DOCSLIB.ORG

DOI-BLM-CO-N040-2017-0093-EA.Jb

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DOI-BLM-CO-N040-2017-0093-EA.Jb United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Colorado River Valley Field Office 2300 River Frontage Road Silt, Colorado 81652 970-876-9000 Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-CO-N040-2017-0093-EA Proposed Balzac Gulch – Phase 1 Oil and Gas Master Development Plan Project Terra Energy Partners Rocky Mountain LLC Federal Oil and Gas Lease COC27868 Federal Oil and Gas Lease COC62160 Federal Oil and Gas Lease COC62161 Federal Oil and Gas Lease COC73094 September 2017 It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. 66 Federal Wells, Balzac Gulch - Phase 1 MDP DOI-BLM-CO-N040-2017-0093-EA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Issues and Concerns Identified during Public Scoping ................................................................ 3 2. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................... 3 2.1. Purpose and Need for the Action .................................................................................................. 4 2.2. Summary of Lease Stipulations .................................................................................................... 4 2.3. Plan Conformance Review ........................................................................................................... 5 2.4. Scoping ......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.5. Decision to be Made ..................................................................................................................... 5 3. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................. 6 3.1. Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 6 3.2. No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................ 25 4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................... 25 4.1. Access and Transportation .......................................................................................................... 26 4.2. Air Quality .................................................................................................................................. 28 4.3. Fossil Resources ......................................................................................................................... 55 4.4. Geology and Minerals ................................................................................................................ 57 4.5. Invasive Nonnative Plants .......................................................................................................... 58 4.6. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ....................................................................................... 61 4.7. Native American Religious Concerns ........................................................................................ 62 4.8. Noise ........................................................................................................................................... 63 4.9. Realty Authorizations ................................................................................................................. 66 4.10. Socioeconomics .......................................................................................................................... 68 4.11. Soils ............................................................................................................................................ 71 4.12. Special Status Species ................................................................................................................ 74 4.13. Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 82 4.14. Visual Resources ........................................................................................................................ 84 4.15. Wastes, Hazardous or Solid ........................................................................................................ 85 4.16. Water Resources – Surface Water and Groundwater ................................................................. 87 4.17. Wildlife –Aquatic and Terrestrial ............................................................................................... 98 5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ........................................................................................................... 103 5.1. Air Resources ........................................................................................................................... 103 5.2. Existing Oil and Gas Developments ......................................................................................... 111 5.3. Summary of Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................. 112 6. PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED ............................................................................... 114 7. INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEW ............................................................................................... 114 8. REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................................................. 114 APPENDIX Surface-Use Conditions of Approval .................................................................................................. COA-1 Downhole Conditions of Approval ................................................................................................... COA-11 Right-of-Way Amendment Stipulations ........................................................................ ROW Stipulations-1 i 66 Federal Wells, Balzac Gulch - Phase 1 MDP DOI-BLM-CO-N040-2017-0093-EA FIGURES Figure 1. Balzac Gulch- Phase 1 Master Development Plan Overview Map .............................................. 2 Figure 2. Plan of Development for PA 22-25 Pad ..................................................................................... 11 Figure 3. Plan of Development for PA 23-25 Frac Pad ............................................................................. 12 Figure 4. Plan of Development for PA 23-26 Pad ..................................................................................... 13 Figure 5. Plan of Development for PA 23-26 Tank Pad ............................................................................ 14 Figure 6. Plan of Development for Cuttings Storage at DOE 1-W-26 Pad ............................................... 15 Figure 7. Plan of Development for RWF 13-19 Pad .................................................................................. 17 Figure 8. Plan of Development for RWF 23-19 Pad .................................................................................. 18 Figure 9. Wind Rose, Rifle, Colorado, 2012 to 2016 ................................................................................ 30 Figure 10. Nearby PSD Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas .................................................................... 35 Figure 11. Predicted Ozone Concentrations of the CARMMS 2021 Low Development Scenario ......... 105 Figure 12. Fourth Highest Daily Maximum 8-hour Ozone Concentrations ............................................ 106 TABLES Table 1. Existing Development within the Balzac Gulch - Phase 1 MDP Project Area .............................. 3 Table 2. Project Components and Applicable Lease Stipulations ............................................................... 4 Table 3. Surface and Bottomhole Locations of Proposed Federal Wells ..................................................... 6 Table 4. Proposed Balzac Gulch Developments and Drilling Schedule ...................................................... 8 Table 5. Proposed BLM Rights-of-Way for Balzac Gulch - Phase 1 MDP Project Area............................ 9 Table 6. Proposed Disturbance for Project Components ........................................................................... 20 Table 7. Traffic Associated with Directional Drilling and Completion Activities .................................... 27 Table 8. Mean Monthly Temperature Ranges and Total Precipitation ...................................................... 29 Table 9. Wind Direction Frequency Distribution, Rifle, Colorado, 2012 to 2016 ..................................... 29 Table 10. Wind Speed Distribution, Rifle, Colorado, 2012 to 2016 .......................................................... 30 Table 11. Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................................................................. 32 Table 12. Acute (1-Hour Exposure) RELs ................................................................................................. 33 Table 13. Non-Carcinogenic Air Toxics Annual Average RfCs ............................................................... 33 Table 14. PSD Class I and Class II Increments ........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Profiles of Colorado Roadless Areas
    PROFILES OF COLORADO ROADLESS AREAS Prepared by the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region July 23, 2008 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST ......................................................................................................10 Bard Creek (23,000 acres) .......................................................................................................................................10 Byers Peak (10,200 acres)........................................................................................................................................12 Cache la Poudre Adjacent Area (3,200 acres)..........................................................................................................13 Cherokee Park (7,600 acres) ....................................................................................................................................14 Comanche Peak Adjacent Areas A - H (45,200 acres).............................................................................................15 Copper Mountain (13,500 acres) .............................................................................................................................19 Crosier Mountain (7,200 acres) ...............................................................................................................................20 Gold Run (6,600 acres) ............................................................................................................................................21
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests DRAFT Wilderness Evaluation Report August 2018
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests DRAFT Wilderness Evaluation Report August 2018 Designated in the original Wilderness Act of 1964, the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness covers more than 183,000 acres spanning the Gunnison and White River National Forests. In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form.
    [Show full text]
  • REGION: 10 Desig Classifications NUMERIC STANDARDS TEMPORARY
    35.6(4) STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS and WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REGION: 10 Desig Classifications NUMERIC STANDARDS TEMPORARY PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS INORGANIC METALS and AND BASIN: Upper Gunnison River Basin mg/l ug/l Stream Segment Description BIOLOGICAL QUALIFIERS o 1. All tributaries to the Gunnison River, including and wetlands, within OW Aq Life Cold 1 T=TVS(CS-I) C NH3(ac/ch)=TVS S=0.002 As(ac)=340 Fe(ch)=WS(dis) Ni(ac/ch)=TVS the La Garita, Powderhorn, West Elk, Collegiate Peaks, Maroon Recreation E D.O.=6.0 mg/l Cl2(ac)=0.019 B=0.75 As(ch)=0.02(Trec) Fe(ch)=1000(Trec) Se(ac/ch)=TVS Bells, Fossil Ridge, or Uncompahgre Wilderness Areas. Water Supply D.O.(sp)=7.0 mg/l Cl2(ch)=0.011 NO2=0.02 Cd(ac)=TVS(tr) Pb(ac/ch)=TVS Ag(ac)=TVS Agriculture pH=6.5-9.0 CN=.005 NO3=10 Cd(ch)=TVS Mn(ac/ch)=TVS Ag(ch)=TVS(tr) E.Coli=126/100ml Cl=250 CrIII(ac)=50(Trec) Mn(ch)=WS(dis) Zn(ac/ch)=TVS SO4=WS CrIII(ch)=TVS Hg(ch)=0.01(tot) CrVI(ac/ch)=TVS Mo(ch)=160(Trec) Cu(ac/ch)=TVS o 2. All tributaries and wetlands from North Beaver Creek to Meyers OW Aq Life Cold 1 T=TVS(CS-I) C NH3(ac/ch)=TVS S=0.002 As(ac)=340 Fe(ch)=WS(dis) Ni(ac/ch)=TVS Gulch, from the West Elk Wilderness boundary to their Recreation E D.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC)
    Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC) Summits on the Air USA - Colorado (WØC) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S46.1 Issue number 3.2 Date of issue 15-June-2021 Participation start date 01-May-2010 Authorised Date: 15-June-2021 obo SOTA Management Team Association Manager Matt Schnizer KØMOS Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Page 1 of 11 Document S46.1 V3.2 Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC) Change Control Date Version Details 01-May-10 1.0 First formal issue of this document 01-Aug-11 2.0 Updated Version including all qualified CO Peaks, North Dakota, and South Dakota Peaks 01-Dec-11 2.1 Corrections to document for consistency between sections. 31-Mar-14 2.2 Convert WØ to WØC for Colorado only Association. Remove South Dakota and North Dakota Regions. Minor grammatical changes. Clarification of SOTA Rule 3.7.3 “Final Access”. Matt Schnizer K0MOS becomes the new W0C Association Manager. 04/30/16 2.3 Updated Disclaimer Updated 2.0 Program Derivation: Changed prominence from 500 ft to 150m (492 ft) Updated 3.0 General information: Added valid FCC license Corrected conversion factor (ft to m) and recalculated all summits 1-Apr-2017 3.0 Acquired new Summit List from ListsofJohn.com: 64 new summits (37 for P500 ft to P150 m change and 27 new) and 3 deletes due to prom corrections.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State
    Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State National Wilderness Area NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Alabama Cheaha Wilderness Talladega National Forest 7,400 0 7,400 Dugger Mountain Wilderness** Talladega National Forest 9,048 0 9,048 Sipsey Wilderness William B. Bankhead National Forest 25,770 83 25,853 Alabama Totals 42,218 83 42,301 Alaska Chuck River Wilderness 74,876 520 75,396 Coronation Island Wilderness Tongass National Forest 19,118 0 19,118 Endicott River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 98,396 0 98,396 Karta River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 39,917 7 39,924 Kootznoowoo Wilderness Tongass National Forest 979,079 21,741 1,000,820 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 654 654 Kuiu Wilderness Tongass National Forest 60,183 15 60,198 Maurille Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 4,814 0 4,814 Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness Tongass National Forest 2,144,010 235 2,144,245 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Tongass National Forest 46,758 0 46,758 Pleasant/Lemusurier/Inian Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 23,083 41 23,124 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Russell Fjord Wilderness Tongass National Forest 348,626 63 348,689 South Baranof Wilderness Tongass National Forest 315,833 0 315,833 South Etolin Wilderness Tongass National Forest 82,593 834 83,427 Refresh Date: 10/14/2017
    [Show full text]
  • Go to the Table of Contents for 2016 Rocky Mountain Region Forest Health Conditions Report
    Go to the Table of Contents for 2016 Rocky Mountain Region Forest Health Conditions report Report of the Rocky Mountain Region (R2) 2016 Forest Health Conditions R2-2017-RO-31 Section 1 - 2016 Forest Health (FH) conditions of the National Forests (NF) in the Rocky Mountain Region (R2). These 12 reports to the National Forests were produced by the Gunnison, Lakewood, and Rapid City Service Centers in R2 Forest Health Protection (FHP). Section 2 – Internet links to the Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming 2015 Forest Health Highlights (FHH) reports. These FHH reports were produced by state forest health specialists and discuss the latest FHH from all forestlands in each state. Section 3 – Links to the 2016 Aerial Detection Survey (ADS) Highlights & Maps for Colorado, Wyoming, and South Dakota. These were produced by GIS specialists and surveyors of the respective R2 ADS program. Section 4 - Additional documentation and acknowledgements. Go to the Table of Contents for 2016 Rocky Mountain Region Forest Health Conditions Report Approved by State and Private Forestry, and Tribal Relations Director, Jenna Sloan – August 2017 1 Report Cover, Layout, & Table of Contents for 2016 Pages Rocky Mountain Region Forest Health Conditions Section 2016 Forest Health Conditions of the National 1 - 2 1: Forests in the Rocky Mountain Region (R2) Arapaho – Roosevelt National Forests & Pawnee National 3 - 8 Grassland Bighorn National Forest 9 - 12 Black Hills National Forest 13 - 15 GMUG – Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National 16
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment
    \.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Colorado River Valley Field Office 2300 River Frontage Road Silt, Colorado 81652 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NUMBER DOI-BLM-CO-N040-2015-0018-EA CASEFILE NUMBER Federal Oil and Gas Lease COC59137 (bottomhole). PROJECT NAME Existing Nolte 14-44 Well Pad. Drill Horizontal Well into Federal Minerals from Existing Nolte 14-44 Pad Located on Fee (Private Surface/Private Minerals) Land Southwest of Parachute, Garfield County, Colorado, Authorized by Application for Permit to Drill. PROJECT LOCATION Township 7 South (T7S), Range 96 West (R96W), Section 14, SE¼SE¼, Sixth Principal Meridian. The project, located 2 air-miles southwest of Parachute, Colorado, is situated 0.4 miles east of Interstate 70 (I- 70), West Parachute Exit #72 and is accessed by crossing the Nolte 14-796 drill pad adjacent to the east- side frontage road (Figure 1). Elevation at the surface location for the proposed well is 5,091 feet above mean sea level (MSL). APPLICANT WPX Energy Rocky Mountain LLC. Contact: Reed Haddock, 1001 Seventeenth Street, Suite 1200, Denver, CO 80202. ALTERNATIVES Proposed Action The existing Nolte 14-44 pad was recently re-constructed in fall 2014 after receiving a Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (“COGCC”) permit in July 2014 to drill, complete and produce the proposed Puckett SG 714-44-23-HN1 horizontal well from this fee/Fee location. The pad presently supports eight Williams Fork Fee wells drilled in 2008 by WPX and the Nolte 14-44 Fee well drilled in 2000 and operated by Caerus Piceance LLC (“Caerus”), formerly operating locally as Petroleum Development Corporation (“PDC”).
    [Show full text]
  • Status Report, Bd Status Is Reported to the Right of the Locality and Population Name
    REPORT ON THE STATUS AND CONSERVATION OF THE BOREAL TOAD Bufo boreas boreas IN THE SOUTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAINS 2004 Prepared By The Boreal Toad Recovery Team Tina Jackson, Coordinator/Editor REPORT ON THE STATUS AND CONSERVATION OF THE BOREAL TOAD Bufo boreas boreas IN THE SOUTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAINS 2004 Prepared By The Boreal Toad Recovery Team Tina Jackson, Coordinator/Editor Colorado Division of Wildlife 6060 Broadway Denver, CO 80216 March, 2005 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 4 MANAGEMENT STATUS & ADMINISTRATION 5 Legal Status of the Boreal Toad 5 The Recovery Team and Technical Advisory Group 5 Recovery and Conservation Plans 6 Recovery Objectives and Status 7 MONITORING & STATUS OF BREEDING POPULATIONS 9 Park Range 16 Elkhead Mountains 17 Medicine Bow Range 18 Front Range 19 Mosquito and Ten-Mile Range 29 Sawatch Range 30 White River Plateau 35 Grand Mesa 36 Elk and West Elk Mountains 36 San Juan Mountains 38 BOREAL TOAD SURVEYS 41 PUBLIC INFORMATION & INVOLVEMENT 42 CAPTIVE PROPAGATION & TRANSLOCATIONS 42 Captive Propagation and Rearing 43 Experimental Translocations 45 RESEARCH 48 Chafee County Mark-Recapture Study 48 Boreal Toad Monitoring & Demographics in Rocky Mountain National Park - 2004 50 Repatriation of boreal toads Bufo boreas on the Grand Mesa, Colorado 52 Developing qPCR Based Environmental Testing Procedures for Batrachochytrium dendrobaditis 54 Status of Batrachochytrium dendrobaditis infection and survival of boreal toads in the Urad Valley, 2004 55 Batrachochytrium dendrobaditis status
    [Show full text]
  • North Fork of the Gunnison River Watershed Plan Update
    NORTH FORK OF THE GUNNISON RIVER WATERSHED PLAN UPDATE NORTH FORK RIVER IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION (NFRIA) June 30, 2010 North Fork of the Gunnison downstream of Somerset. Photograph by Mike Maxwell WWW.NFRIA.ORG North Fork River Watershed Plan 2010 Update ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This watershed plan updates the North Fork Watershed Restoration Action Strategy completed by the North Fork River Improvement Association (NFRIA) in November, 2000. It was supported by a Severance Tax Grant used by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) to augment the Colorado Healthy Rivers Fund. Chris Sturm acted as project coordinator for CWCB. David Stiller, Executive Director, was the project coordinator for NFRIA. Sarah Sauter, as a consultant to NFRIA, was this document’s primary author. Others contributed materially to the success and completion of this update. Grady Harper and Sean Barna, OSM/VISTAs working for NFRIA, coordinated and planned public meetings where NFRIA received important public input. Our thanks go also to the following individuals who rendered valuable advice to NFRIA and commented on draft versions of this plan: Barbara Galloway, ERO Resources Corporation Bonie Pate, Water Quality Control Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Chris Sturm, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Colorado Department of Natural Resources Dan Kowalski, Division of Wildlife, Colorado Department of Natural Resources David Kanzer, Colorado River Water Conservation District Jeff Crane, Colorado Watershed Assembly John G. Elliott, U.S. Geological Survey Peter Kearl, United Companies Rebecca Anthony, Water Quality Control Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Additionally, we wish to thank the NFRIA directors, members and supporters who provided the organization and North Fork community with the necessary energy and encouragement to engage in this planning process.
    [Show full text]
  • Rocky Mountain Region 2 – Historical Geography, Names, Boundaries
    NAMES, BOUNDARIES, AND MAPS: A RESOURCE FOR THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION (Region Two) By Peter L. Stark Brief excerpts of copyright material found herein may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, education, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder under 17 U.S.C § 107 of the United States copyright law. Copyright holder does ask that you reference the title of the essay and my name as the author in the event others may need to reach me for clarifi- cation, with questions, or to use more extensive portions of my reference work. Also, please contact me if you find any errors or have a map that has not been included in the cartobibliography ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In the process of compiling this work, I have met many dedicated cartographers, Forest Service staff, academic and public librarians, archivists, and entrepreneurs. I first would like to acknowledge the gracious assistance of Bob Malcolm Super- visory Cartographer of Region 2 in Golden, Colorado who opened up the Region’s archive of maps and atlases to me in November of 2005. Also, I am indebted to long-time map librarians Christopher Thiry, Janet Collins, Donna Koepp, and Stanley Stevens for their early encouragement and consistent support of this project. In the fall of 2013, I was awarded a fellowship by The Pinchot Institute for Conservation and the Grey Towers National Historic Site. The Scholar in Resi- dence program of the Grey Towers Heritage Association allowed me time to write and edit my research on the mapping of the National Forest System in an office in Gifford Pinchot’s ancestral home.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1: Citizen Conservation Proposal
    Appendix 1: Citizen Conservation Proposal Abrams Mountain Scenic Special Interest Area Proposed Designated Area Uncompahgre National Forest 3,000 acres Ouray Ranger District General Description At 12,801 feet, Abrams Mountain (aka Mount Abrams), is an iconic peak that rises steeply and directly above the city of Ouray and can be viewed for many miles while driving from Montrose toward Ouray. It is the centerpiece landscape feature for the City of Ouray and surrounding area. Gray Copper Falls and several other falls are outstanding scenic features just west of Brown Mountain. There are several historic mines on the slopes of Abrams Mountain and Brown Mountain. Elk, deer and bighorn sheep use the area. The area is not identified as a Colorado Roadless Area. Scenic Values Mount Abrams dominates the San Juan Skyway Scenic Byway for most of its length from Red Mountain Pass across Ironton Park. Its lush green slopes provide a spectacular backdrop to Ouray during the summer, and it is equally beautiful in the winter. From the summit, there are spectacular views to the south of the Red Mountains (1,2,3) and across the valley to Hayden Mountain. Abrams Mountain is part of the long four-mile Brown Mountain ridge, which rises up and down several summits to a high point of 13,339 feet that is the official summit of Brown Mountain. Also known as Duco Mountain, it is identified by a benchmark on the summit. The spectacular Gray Copper Falls and trail is directly west of the Brown Mountain summit. The upper end of the Gray Copper Falls trail intersects with a popular jeep trail spur off the Corkscrew Pass road near the Vernon mine, but the Gray Copper Falls Trail offers visitors a beautiful hike to see the falls.
    [Show full text]
  • Outdoor Alliance Gmug Vision
    OUTDOOR ALLIANCE GMUG VISION A vision for world-class sustainable recreation in the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. August 2020 (v2) Outdoor Alliance GMUG Vision A vision for world-class sustainable recreation in the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Executive Summary The Outdoor Alliance GMUG Vision (OAGV) was developed in partnership with outdoor recreation and conservation organizations working across the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison (GMUG) National Forests. The OAGV reflects both forest-wide and place-based recommendations that enjoy broad support from local community members, as well as regional and national stakeholders. The OAGV considers other citizens’ proposals for the GMUG and seeks to offer a comprehensive vision from the outdoor recreation community. Through this collaborative process, the OAGV identifies nineteen forest-wide policy recommendations, ten new designated areas and site- specific management unique to the OAGV, and it endorses three outside citizens’ proposals and seven additional designated area recommendations from separate coalitions. Outdoor Alliance offers these community-sourced recommendations as a comprehensive vision for world-class sustainable outdoor recreation in the GMUG National Forests. Table of Contents A Human-Powered Vision for the GMUG ............................................................................... 2 GMUG Geographic Area – A Brief Sense of Place ................................................................... 3 Shared Interest
    [Show full text]