DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Impact Statement, CPDWS, Rio Grand

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, CPDWS, Rio Grand United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service CP District-wide Salvage Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Conejos Peak Ranger District, Rio Grande National Forest March 2018 Conejos and Rio Grande Counties, Colorado USDA NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY STATEMENT DR 4300.003 USDA Equal Opportunity Public Notification Policy (June 2, 2015) 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. 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] . USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. CP District-wide Salvage Project Final Environmental Impact Statement CP District-wide Salvage Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Conejos and Rio Grande Counties, Colorado Responsible Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Official: Andrea M. Jones, District Ranger Rio Grande National Forest 15571 County Road T.5, La Jara, CO 81120 719-274-6309 For Information Contact: Michael Tooley Rio Grande National Forest 15571 CR T.5; La Jara, CO; 81140 719-274-8971 Abstract This Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluates the potential effects of salvage harvest of stands killed by spruce beetles under three alternatives: No Action, Vegetation Management - Proposed Action, and Vegetation Management – Limited Action. The Proposed Action would authorize the salvage harvest of spruce forests on up to 17,000 acres of Forest Service lands, post-harvest planting of conifer seedlings, and implementation of fuel reduction treatments adjacent to developed private lands and infrastructure. The analysis discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of implementing commercial and non-commercial management activities to meet the purpose and need and move toward desired conditions in the CP District-wide Salvage project area. This document follows the format established in the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations parts 1500-1508). It includes a discussion of the purpose and need for the proposal, alternatives to the proposal, the impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of agencies consulted. It is tiered to the 1996 Rio Grande National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (Forest Plan), the final environmental impact statement, and record of decision issued for the Forest Plan. As the Rio Grande National Forest is currently undertaking a Forest Plan Revision, this project will be adapted, as needed, to accommodate new information or change associated with the new, finalized plan by utilizing the pre- implementation checklist process. The comment period is closed for this project, and responses to comments can be found in Appendix K of this FEIS. The objection period for the draft decision will end forty-five days from publication of the opportunity to object legal notice in the Valley Courier, Newspaper of Record. 3 CP District‐wide Salvage Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary In response to extensive mortality in spruce forests caused by the spruce beetle epidemic, the Conejos Peak (CP) Ranger District proposes to conduct salvage harvest activities on up to 17,000 acres of dead and dying spruce trees in order to move these stands closer to desired conditions in the long-term and capture economic value in the short- term. This proposal also includes performing hazardous fuel treatment activities on up to 1,000 acres of affected lands adjacent to private property and administrative sites, and, to evaluate regeneration needs to meet long-term desired conditions considering stocking requirements, wildlife habitat, and the desired rate of ecological recovery. The CP District-wide Salvage project area encompasses approximately 332,000 of National Forest System, state, and private lands and is located across the Conejos Peak District in Conejos and Rio Grande Counties. This analysis and work being proposed will only be completed on National Forest System Lands. Legal description for the project area is: T 32 N, R 3-7 E; T 33 N, R 3-7 E; T 34 N, R 3-7 E; T 35 N, R 2-5 E; T 36 N, R 2-5 E; T 37 N, R 3-5 E, New Mexico Prime Meridian. The purpose and need for this project was developed by comparing objectives and desired conditions described in the Forest’s land management plan relating to forest product use, forest and grassland health and function, and habitat needs for a variety of key wildlife and plant species. The purpose and need also considers the current conditions and expected future conditions of resources resulting from potential changes in climate and the ongoing mortality in the spruce forest across the Conejos Peak Ranger District. Due to the epidemic proportions of the spruce beetle infestation on the Rio Grande National Forest, project analyses were increased in scale to effectively consider larger landscapes. No major areas of controversy were identified during scoping. Concerns were identified, and how they were addressed is described in section 1.9 of the EIS. The scoping and internal review process identified one issue relating to timber salvage in this landscape: 1) Wildlife impacts specifically relating to Canada lynx and lynx habitat. This issue led the agency to develop the following three alternatives: 1. Alternative 1: No Action 2. Alternative 2: Vegetation Management - Proposed Action 3. Alternative 3: Vegetation Management - Limited Action Both Action alternatives were designed to be viable, consistent with the direction of the land management plan, and capable of moving resources toward desired conditions, at least to some degree. The action alternatives propose varying acres of commercial harvest treatment activities that would be implemented adaptively to move toward desired conditions. When evaluating effects between the alternatives, it was found that the No Action alternative would likely have the fewest short-term effects for most resources. The relatively slow rate of forest stand recovery in some areas could be detrimental to some resources. Fuel loadings would continue to increase as snags fall, increasing the potential for longer duration fires and negative soil-heating impacts and increased threat to Forest users, private resources and infrastructure. Under No Action, no National Forest System Roads would be maintained except under regular work orders and as funding allowed. No temporary road construction would be needed under this alternative. No Action would not benefit the local forest products industry. The action alternatives would have some short-term (approximately 15 years) disturbance effects during harvest activities to soils, watersheds, wildlife and some Forest users. In the long-term (beyond 15 years), there is low risk for adverse effects to resources. Accelerated stand regeneration would be positive in the long-term for all resources. Reducing potential long-term fuel loadings adjacent to private lands would reduce the risk for high-intensity fires in the project area and therefore reduce firefighter safety concerns. The action alternatives would do more to protect existing infrastructure. Positive benefits to local industry would be expected. 4 CP District-wide Salvage Project Final Environmental Impact Statement All proposed management activities for each action alternative would follow Forest Plan standards and guidelines and best management practices, Project Design Criteria (PDC), and the silvicultural guidelines. They would also incorporate the use of a project pre-implementation checklist process and monitoring elements to minimize adverse effects and protect resources. Alternative 2 would have the greatest potential for effects to Canada lynx, as well as an important Rio Grande cutthroat trout fishery. Alternative 3, on the other hand, would reduce the area salvaged by approximately one-half of that proposed by Alternative 2. Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2021 OHV Grant Recommended Funding Approval
    State Trails Program 13787 US Hwy. 85 N., Littleton, Colorado 80125 P 303.791.1957 | F 303.470-0782 May 6-7, 2020 2020-2021 OHV Trail Grant funding awards as recommended by the State Recreational Trails Committee. This letter is a summary and explanation of the enclosed Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) 2020-2021 OHV Trail Grant funding recommendations for Parks and Wildlife Commission (PWC) approval during the May 2020 meeting. We are requesting approval for 60 grants for a total award amount of $4,273,860. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division’s (CPW) Trails Program, a statewide program within CPW, administers grants for trail-related projects on an annual basis. Local, county, and state governments, federal agencies, special recreation districts, and non-profit organizations with management responsibilities over public lands may apply for and are eligible to receive non- motorized and motorized trail grants. Colorado’s Off-highway Vehicle Trail Program CPW’s OHV Program is statutorily created in sections 33-14.5-101 through 33-14.5-113, Colorado Revised Statutes. The program is funded through the sale of OHV registrations and use permits. It is estimated that almost 200,000 OHVs were registered or permitted for use in Colorado during the 2019-2020 season. The price of an annual OHV registration or use- permit is $25.25. Funds are used to support the statewide OHV Program, the OHV Registration Program and OHV Trail Grant Program, including OHV law enforcement. The OHV Program seeks to improve and enhance motorized recreation opportunities in Colorado while promoting safe, responsible use of OHVs.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Rocky Mountain Region Campground List
    ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION COLORADO CAMPGROUND LIST ARAPAHO & ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FORESTS (970) 295.6700 This Campground List contains all the Forest Service campgrounds located within the BOULDER RD* - BOULDER, CO (303) 541.2500 Rocky Mountain Region. The campgrounds are listed by State, National SITE # OF MAX BASE CAMPGROUND NAME Forest/Grassland, and Ranger District. Base Minimum Camping Fees are listed, but ELEVATION SITES SPUR FEE we cannot show additional fees that may be applicable (hook-ups, etc.). Most Rocky Camp Dick 8,650' 41 40' $19 R* Y Y Mountain Region campgrounds are open from Memorial Day through Labor Day. To Kelly Dahl 8,600' 46 40' $19 R* Y N find a campground's Open/Closed status, contact the appropriate Ranger District office. Campground locations are shown on each National Forest or Meeker Park 8,600' 29 35' $11 FC* N N Grassland Visitor Information Map and they can be viewed online at: Olive Ridge 8,350' 56 40' $19 R* Y N http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/r2/recreation/camping Pawnee 10,400' 47 40' $19 R* Y Y Peaceful Valley 8,500' 17 30' $19 R* Y Y Rainbow Lakes 10,000' 14 40' $13 FC* N Y FOR CAMPGROUND RESERVATIONS GO TO: RECREATION.GOV CANYON LAKES RD* - FORT COLLINS, CO (970) 295.6700 SITE # OF MAX BASE 1.877.444.6777 www.recreation.gov CAMPGROUND NAME ELEVATION SITES SPUR FEE Campgrounds accepting reservations are marked with *R under the column with the Ansel Watrous 5,800' 17 45' $19 R* Y Y Recreation.gov logo above.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 07/01/2021 to 09/30/2021 Rio Grande National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 07/01/2021 to 09/30/2021 Rio Grande National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact Projects Occurring Nationwide Locatable Mining Rule - 36 CFR - Regulations, Directives, On Hold N/A N/A Sarah Shoemaker 228, subpart A. Orders 907-586-7886 EIS [email protected] d.us *UPDATED* Description: The U.S. Department of Agriculture proposes revisions to its regulations at 36 CFR 228, Subpart A governing locatable minerals operations on National Forest System lands.A draft EIS & proposed rule should be available for review/comment in late 2020 Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=57214 Location: UNIT - All Districts-level Units. STATE - All States. COUNTY - All Counties. LEGAL - Not Applicable. These regulations apply to all NFS lands open to mineral entry under the US mining laws. More Information is available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/science-technology/geology/minerals/locatable-minerals/current-revisions. R2 - Rocky Mountain Region, Occurring in more than one Forest (excluding Regionwide) Xcel Energy Transmission and - Special use management Developing Proposal Expected:03/2021 05/2021 Matthew Custer Distribution Authorization; Est. Scoping Start 12/2020 720-822-4321 Operation and Maintenance [email protected] Plan Project Description: The Forest Service proposes to reauthorize approximately 293 miles of existing electric transmission line and 196 CE miles of electric distribution line; develop and implement a standardized O&M Plan for routine maintenance and vegetation management.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 OHV Trail Grants Funding Approval
    congressional districts, one member appointed from the state at large and one member that represents the GOCO Board. The Committee also serves as Colorado’s State Recreational Trail Advisory Committee as required by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to be eligible for RTP funds. To be in compliance with federal RTP funding eligibility rules, committee membership must include trail users and there must be representation of both off- road motorized recreational trail users and non-motorized recreational trail interests. The Committee oversees CPW’s annual trail grant application reviews, scoring and ranking processes and submits its recommendations for grant funding strategies to the Commission for their review, consideration and final approval. Appendix A lists the current Committee members. The 2018 OHV Grant Application and Review Process OHV grant applications are sent out by e-mail, ground mail, and are posted on the CPW’s Trails Program website each year. Trail grant opportunities are publicized annually through press releases, newsletters, the state website, and e-mail information networks. Technical assistance for grant preparation is provided by CPW Trails Program staff to potential applicants. The submission deadline for OHV grant applications is the first business day of December each year. The Commission, through its Policy A-104, has authorized a subcommittee structure to assist the Committee in formulating its grant recommendations. Subcommittee members are appointed to the Grant Review and Ranking Subcommittees for the purpose of reviewing and ranking grant applications and compiling funding recommendations for the Committee’s consideration. To solicit public comment, all grant applications are posted on the CPW Trails Program’s website and every public comment is evaluated as part of a subcommittee’s grant review and ranking process.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 04/01/2021 to 06/30/2021 Rio Grande National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 04/01/2021 to 06/30/2021 Rio Grande National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact Projects Occurring Nationwide Gypsy Moth Management in the - Vegetation management Completed Actual: 11/28/2012 01/2013 Susan Ellsworth United States: A Cooperative (other than forest products) 775-355-5313 Approach [email protected]. EIS us *UPDATED* Description: The USDA Forest Service and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service are analyzing a range of strategies for controlling gypsy moth damage to forests and trees in the United States. Web Link: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/wv/eis/ Location: UNIT - All Districts-level Units. STATE - All States. COUNTY - All Counties. LEGAL - Not Applicable. Nationwide. Locatable Mining Rule - 36 CFR - Regulations, Directives, In Progress: Expected:12/2021 12/2021 Sarah Shoemaker 228, subpart A. Orders NOI in Federal Register 907-586-7886 EIS 09/13/2018 [email protected] d.us *UPDATED* Est. DEIS NOA in Federal Register 03/2021 Description: The U.S. Department of Agriculture proposes revisions to its regulations at 36 CFR 228, Subpart A governing locatable minerals operations on National Forest System lands.A draft EIS & proposed rule should be available for review/comment in late 2020 Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=57214 Location: UNIT - All Districts-level Units. STATE - All States. COUNTY - All Counties. LEGAL - Not Applicable. These regulations apply to all NFS lands open to mineral entry under the US mining laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 01/01/2021 to 03/31/2021 Rio Grande National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 01/01/2021 to 03/31/2021 Rio Grande National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact Projects Occurring Nationwide Locatable Mining Rule - 36 CFR - Regulations, Directives, In Progress: Expected:12/2021 12/2021 Nancy Rusho 228, subpart A. Orders DEIS NOA in Federal Register 202-731-9196 09/13/2018 [email protected] EIS Est. FEIS NOA in Federal Register 11/2021 Description: The U.S. Department of Agriculture proposes revisions to its regulations at 36 CFR 228, Subpart A governing locatable minerals operations on National Forest System lands.A draft EIS & proposed rule should be available for review/comment in late 2020 Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=57214 Location: UNIT - All Districts-level Units. STATE - All States. COUNTY - All Counties. LEGAL - Not Applicable. These regulations apply to all NFS lands open to mineral entry under the US mining laws. More Information is available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/science-technology/geology/minerals/locatable-minerals/current-revisions. R2 - Rocky Mountain Region, Occurring in more than one Forest (excluding Regionwide) 01/01/2021 04:04 am MT Page 1 of 9 Rio Grande National Forest Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact R2 - Rocky Mountain Region, Occurring in more than one Forest (excluding Regionwide) Xcel Energy Transmission and - Special use management Developing Proposal Expected:03/2021 05/2021 Matthew Custer Distribution Authorization; Est.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Risk of Physical Contact Between Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep and Domestic Sheep in the Snow Mesa Sheep Allotment Grazing Landscape
    Assessment of Risk of Physical Contact between Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep and Domestic Sheep in the Snow Mesa Sheep Allotment Grazing Landscape Rio Grande National Forest Divide Ranger District Photo: Domestic sheep grazing below Baldy Cinco TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT 4 Why the Concern Now 6 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED 8 KEY CONCEPTS, GUIDANCE AND RECOMMENDATION DOCUMENTS 10 HISTORY OF DOMESTIC SHEEP GRAZING ON THE SNOW MESA LANDSCAPE 12 CENTRAL SAN JUAN BIGHORN SHEEP HERD 14 AFFECTED BIGHORN SHEEP HERDS S-22 San Luis Peak Sub-Herd 18 S-53 Bristol Head Sub-Herd 20 S-36 Bellows Creek Sub-Herd 22 RISK OF CONTACT TOOL 24 DISEASE HISTORY 27 RISK ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES 29 RISK OF CONTACT TOOL RESULTS 30 Snow Mesa Allotment Alternative 2 34 Snow Mesa Allotment Alternative 3 36 Table Allotment Alternative 2 38 Table Allotment Alternative 3 40 Miners Allotment Alternative 2 42 Miners Allotment Alternative 3 44 Ouray Allotment Alternative 2 46 Ouray Allotment Alternative 3 47 SUMMARY TABLE 49 DISCUSSION 50 UNCERTAINTIES 51 LITERATURE CITED 56 APPENDIX 1: RISK OF CONTACT TOOL RESULTS FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 58 APPENDIX 2: RISK OF CONTACT TOOL RESULTS FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 59 APPENDIX 3: RAM FORAY PROBABILITY FOR SUBGROUPS ALTERNATIVE 2 60 APPENDIX 4: RAM FORAY PROBABILTY CUMULATIVE FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 61 APPENDIX 5: RAM FORAY PROBABILITY FOR SUBGROUPS ALTERNATIVE 3 62 APPENDIX 6: RAM FORAY PROBABILTY CUMULATIVE FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 63 APPENDIX 7: PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA 64 APPENDIX 8: RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS – FOUR STEP OUTLINE 68 2 INTRODUCTION The Snow Mesa Landscape is located approximately 5 miles northwest of Creede, Colorado within Mineral and Hinsdale Counties within the Divide Ranger District of the Rio Grande National Forest.
    [Show full text]
  • The Natural Heritage Network and Biodiversity
    Biological Inventory of Rio Grande and Conejos Counties, Colorado Prepared for: The Nature Conservancy 1881 9th St., Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80302 Prepared by: Steve Kettler, Joe Rocchio, Robert Schorr, Julie Burt Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University College of Natural Resources 254 General Services Building Ft. Collins, Colorado 80523 March 31, 2000 Biological Inventory of Rio Grande and Conejos Counties, Colorado Prepared for: The Nature Conservancy 1881 9th St., Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80302 Prepared by: Steve Kettler, Joe Rocchio, Robert Schorr, Julie Burt Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University College of Natural Resources 254 General Services Building Ft. Collins, Colorado 80523 March 31, 2000 ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................................................................................................ VIII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................. IX INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................1 GENERAL STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................................2 METHODS .........................................................................................................................................................6 RESULTS..........................................................................................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • Eagle's View of San Juan Mountains
    Eagle’s View of San Juan Mountains Aerial Photographs with Mountain Descriptions of the most attractive places of Colorado’s San Juan Mountains Wojtek Rychlik Ⓒ 2014 Wojtek Rychlik, Pikes Peak Photo Published by Mother's House Publishing 6180 Lehman, Suite 104 Colorado Springs CO 80918 719-266-0437 / 800-266-0999 [email protected] www.mothershousepublishing.com ISBN 978-1-61888-085-7 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced without permission in writing from the copyright owner. Printed by Mother’s House Publishing, Colorado Springs, CO, U.S.A. Wojtek Rychlik www.PikesPeakPhoto.com Title page photo: Lizard Head and Sunshine Mountain southwest of Telluride. Front cover photo: Mount Sneffels and Yankee Boy Basin viewed from west. Acknowledgement 1. Aerial photography was made possible thanks to the courtesy of Jack Wojdyla, owner and pilot of Cessna 182S airplane. Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Section NE: The Northeast, La Garita Mountains and Mountains East of Hwy 149 5 San Luis Peak 13 3. Section N: North San Juan Mountains; Northeast of Silverton & West of Lake City 21 Uncompahgre & Wetterhorn Peaks 24 Redcloud & Sunshine Peaks 35 Handies Peak 41 4. Section NW: The Northwest, Mount Sneffels and Lizard Head Wildernesses 59 Mount Sneffels 69 Wilson & El Diente Peaks, Mount Wilson 75 5. Section SW: The Southwest, Mountains West of Animas River and South of Ophir 93 6. Section S: South San Juan Mountains, between Animas and Piedra Rivers 108 Mount Eolus & North Eolus 126 Windom, Sunlight Peaks & Sunlight Spire 137 7. Section SE: The Southeast, Mountains East of Trout Creek and South of Rio Grande 165 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Railroads of the San Luis Valley
    New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 35th Field Conference. Rio Grande Rift: Northern New Mexico, 1984 297 RAILROADS OF THE SAN LUIS VALLEY ALLEN L. BOWMAN Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 The Denver and Rio Grande Railway (D&RG) pushed its 3-foot- indebtedness of the Railway Company soon outstripped its earning gauge track over La Veta pass in the spring of 1877, reaching the new capacity. The first default on bond interest payments occurred in 1877 town of Alamosa on July 10, 1878 (Athearn, 1962). The isolated res- (Athearn, 1962). Another lucrative source of profit came from the idents of the San Luis Valley (Fig. 1) could now travel the 130 miles practice of creating new towns on the railroad, on land conveniently to Pueblo in eight hours, or 250 miles to Denver in only 14 hours owned by Palmer's group. These townsites were then sold as town lots (Anderson, 1963, p. 405). More significantly, the convenience of rail to businessmen wishing to benefit from the new railroad. If a town transportation quickly made Alamosa the business and mercantile center of the San Luis Valley, a position that it still holds today. The position of Alamosa at end-of-track also made it the terminus for stage lines and wagon freight to the mining districts of the San Juan Mountains, supplanting the previous terminal towns of Garland City (4 miles east of Fort Garland) and La Veta. The railroad moved on to Chama in 1880, to Durango in 1881, and to Silverton in 1882, but the growth of the San Luis Valley was sufficient to support Alamosa, while Garland City became a ghost town and La Veta became a small farm and ranch center (Athearn, 1962).
    [Show full text]