The Honorable Mark Udall
115 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
8601 Turnpike Dr.
Suite 206
Westminster, CO 80031
July 20th, 2004
RE: Wild River eligibility, suitability, and designation of Cross Creek, White River National Forest, Colorado.
Dear Congressman Udall:
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of public lands on the White River National Forest. In February of 2003 your office proposed legislation for these lands that included additional wilderness, roadless area management directives, and wild river status for Deep Creek. I fully support these efforts, and encourage your consideration of additional wilderness and/or wild river designations beyond the Forest Plan recommendations (including those contained in the Citizens Wilderness Proposal.)
The 2002 Land and Resource Management Plan, White River National Forest, identified five free-flowing streams on the forest as eligible for Wild, Scenic, or Recreational river designations under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSR.) I request your special consideration for introducing legislation designating Cross Creek, East Cross Creek, and West Cross Creek as wild rivers. These streams lie entirely within the 2nd congressional district and Holy Cross Wilderness. They meet all WSR classification attribute criteria for wild river category, and possess multiple Outstanding Remarkable Values supporting their eligibility. The Forest Service has recognized some of these values in the 2002 Plan. Currently, both Cross and West Cross creeks are managed under a 1.5 wild river eligibility, a management prescription I strongly supported and encouraged during the Plan revision process.
As you are aware Colorado has only one wild and scenic river (the Cache la Poudre.) The western slope of the state, where most of our rivers are located, has none. Part of the difficulty in agreeing on wild and scenic designations is the controversial nature of water in our state. Water rights issues may pose serious obstacles to WSR designations. I believe that East, West, and Cross creeks offer an opportunity to create Colorado's second wild river(s).
Enclosed please find a listing and description of the Outstanding Remarkable Values (ORV) that make these streams eligible for wild river designation, including a brief treatment of classification and suitability criteria. Those of us familiar with the Holy Cross Wilderness consider that East, West, and Cross creeks are parts of the same waterway -- historically, hydrologically, and ecologically. While native cutthroat trout populations have been identified by the Forest Service as a major ORV, East, West, and Cross creeks possess additional significant historical, cultural, ecological, hydrological, geological, and scenic values making these streams eligible for wild river status and consideration.
Also enclosed is a letter from Chris Treese, Colorado River Water Conservation District, which holds senior decreed water rights on Cross Creek. The letter notes at this time the River District considers the best use of these rights is for water diversion at Bolts Lake, and that for this purpose CRWCD rights may possibly be moved to a point outside the wilderness boundary. Adding a wild river designation to Cross Creek and tributaries within the wilderness boundaries only could serve to enhance watershed protections while ensuring downstream water supplies.
The history of the Holy Cross Wilderness is one of conflict over the development of headwater rights. As a former member of the Holy Cross Wilderness Defense Fund board of directors, I opposed the Homestake II Water Diversion Project proposed in 1980-81 by the cities of Aurora and Colorado Springs, who hold conditional rights on Holy Cross Wilderness streams. Water rights were not at issue, but the development of those rights within the wilderness which would have negatively impacted the wilderness ecology. Opposition to development within the wilderness remains strong. Today, the cities are cooperatively working with the Eagle River Assembly, signing a 1997 memorandum of understanding seeking procurement of water they are entitled to from outside the wilderness. This is to be accomplished through a series of alternative "joint use water project(s) in the Upper Eagle River basin that minimizes environmental impact."
Since Homestake II is no longer a viable project, the cities are seeking cooperative alternative water procurements, and the River District has indicated they are willing to seek alternatives which do not diminish their rights yet would allow wild river status, water issues do not appear to be an obstacle to the WSR designation of these streams.
Suitability criteria provide key support for this choice. In a guidance document (Wild and Scenic River Assessment and the Forest Plan Revisions Process, November 1996), the Forest Service sums up WSR suitability criteria (sections 4(a) and 5(c) of the WSR Act) as answering two basic questions: (1) "What is the best use of the river corridor? Should the outstanding values be fully protected, or are one or more other uses important enough to warrant not maintaining the river's free-flow or fully protecting identified values?" And (2), "Assuming the values are to be protected, what is the best method to protect the river corridor? Wild and Scenic River designation is one approach. In answering this question, the benefits and impacts of WSR designation must be evaluated and alternative protection methods considered."
In answer to question one, a major reason the Holy Cross area was considered by Congress as a valuable addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System was the biologically rich, low elevation watershed of Cross Creek, with its numerous meandering wetlands. The Holy Cross Wilderness received one of the highest Wilderness Attribute Ratings of any area inventoried during the Second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation conducted by the Forest Service in the 1970s. Cross Creek and its tributaries significantly enhance the values of the Holy Cross Wilderness. Wild river status that protects the entire watershed while enhancing both wilderness values and downstream water availability is a higher, more beneficial use of the resource than other potential uses.
Addressing question two, while the Holy Cross Wilderness surrounds these streams they have not enjoyed full wilderness status and protection under the 1980 Colorado Wilderness Act. Agency interpretations of section 102(a)(5) of that Act (commonly known as the Homestake Exemption), directed the Forest Service to manage East, West, Cross, and Fall creeks as multiple use National Forest lands for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Homestake II water diversions. Though the cities have since abandoned this project as unfeasible (lacking a required Eagle County Land Use Permit) and have signed a cooperative memorandum of understanding with the River District and Vail Consortium to seek alternative procurements for their decreed rights, wilderness stream protections remain limited. Wild River designation would appear the best method of providing overdue protection. Few or no negative impacts appear to be associated with this method, and remedial legislative action seems appropriate to ensure the future preservation of the wild and scenic nature of these significant streams.
Sincerely,
Tom Phillips
encl: 5
cc
Chris Treese, Colorado River Water Conservation District
Diana Donovan, Vail Town Council
Glenda Wilson, acting Supervisor, WRNF
Steve Smith, The Wilderness Society
Ken Neubecker, Trout Unlimited
Liz Birnbaum, American Rivers
Chuck Ogilby