WSP09389

• File Number: 8111
• Description: Arkansas River Compact Administration
• State: CO
• Basin: Arkansas
• Water Division: 2
• Date: 9/21/2001
• Author: Corps of Engineers
• Title: Finding-No Significant Impact - Final EIS - John Martin Dam-Reservoir Project - Lease Agreement-Transfer Management of Recreation Areas-Surface Water - Corps of Engineers to CO State Parks
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

003177

In considering the alternative actions, the following are relevant:

. Water storage at John Martin Reservoir is not guaranteed; in drought years, the water
available to be stored in John Martin Reservoir might be of such little volume as to
drastically impact (reduce) the demand for recreation activities at the associated
recreational facilities. However, since 1980, there has always been at least some water
stored in John Martin Reservoir.

. The water stored at John Martin Reservoir is primarily irrigation "conservation" water_
During a drought, most or all of the irrigation water will be used.

. Public Law 89-298, passed in 1965, directed the chief of Army engineers to use not more
than 10,000 ac. ft. of reservoir flood control storage space for fish, wildlife and recreation
purposes, and that recreation is an authorized project purpose.

2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

2.1.1 Alternative No.1: No action; the Corps would retain the management of all designated
recreation Areas at the John Martin Project and no further development of recreational
facilities would occur.

No action; that is, the Corps would retain the management of all designated recreation
areas at the John Martin Project and administer the Project as it has historically. The Corps
facilities are currently considered to be adequate and in good condition. A disadvantage of this
alternative to the recreating public would be that while current funding for operation and
maintenance of the recreation areas is adequate, foreseeable Federal funding at the Project does
not support new facility construction or major rehabilitation improvement efforts for recreation
areas. Funding has been limited by the lack of Congressional support of appropriations due to
public calls to reduce Federal spending and competing demands in the federal budgetary process.
This has placed a managerial burden on the Corps in that the Corps is unable to take a pro-active
approach to recreational management at the Project and is faced with accepting the status quo.
The Corps has recently been authorized to start charging day-use fees at all of the recreation areas
where services and or facilities are provided. The Corps, at this time, has not prepared a
schedule for implementing these user fees at the Sandstone and Overlook Recreation Areas. The
Corps' planned day-use fee schedule will be based on fees charged at similar Federal facilities
across the nation. Minimally developed areas will continue to be available for free use.
However, the Corps would likely have to intensify its management of natural resources and
recreational use in the Sandstone and Overlook Recreation Areas by restricting vehicular traffic
to designated use areas.

With this alternative, there would be no plans to change the existing wildlife
conservation lease with Colorado Division of Wildlife; however, in the future the Corps and the
Colorado Division of Wildlife will have to actively address management problems at the area
known as the South Beach (see below). This no action alternative, like the other alternatives
evaluated in this EA, would have the Corps retain the operations and maintenance

10