 170-173, 176, 180, 185, 197, 199-201, 206-207, 211-213, 215, 219, 

221, 234-237, 248-249, 274, 283-284, 288, 294, 317, 347-348, 360

Uncompahgre Project: v, ix, xi, 6, 9, 12-14, 24, 28, 36, 43, 55, 60-62, 64, 81, 84, 86, 124, 168, 203, 214, 224, 228, 

249, 351

Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association (UVWUA): 13, 124, 211, 220, 294

Ute: 33, 99, 167, 212, 216-217, 219, 293-295

V

Vegetation: vi, viii, 18-19, 30, 73-74, 84, 88-89, 91, 94, 96, 140, 142, 145-153, 178, 207-208, 233, 246, 281, 331-332, 

361

W

Wayne N. Aspinall Storage Unit: See Aspinall Unit

Western Area Power Administration (Western): v, ix, 1, 2, 5, 15-16, 27, 36, 43-45, 54-55, 62, 70, 81, 122, 124, 128-

129, 137, 197, 203, 207, 210-212, 214, 219, 224-225, 238-240, 257, 286-287, 295, 361

Wetlands: 17, 19, 30, 49, 52, 73-74, 88-89, 146, 148, 150, 304, 308, 315, 325, 333-334, 341, 360

Wilderness: 3, 41, 47, 104-105, 115, 128, 136, 138-139, 158-159, 171, 176, 186, 199, 207, 220, 303, 315, 318, 342, 358, 

361

Wilderness-Like Experience: 104-105

Wildlife (Wildlife Habitat): iii, vii, 5-7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-20, 25, 28, 30, 38-39, 46, 49, 68, 72-74, 85, 87-97, 103-104, 

106-108, 115, 124, 126-128, 133-134, 137-138, 140, 145-148, 150-154, 156, 164, 168, 171, 185, 187-188, 200, 204, 

206, 208, 217, 223, 225-226, 228, 233, 238, 240, 246, 250, 253, 256-257, 262, 271, 281, 290, 303-304, 308-

309, 311-313, 315, 320-321, 323-325, 330, 332-334, 337-338, 341, 344-346, 356, 363, 368

Windsurfi ng: 104, 108, 170, 173