DOCSLIB.ORG

Record of Decision November 2016 Arapahoe Basin Ski Area Projects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Record of Decision November 2016 Arapahoe Basin Ski Area Projects ARAPAHOE BASIN SKI AREA PROJECTS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RECORD OF DECISION NOVEMBER 2016 USDA Forest Service White River National Forest Dillon Ranger District 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, sex, religious creed, disability, age, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA. 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 Agency (State or local) where they applied for benefits. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities may 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 complaint of discrimination, 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. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) Email: [email protected]. CoverThis institutionphoto credits: is an Arapahoe equal opportunity Basin Ski Area, provider. Dave Camara, Hal Hartman, Bonsai Design ARAPAHOE BASIN SKI AREA PROJECTS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RECORD OF DECISION November 2016 USDA FOREST SERVICE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST DILLON RANGER DISTRICT Summit County, Colorado Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Official: Scott Fitzwilliams, Forest Supervisor White River National Forest For Information Contact: Matt Ehrman, Project Leader White River National Forest 900 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 [email protected] This page intentionally left blank. Record of Decision RECORD OF DECISION INTRODUCTION This Record of Decision documents my decision to approve proposed projects and activities within Arapahoe Basin’s (A-Basin) Special Use Permit (SUP) boundary on the White River National Forest (WRNF) in Summit County, Colorado. My decision is based on, and supported by, the Arapahoe Basin Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the project file. Arapahoe Basin Ski Area (A-Basin) is located in the Dillon Ranger District of the WRNF, 15 miles east of Dillon, Colorado. A-Basin is approximately one to two hours driving time from the metropolitan Denver area via Interstate 70 (I-70) and Highway 6 (refer to the Vicinity Map in Chapter 6 of the FEIS). It can be accessed via Highway 6 from the west through the Town of Dillon or from the east from Loveland Pass. A-Basin is owned by Dundee Resort Development, a subsidiary of Dream Unlimited Corporation, and operates under a United States Forest Service (Forest Service) Ski Area Term SUP. A-Basin’s SUP covers approximately 1,872 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands, which encompass 100 percent of the ski area’s chairlift/terrain network, parking facilities, infrastructure, and guest services. PURPOSE AND NEED In order to meet the needs and expectations of existing and potential guests and provide a safe skiing experience, the WRNF, through its acceptance of A-Basin’s 2012 Master Development Plan (MDP), has identified a need to: • Provide the Beavers with snow safety operations and ski patrol services consistent with statements made in the 2002 WRNF Forest Plan FEIS. • Accommodate existing and future demand for high alpine and open bowl skiing while protecting and enhancing the distinctive skiing experience that A-Basin provides. • Improve access along the 400-foot-long, slightly uphill catwalk from Lenawee Mountain chairlift to Montezuma Bowl. • Upgrade and remove chairlifts, as needed. • Provide adventure-based multi-season experiences that require little specialized knowledge, skills, equipment or familiarity with the mountain environment. Arapahoe Basin Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement ROD-1 Record of Decision THE DECISION AND RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION After thoroughly considering the project Purpose and Need, issues, alternatives, and extensive analyses presented in the Arapahoe Basin Ski Area Projects FEIS, as well as the public and agency comments submitted, my decision is to approve Alternative 2. All the improvements approved by my decision are on NFS lands within 2002 Forest Plan Management Area 8.25 and occur within A-Basin’s SUP boundary. THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE My decision to approve the Selected Alternative provides A-Basin with the authorization to implement activities analyzed in detail in the FEIS. In particular, the Selected Alternative includes the addition of approximately 338 acres of skiing terrain in the Beavers, construction of a new chairlift to access the Beavers terrain, a new surface lift to access Montezuma Bowl, replacement of the Molly Hogan and Pallavicini chairlifts, removal of the Norway chairlift, grading projects to improve operational efficiency and skier circulation, and construction of an aerial adventure tour and challenge course. All approved projects will be located within A-Basin’s existing SUP area. The Selected Alternative is depicted in the Selected Alternative Figure. These improvements will allow A-Basin to better meet guest expectations and address the project Purpose and Need. Implementation of the projects in the Selected Alternative will also respond to long-term goals and objectives of the 2002 WRNF Forest Plan and new Forest Service direction regarding additional seasonal and year-round recreational activities at ski areas. DECISION RATIONALE The entire Arapahoe Basin Ski Area Projects analysis and public involvement processes were both thorough and informative in making my decision. They provided a foundation for my decision and the project design criteria (PDC) identified in Table ROD-2. I have carefully reviewed the FEIS and the environmental impacts of this project. The FEIS discloses, using the best available science and information, the qualitative and quantitative effects on the human and biological environment that are anticipated to result with the implementation of the approved projects. My rationale for choosing the Selected Alternative is based on careful consideration of several key elements addressed during the public involvement and analysis process, including consistency with: the project Purpose and Need, the 2002 WRNF Forest Plan, agency direction for additional seasonal and year-round recreational activities at ski areas, and A-Basin’s 2012 MDP. Consistency with the Project Purpose and Need and the 2002 WRNF Forest Plan I am approving the Selected Alternative because it best meets the project Purpose and Need to meet the growing demand at A-Basin for this terrain type, improve the guest experience across the ski area, and address skier safety within the Beavers terrain. In particular, I believe that adding lift-served terrain in the Arapahoe Basin Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement ROD-2 Record of Decision Beavers will improve the unique recreational experience offered at A-Basin while addressing safety concerns in this area. Summit County Board of County Commissioners, Summit County Sheriff’s Office, and Summit County Rescue Group all concur with my understanding and support the Forest Service’s and A-Basin’s approach to managing the Beavers terrain. During project site visits, my staff has witnessed guests of A-Basin disembarking the Pallavicini chairlift, sliding to the ski area boundary, ducking the boundary rope and/or exiting through the backcountry access point, and entering the Beavers terrain and Steep Gullies only to return to the ski area. I acknowledge this is great skiing terrain for those that are equipped and prepared; however, the proximity and ease of access (legal or illegal) from the ski area is problematic from a safety standpoint. The Sheriff’s Office has provided data that is included in the project file that speaks to the frequency of calls for rescue, as well as the frequency of calls annually confirming that A-Basin ski patrol is leaving the ski area operational boundary to rescue members of the public in the Beavers terrain. The Forest Service first identified the need for snow safety operations and ski patrol in the Beavers when this area was included in Management 8.25 and A-Basin’s SUP area in the 2002 WRNF Forest Plan. I recognize that the proximity to A-Basin makes this area a popular lift-served, backcountry destination, but the difficulty of the terrain poses serious safety risks for the many skiers who currently ski there and hitchhike on Highway 6 back to the base area. The 2002 WRNF Forest Plan includes the following statement in our discussion of potential ski area expansion areas: “The Beavers are popular with backcountry skiers and snowboarders who access the site from Arapahoe Basin ski area. Steep north-facing chutes above treeline with numerous rock outcrops characterize the terrain. Most skiers hike or hitchhike uphill to return to their vehicles. Avalanche risk to the public is potentially high. The risk could be partially mitigated if the Beavers site was developed for skiing as part of the ski area.”1 I believe, and the analysis prepared confirms, that incorporating the Beavers into A-Basin’s operational boundary (and, therefore, performing snow safety and ski patrol operations) will greatly increase skier safety in this area. Certain members of the community commented that by including the Beavers terrain within the operational boundary will increase accidents within the terrain from guests of A-Basin.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Land Use Technical Report August 2010 Land Use Technical Report
    I-70 Mountain Corridor Land Use Technical Report August 2010 Land Use Technical Report This page intentionally left blank. Land Use Technical Report Table of Contents Section 1. Purpose of the Report .............................................................................................. 1 Section 2. Background and Methodology ................................................................................ 1 2.1 Right-of-Way Acquisition and I-70 Highway Expansion into Currently Developed Lands2 2.2 Consistency with Land Use Planning and Zoning............................................................ 2 2.3 Induced Growth: Population and Development ............................................................... 3 2.3.1 Induced Population ................................................................................................4 2.3.2 Induced Development............................................................................................7 Section 3. Description of Alternatives ...................................................................................... 8 3.1 Minimal Action Alternative................................................................................................ 8 3.2 Transit Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 8 3.2.1 Rail with Intermountain Connection .......................................................................9 3.2.2 Advanced Guideway System.................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Floodplain Designations
    1313 Sherman Street, Room 718 Denver, CO 80203 P (303) 866-3441 F (303) 866-4474 TO: Colorado Water Conservation Board Members FROM: Kevin Houck, P.E. CFM Watershed & Flood Protection Section DATE: November 8, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Consent Agenda Item 2. November 20-21, 2019 Board Meeting - Floodplain Designations Background: Consent Agenda Item 3 includes 7 new floodplain studies that are proposed for CWCB action. Staff is requesting Board designation and approval for these items. A brief summary of the study is presented in the attached document. CWCB staff performs technical reviews of floodplain information to assure the Board that the information complies with the requirements of the CWCB’s “Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplains in Colorado,” 2 CCR 408-1. The attached document provides a further discussion of legislative authority and responsibilities delegated to the CWCB. The CWCB’s designation and approvals greatly assist local communities in meeting the statutory requirements of the State and the regulatory requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Additional supporting information for this item is attached. Requested action for Floodplain Resolution 19-703: Staff recommends that the Board: 1) designate and approve the detailed 100-year and 500-year information and 100-year approximate floodplain information contained in said report within Chaffee County, City of Salida, Town of Buena Vista and Town of Poncha Springs, and 2) authorize staff to prepare a floodplain resolution to be signed by the Director and transmitted to Chaffee County, City of Salida, Town of Buena Vista, Town of Poncha Springs, and FEMA. This action is recommended in order to meet statutory requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-0330
    U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-0330 Water and Sediment Study of the Snake River Watershed, Colorado, Oct. 9-12, 2001 By D.L. Fey, S.E. Church, D.M. Unruh, and D.J. Bove This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with North American Stratigraphic Code. Any trade, firm, or product names are for descriptive purposes only and do not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………..1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………2 Purpose and Scope…………………………………………………………………………………2 Previous Investigations…………………………………………………………………………….2 Geology……………………………………………………………………………………………………..2 Intrusive History……………………………………………… ..…………………………………5 Hydrothermal Alteration and Mineralization……………… …..…………………………………5 Sample Collection…………………………………………………………………………………………..5 Streambed Sediment……………………………………………………………………………….5 Core Samples………………………………………………………………………………………6 Surface Water Samples……………………………………………………………………………6 Diel Zinc Concentrations in Surface Water Samples……………………………………………..6 Discharge Measurements………………………………………………………………………….6 Sample Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………………7 Streambed Sediment Total Digestion……………………………………………………………...7 Mercury in Sediment………………………………………………………………………………7 Lead Isotope Analysis……………………………………………………………………………..7 Water Samples…………………………………………………………………………………….7 Quality Assurance and Quality Control…………………………………………………………...8 Results
    [Show full text]
  • Classifications and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin and North Platte River
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. November 12, 2020 Regulation No. 33 - Classifications and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin and North Platte River Effective March 12, 2020 The following provisions are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes with these few exceptions: EPA has taken no action on: • All segment-specific total phosphorus (TP) numeric standards based on the interim value for river/stream segments with a cold water aquatic life classification (0.11 mg/L TP) or a warm water aquatic life classification (0.17 mg/L TP) • All segment-specific TP numeric standards based on the interim value for lake/reservoir segments with a warm water aquatic life classification (0.083 mg/L TP) Code of Colorado Regulations Secretary of State State of Colorado DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Water Quality Control Commission REGULATION NO. 33 - CLASSIFICATIONS AND NUMERIC STANDARDS FOR UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN AND NORTH PLATTE RIVER (PLANNING REGION 12) 5 CCR 1002-33 [Editor’s Notes follow the text of the rules at the end of this CCR Document.] 33.1 AUTHORITY These regulations are promulgated pursuant to section 25-8-101 et seq. C.R.S., as amended, and in particular, 25-8-203 and 25-8-204.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterfowl Status Report 1964
    U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services Historic document – Content may not reflect current scientific research, policies or practices. WATERFOWL STATUS REPORT 1964 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR · FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Special Scientific Report--Wildlife No. 8 6 Created by act of Congress in 1849, the Department of the Interior is responsible for a wide variety of progra,ms concerned with .the management, consenat ion, a.nd wise cle,·elopment of ~\.rnerica~s natural resources. For this reason it is often de­ scribed as a department of natural resources. Through a seore of bureaus and offices the Department is responsible for the nse and management of millions of acres of federally owned lands; adlllinisters mining and mineral leasing on a sizable area of additional lands; irrigates reclaimed lands in the 'Vest ;.manages giant hydroelectric power systems; ad­ ministers grazing and forestry programs on federally owned range and comlllereia l forest lands· protects fish and wildlife resources; pro,·ides for consenation and development of out­ door recreation opportm.1ities on a nationwide scale; conserves hundreds of vital scenic, historic, and park areas; conducts geologic research and suneys; encourages mineral exploration and conducts mineral research; promotes mine safety; conducts saline "·ater research; a.dministers oil import programs; oper­ ates helium plants and the .Alaska Railroad; is responsible for the welfare of many thousands of people in the territories of the Fnitecl States; and exercises trusteeship for the well-being of additional hundreds of thonsitncls of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos, as well as being charged with resource management of mi llions of acre of lndian-om1ed lands.
    [Show full text]
  • Division 5 Water Court- August 2017 Resume
    DIVISION 5 WATER COURT- AUGUST 2017 RESUME 1. PURSUANT TO C.R.S., §37-92-302, AS AMENDED, YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE FOLLOWING PAGES COMPRISE A RESUME OF THE APPLICATIONS AND AMENDED APPLICATIONS FILED WITH THE WATER CLERK FOR WATER DIVISION 5 DURING THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2017. The water right claimed by this application may affect in priority any water right claimed or heretofore adjudicated within this division and owners of affected rights must appear to object and protest within the time provided by statute, or be forever barred. 17CW3157 MESA COUNTY; Application to Make Water Rights Partially Absolute and/or ofor Findings of Reasonable Diligence. Name, address and telephone number of Applicant: Town of Palisade, please direct all correspondence to Applicant’s attorneys: Mary Elizabeth Geiger, Garfield & Hecht, P.C., 901 Grand Ave., Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601, (970) 947-1936, [email protected]. Applicant requests that a portion of the conditional water rights decreed to the Town of Palisade Wastewater Treatment Plant Outfall be made absolute and findings of reasonable diligence as to the remaining amounts/uses: Legal description: A point of diversion located in Sec 3, T 1 S, R 2 E of the Ute Meridian, Mesa County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the North ¼ corner of Sec 3, whence the West 1/16 corner of the North boundary line of Section 3 bears North 90˚00’00” West; thence South 18º23’01” East 2,888.22 feet to a point located on the centerline of the outfall line of the Palisade sewer plant, also described as being 2190 feet from the west section line and 2712 feet from the north section line of Sec 3, T 1 S, R 2 E of the Ute Meridian.
    [Show full text]
  • TMDL 2007.Pdf
    Total Maximum Daily Load Assessment Snake River and Peru Creek Summit County, Colorado Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division September 20, 2007 Public Notice Draft TMDL Summary Waterbody Description / WBID Mainstem of the Snake River, including all tributaries and wetlands from the source to Dillon Reservoir, except for specific listings in Segments 7, 8, and 9, COUCBL06/ Mainstem of Peru Creek, including all tributaries and wetlands from the source to the confluence with the Snake River, except for specific listing in Segment 8, COUCBL07. Pollutants Addressed pH, Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved Lead, and Dissolved Zinc Relevant Portion of Segment Mainstem of the Snake River, Saints John Creek in Segment (as applicable) 6; mainstem of Peru Creek and all tributaries in Segment 7. UseClassification/Designation Segment 6: Aquatic Life Cold 1, Recreation 1a, Water Supply, Agriculture / Use Protected Segment 7: Aquatic Life Cold 1, Recreation 2/Use Protected Water Quality Targets (for dissolved fraction of metals) Segment 6 Chronic Acute pH 6.5-9.0 6.5-9.0 Cd-D TVS TVS Cu-D TVS TVS Pb-D TVS TVS Zn-D TVS TVS Segment 7 Chronic Acute pH 6.5-9.0 6.5-9.0 Cd-D TVS TVS Cu-D TVS TVS Mn-D TVS TVS Pb-D TVS TVS Zn-D TVS TVS TMDL Goal Attainment of TVS Standards for pH, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc and manganese for COUCBL07. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Snake River watershed is part of the Blue River sub-basin in the Upper Colorado River basin (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • General Geology of the Harold D. Roberts Tunnel, Colorado
    General Geology of the Harold D. Roberts Tunnel, Colorado GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 831-B General Geology of the Harold D. Roberts Tunnel, Colorado By CHARLES S. ROBINSON, LAWRENCE A. WARNER, and ERNEST E. WAHLSTROM ENGINEERING GEOLOGY OF THE HAROLD D. ROBERTS TUNNEL, COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 831-B A review of the geologically complex area of the Front Range transected by the Roberts Tunnel UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1974 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKdvey, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 73-600340 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2.25 (paper cover) Stock Number 2401-02469 CONTENTS Page Page Abstract..................................................................................... Bl Tertiary igneous rocks............................................................ B23 Introduction.............................................................................. 1 Montezuma Quartz Monzonite and associated aplitic Summary of general geology................................................. 2 rock......................................................................... 23 Precambrian rocks................................................................... 3 Quartz monzonite..................................................... 23 Metasedimentary rocks................................................... 3 Aplitic rock...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • DWR Dam Safety Non-Jurisdictional Dam
    DWR Dam Safety Non-Jurisdictional Dam DAMID Dam Name Other Dam Names WDID 400537 WEIR PARK 290148 GALLEGOS POND 400215 DELTA #3 020106 BOWLES #2 0203870 510220 HOMESTEAD HILLS POND HOMESTEAD HILLS HOA DAM 380246 SPAYD POND DAM 290131 REX S DAM 510113 LINKE 5103680 100104 BANNING LEWIS #1 020659 US36 POND OS-A3 670439 WHITE FARMS & SONS SOUTH FARM DAM 670415 Ausmus Pond 370210 LD #1 DAM LD POND 3704095 020238 MAGERS 0203321 110770 Droz Creek Pond #2 570205 Schaefermeyer #2 5703579 Page 1 of 640 10/03/2021 DWR Dam Safety Non-Jurisdictional Dam Physical Status DIV WD County PM Township Range Section Q160 Active 4 40 DELTA S 12.0 S 94.0 W 3 Active 7 29 ARCHULETA N 34.0 N 3.0 W 20 SE Active 4 28 DELTA S 13.0 S 96.0 W 27 Active 1 2 ADAMS S 1.0 S 65.0 W 6 NW Active 5 51 GRAND S 1.0 N 76.0 W 31 SW Active 5 38 GARFIELD S 7.0 S 87.0 W 20 SE Active 7 29 ARCHULETA N 35.0 N 2.0 W 11 SE Active 5 51 GRAND S 1.0 N 76.0 W 18 NW Active 2 10 EL PASO S 13.0 S 65.0 W 27 SE Active 1 2 BROOMFIELD S 1.0 S 69.0 W 34 Active 2 67 BENT S 22.0 S 49.0 W 26 2 67 PROWERS S 22.0 S 46.0 W 7 NE Active 5 37 EAGLE S 4.0 S 84.0 W 19 SE Active 1 2 ADAMS S 1.0 S 66.0 W 20 Active 2 11 CHAFFEE N 48.0 N 8.0 E 6 NE Active 6 57 ROUTT S 7.0 N 87.0 W 6 NE Page 2 of 640 10/03/2021 DWR Dam Safety Non-Jurisdictional Dam Q40 UTM x UTM y Location Accuracy Latdecdeg Longdecdeg NE 305326 4116697 GPS 37.176442 -107.192879 NE 524707.1 4427611.9 GPS 39.998337 -104.710572 NE 418985 4428643 User supplied 40.0041 -105.949161 SW 316652.5 4366267.8 GPS 39.426465 -107.130145 SW 320463 4127793 GPS
    [Show full text]
  • SDS EIS Work Plan
    Prepared for Federal Action Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Army Corps of Denver, Colorado Engineers Project Proponent _______________________ o Denver Water Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report Moffat Collection System Project _______________________ October 4, 2016 Prepared by URS Corporation 6200 South Quebec Street Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1 2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Purpose, Scope, and Authority .................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Relevant Prior Studies, Reports, and Previous Consultation ..................................................... 4 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ...................................................................................... 7 3.1 Reservoirs ................................................................................................................................ 13 3.2 Other Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 17 3.3 River Segments........................................................................................................................ 17 3.3.1 Fraser River ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Assessment
    Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume 3 Appendix J Watershed assessment Introduction This appendix presents information on assessment of watershed conditions from several sources, including: • A watershed condition assessment conducted by the forest for the 2002 Forest Plan (Tables J-1 through J-6); • The 1998 Colorado State monitoring and evaluation list of stream segments with suspected water quality problems that occur on the forest (Table J-7); • The 1998 Colorado State 303(d) list of water-quality-limited stream segments still requiring total maximum daily load (TMDL) assessments (Table J-8); and • A Colorado Geological Survey of abandoned mines on or adjacent to the forest (Table J-9). Watersheds are areas of land that drain rainfall and snowmelt into a common stream, stream network, body of water, or closed basin. The Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2) of the Forest Service has adopted the hydrologic unit code (HUC) system developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). It divides watersheds into a series of progressively smaller nested levels, with the first level being the largest land area relative to higher- numbered levels in that watershed. Each level is identified systematically by a hydrologic unit code number, or HUC. A first level watershed can be divided into a number of second level watersheds, each second level watershed may be further subdivided into third-level watersheds, and so forth. For forest planning purposes, fourth- through sixth- level watersheds are the most appropriate scale of analysis. Fourth-level watersheds are often referred to as sub-basins; fifth-level watersheds are often just called watersheds, and sixth-level watersheds may also be called subwatersheds.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Moose Antler Measurements
    2020 Moose Antler Measurements Left Right Used Sex Method Circ. Circ. Spread Drainage Outfitter Unit 6 F Bow MICHIGAN RIVER N F Bow MICHIGAN RIVER N F MLR SOUTH FORK CANADIAN RIVER N F Rifle MICHIGAN RIVER N F Rifle MEADOW CREEK N F Rifle MICHIGAN RIVER N F Rifle MICHIGAN RIVER N F Rifle COON CREEK N F Rifle NORTH MICHIGAN CREEK RESERVOIR N F Rifle CLEVELAND DITCH N M Bow 6 3/8 6 0/8 41 0/8 NORTH FORK MICHIGAN RIVER N M Bow 6 6/8 6 7/8 40 4/8 PINKHAM CREEK N M Bow 5 5/8 5 5/8 36 5/8 CLEAR CREEK N M MLR 4 7/8 5 0/8 38 5/8 NORTH FORK MICHIGAN RIVER N M MLR 5 2/8 5 4/8 31 7/8 MICHIGAN RIVER N M MLR 5 0/8 5 1/8 41 7/8 ALLEN CREEK N M Rifle 5 4/8 5 2/8 31 6/8 MICHIGAN RIVER N M Rifle MICHIGAN RIVER N M Rifle 6 3/8 6 4/8 41 1/8 MICHIGAN RIVER Y M Rifle 6 5/8 6 2/8 35 2/8 OWL CREEK Y M Rifle 6 1/8 6 1/8 40 7/8 NORTH FORK CANADIAN RIVER N M Rifle 5 6/8 6 4/8 35 0/8 MEADOW CREEK N M Rifle 6 2/8 6 1/8 48 4/8 SALES CREEK N M Rifle 6 2/8 6 2/8 49 6/8 SAND CREEK Y M Rifle 6 3/8 6 2/8 36 4/8 MICHIGAN RIVER N M Rifle 6 3/8 6 2/8 41 0/8 MICHIGAN RIVER Y M Rifle 6 0/8 6 3/8 40 4/8 MICHIGAN RIVER Y YF Rifle SALES CREEK N YF Rifle MEADOW CREEK N Unit 7 M MLR 5 7/8 6 0/8 36 5/8 NORTH FORK GRACE CREEK N Unit 12 M Rifle 5 4/5 6 2/8 39 4/8 BALDY CREEK N 2020 Moose Antler Measurements Left Right Used Sex Method Circ.
    [Show full text]