DOCSLIB.ORG

Whitewater/Kannah Creek Plan Appendix

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Whitewater/Kannah Creek Plan Appendix WHITEWATER/KANNAH CREEK PLAN APPENDIX adopted July 8, 1999 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PLANNING PROCESS FUTURE LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SOME LAND USE PLANNING TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES FOR THE PLANNING AREA TRAFFIC MODEL FOR THE REEDER MESA, PURDY MESA, UPPER KANNAH CREEK, AND UPPER LANDS END ROAD SUBAREA Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SINCERE THANKS TO ALL THE PUBLIC WHO CONTRIBUTED THEIR VALUABLE TIME AND EFFORT TO THE WHITEWATER/KANNAH CREEK PLAN. Technical assistance provided by: Steering Committee Members Jean Moores (Planning Commission) Gary Hamacher (Planning Commission) Bud Bradbury Dan Brown Ed Gardner Don Lumbardy Austin Massey John Whiting Technical Advisory Committee Members Katherine Abramson, U.S. Forest Service Rob Bleiberg, Mesa County Land Conservancy Rod Bonnell, Purdy Mesa Livestock and Water Company Bud Bradbury, Grand Mesa Reservoir Pool Paul Cavanaugh, Purdy Mesa Water Sue Gormley, Mesa County Facilities and Parks, Director Chris Hinkson, K-N Energy Don Lumbardy, Grand Mesa Slopes Austin Massey, Mesa County Cattleman’s Association Terry Mathieson, Colorado Division of Wildlife Harley Metz, Bureau of Land Management Jim Miller, Colorado Division of Wildlife Dave Reinertsen, Clifton Water Caryn Romeo, Mesa County Health Department Dale Tooker, Clifton Water Greg Trainor, City of Grand Junction Dwain Watson, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Mesa County Staff Kathleen Sellman, Planning and Development Director Keith Fife, Long Range Planning Director Tom Dixon, Senior Planner Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 3 (Mesa County Staff continued) Richard Goecke, Senior Planner Jeff Hoffman, Senior Planner Linda Dannenberger, Senior Planner Jo Millsaps, Zoning Administrator Michael Warren, Planner 1 Eileen Wamboldt, Planning Office Administrator Ken Simms, Traffic Planner (also Technical Advisory Committee) Cliff Davidson, RTPO, Administrator Tambra Dabbs, RTPO, Office Administrator Otis Darnell, Road Maintenance District Manager Kimberly Parker, Emergency Management Judith Sirota, Horticultural Pest and Weed Inspector Facilities and Parks Department Public Works Department Sheriff’s Department Waste Management Department Environmental Health Department Other Agencies Grand Valley Air Quality Planning Committee Mesa County Agricultural Advisory Panel Rick Beaty, Jim Brite, Grand Junction Rural Fire Districts Colorado Division of Wildlife Colorado State Forest Service U.S. Forest Service Grand Mesa Reservoir Pool Purdy Mesa Livestock and Water Company U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tri-River Cooperative Extension Service Natural Resource Conservation Service Colorado Department of Transportation State of Colorado, Well Commissioner, Montrose District Museum of Western Colorado Lands End Response Team Whitewater Postmaster Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 4 PLANNING PROCESS CONFIDENTIAL INTERVIEWS Mesa County Long Range Planning Staff conducted confidential interviews during June and July 1998. Area residents, staff from various county departments, service providers, and Mesa County Planning Commission members were interviewed with to identify issues and help establish a direction to proceed. PUBLIC FORUMS AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOPS Introduction of baseline findings to the Board of County Commissioners (August 19, 1998). The Long Range Planning staff briefed the Board of County Commissioners on the findings of preliminary investigation of the planning area. Policy directives for the plan and planning process from the Board of County Commissioners were presented and discussed. Open House / Public Forum #1 (September 22, 1998) Presentation by about 40 service providers and government agencies with an interest in the area. A list of the service providers and government agencies is provided below. Mesa County Environmental Health Dept. Natural Resource Conservation Service School District #51 Colorado Department of Transportation Grand Junction Parks and Recreation Dept. Lands End Response Team Ute Water Conservancy District Bureau of Land Management City of Grand Junction Utilities Grand Mesa Slopes Grand Junction and Grand Junction Rural Colorado Division of Wildlife Fire Districts Clifton Water Mesa County Agricultural Advisory Panel Department of Energy Colorado Division of Wildlife Mesa County Emergency Management Colorado State Forest Service Mesa County Horticultural Pest and Weed U.S. Forest Service Inspector Department of Energy Colorado Division of Wildlife Tri-River Cooperative Extension Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 5 Public Forum #2 -- Vision (October 13, 1998) The staff asked the public to tell them what the vision of the area should be –what types of development, what type of services were appropriate for the area. Steering Committee (October 20, 1998) The committee discussed character of the area and formulated a rough draft of a vision statement. Public Forum #3 -- Refine Vision - Goals (November 10, 1998) Staff asked the public to refine the vision of the area and show on maps and described in words what: 1) the limits of Whitewater should be 2) rural means 3) is unique about their community 4) open space is 5) development is occurring and where will it occur 6) cultural resources are to protect 7) BLM land activities should be Steering Committee (November 17, 1998) Committee members recommended changes to the vision statement and reviewed a composite map derived from previous public forums. Public Forum #4 -- Land Use Alternatives (December 8, 1998) Staff asked the public to refine land use alternatives and select planning elements they wanted in the plan. Steering Committee (December 15, 1998) The committee reviewed the results from the small group exercises, (plan elements), future land use alternatives and ranking of the alternatives. Public Forum #5 – Character of Development and Visual Preference (January 19, 1999) Staff presented and reviewed 4 draft alternatives derived from the previous meetings, and 4 maps illustrating different types of character of development. Asked the public to identify the character of development that was or was not acceptable. Steering Committee (January 26, 1999) Members reviewed results of the visual preference survey and briefly discussed tools and techniques that could be used to implement the plan. Public Forum #6 -- Implementation Tools and Techniques (February 16, 1999) Staff discussed different tools and techniques available to implement the plan and asked the public to select the most appropriate tools. Joint Meeting between the Steering Committee and Planning Commission (March 4, 1999) Staff made a presentation to the Planning Commission of the findings and described the direction and outline of the plan. Planning Commission provided direction to staff for further public and steering committee comment. Update of the plan to the County Commissioners (March 16, 1999) Presentation of Draft Plan to the County Commissioners. Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 6 Public Forum #7 -- Presentation of Draft Plan (March 23, 1999) Comments on the plan and planning process Steering Committee (April 1, 1999) Members discussed public comments on the plan and presented official steering committee comments. Planning Commission Hearing # 1 (May 13, 1999) Planning Commission Workshop (June 3, 1999) Planning Commission Hearing # 2 (July 8, 1999) Whitewater/Kannah Creek Appendix Page A 7 FUTURE LAND USE ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE # 1. Whitewater Rural Community. The boundaries of Whitewater lie within all of section 14 of T2S, R1E. The rural community is generally north of Whitewater Creek, east of the Gunnison River, and includes land on both sides of Highway 50. The center of the community boundary is roughly the center of the old Whitewater Townsite. (About 2 square miles) A rural community is defined as an unincorporated small-scale settlement, often located in the remote countryside at a crossroads, containing diverse residential, commercial and civic land uses in close proximity to one another. A rural community may or may not have infrastructure (water, sewer, etc.) or services (police, fire, post office, etc.). Generally, higher densities (1Dwelling Unit per /½ acre if MC Health Department Standards can be met) are encouraged within the boundaries of the rural community, with densities decreasing the further away from the Rural Community. Rationale for this decrease in density is based partially on the cost and availability of infrastructure/services. Cost of services is less expensive in areas of concentrated land use activities. No commercial services are appropriate outside of the Whitewater Rural Community. Concentric ring. This ring extends outward from the center of the Whitewater Rural Community for about 1½ miles. Maximum residential densities may be no more than 1 unit per 2 to 5 acres. Infill is encouraged. 5 to 35 Acre Density. Acceptable development densities range from 1 unit per 5 to 35 acres. At this density urban services are unnecessary and unfeasible. Infrastructure and services are typically costly, and in some areas are not provided (fire or water). Boundaries for this density classification generally lie below the 4,800 foot contour elevation where potable water is supplied by Clifton Water but also extend to the Lower Kannah Creek area. 35 Acre Plus Density. Development at a maximum of 1 unit per 35 acres is acceptable. At this density, urban services are unnecessary and unfeasible. Boundaries for this density classification generally
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Moose Management Plan DAU
    MOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN DATA ANALYSIS UNIT M-5 Grand Mesa and Crystal River Valley Photo courtesy of Phil & Carol Nesius Prepared by Stephanie Duckett Colorado Division of Wildlife 711 Independent Ave. Grand Junction, CO 81505 M-5 DATA ANALYSIS UNIT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GMUs: 41, 42, 43, 411, 421, 52, and 521 (Grand Mesa and Crystal River Valley) Land Ownership: 35% private; 65% public Post-hunt population: Previous objective: NA 2008 estimate: 125 Recommended: pending Composition Objective: Previous objective: NA 2008 estimate: 60 bulls: 100 cows Recommended: pending Background: The M-5 moose herd was established with translocated Shiras moose from Utah and Colorado in 2005 – 2007. The herd has exhibited strong reproduction and has pioneered into suitable habitat in the DAU. At this time, it is anticipated that there are approximately 125 moose in the DAU. The herd already provides significant watchable wildlife opportunities throughout the Grand Mesa and Crystal River Valley areas and it is anticipated that it will provide hunting opportunities in the near future. Significant Issues: Several significant issues were identified during the DAU planning process in M-5. The majority of people who provided input indicated strong interest in both hunting and watchable wildlife opportunities. There was less, but still significant, concern about both competition with livestock for forage and the possibility of habitat degradation, primarily in willow and riparian zones. The majority of stakeholders favored increasing the population significantly while staying below carrying capacity. There was strong support for providing a balance of opportunity and trophy antlered hunting in this DAU, and most respondents indicated a desire for quality animals.
    [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]
  • Fens in a Large Landscape of West-Central Colorado
    Inventory of Fens in a Large Landscape of West-Central Colorado Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests April 6, 2012 Beaver Skull Fen in the West Elk Mountains – a moat surrounding the floating mat Barry C. Johnstona, Benjamin T. Strattonb, Warren R. Youngc, Liane L. Mattsond, John M. Almye, Gay T. Austinf Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests 2230 Highway 50, Delta, Colorado 81416-2485 a Botanist, Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison National Forests, Gunnison, CO. (970) 642-1177. [email protected] b Hydrologist, Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison National Forests, Gunnison, CO. (970) 642-4406. [email protected] cSoil Scientist, Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison National Forests, Montrose, CO. (970) 240-5411. [email protected] d Solid Leasable Minerals Geologist, USDA Forest Service Minerals and Geology Management, Centralized National Operation, Delta, CO. (970) 874-6697. [email protected] e Hydrologist (Retired), Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison National Forests, Delta, CO. f Resource Management Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, Gunnison, CO. (970-642-4943). [email protected]. 1 Acknowledgements Our deepest thanks go to Charlie Richmond, Forest Supervisor, for his support and guidance through this project; and to Sherry Hazelhurst, Deputy Forest Supervisor (and her predecessor, Kendall Clark), for valuable oversight and help over all the hurdles we have encountered so far. Carmine Lockwood, Renewable Resources Staff Officer, Lee Ann Loupe, External Communications Staff Officer, and Connie Clementson, Grand Valley District Ranger, members of our Steering Committee, gave much advice and guidance. Bill Piloni, Forest Fleet Manager, was most helpful with ironing out our vehicle situations. Doug Marah helped us get out some tight spots.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Summarizes Water Quality Conditions in the State of Colorado
    Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report State of Colorado Prepared Pursuant to Section 303(d) and Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act 2012 Update to the 2010 305(b) Report Prepared by: Water Quality Control Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment From the highest sand dunes in Executive Summary North America to 54 mountain peaks over 14,000 feet, Colorado has one of the most unique and varied natural The Colorado 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report summarizes water quality conditions in the State of Colorado. This landscapes in the entire nation. report fulfills Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 305(b) which requires all Throughout the state, there exist states to assess and report on the quality of waters within their State. This lush green forests, fields of report fulfills Colorado’s obligation under the Clean Water Act, and covers vibrant wildflowers, picturesque the 2010-2011 two-year period. mountain lakes, abundant grasslands and rich red rock formations. There are many This report provides the State’s assessments of water quality that were places to enjoy Colorado’s vast conducted during the past five years. Specifically, it compares the classified natural beauty, with four uses of all surface waters within the State to the corresponding standards in national parks, five national order to assess the degree to which waters are in attainment of those monuments and 41 state parks standards. The Integrated Report (IR) provides the attainment status of all waiting to be explored. surface waters according to the 5 reporting categories, defined in detail within.
    [Show full text]
  • In the District Court in and for Water Division No
    IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR WATER DIVISION NO. 4 STATE OF COLORADO TO: ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN WATER APPLICATIONS IN SAID WATER DIVISION NO. 4 Pursuant to C.R.S. 37-92-302, as amended, you are notified that the following is a resume of all applications filed in the Water Court during the month of December, 2014. The names, address of applicant, source of water, description of water right or conditional water right involved, and description of the ruling sought are as follows: There has been filed in this proceeding a claim or claims which 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 as provided in the Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969, or be forever barred. “THERE HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS PROCEEDING A CLAIM OR CLAIMS WHICH 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 AS PROVIDED IN THE WATER RIGHT DETERMINATION AND ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1969, OR BE FOREVER BARRED.” SUBSTITUTE WATER SUPPLY PLAN NOTIFICATION LIST Section 37-92-308(6), C.R.S. directs the State Engineer to establish a notification list for each water division for the purpose of notifying interested parties of requests for the State Engineer’s approval of substitute water supply plans (“SWSP”) filed in that water division pursuant to section 37-92-308, C.R.S. The SWSP notification list is also used to provide notice of proposed water right loans to the Colorado Water Conservation Board for use as instream flows under section 37-83-105(2)(b)(II), C.R.S., notice of applications for the State Engineer’s approval of interruptible water supply agreements under section 37-92-309(3)(a), C.R.S., and notice of applications for fallowing-leasing pilot projects under section 37-60-115(8)(e)(II).
    [Show full text]
  • Rare II # 195 Kannah Creek RARE II History – RARE Unit 195 Identified 29,650 Acres As Roadless and Recommended the Area for Wilderness in the RARE II FEIS
    Grand Mesa – Roadless Evaluation RARE II #195 Kannah Creek Rare II # 195 Kannah Creek RARE II History – RARE Unit 195 identified 29,650 acres as roadless and recommended the area for wilderness in the RARE II FEIS. This landscape was not proposed in either of the Colorado Wilderness bills (1980 & 1993) due to its status as a municipal watershed for the city of Grand Junction. Lands that were altered by road construction and timber harvest were removed from the inventory. The remaining acres are described in the 2005 Inventory as unit #20401, Kannah Creek. Resource Activities which removed lands of RARE 195 from 2005 inventory: • There are four miles of road • Vegetation harvest of 413 acres in the Flowing Park area and along road #100 Lands End Road • Communication site 2005 Roadless Inventory compared to 1979 Inventoried Roadless Areas Y 65 E HW STAT D IRS R RVO ESE ON R ERS AND D R D N E D S R D N K A L R A P G N I W O L F IND Kannah Creek IAN PO Legend INT RD # 01 Classified Road Level 5 Classified Road Level 1-4 2005 Roadless Inventory # 01 D R N 1979 Inventoried Roadless Area # 195 O O P GMUG Forest Boundary S H G D U Vegetation Treatments R T O D IN O Non - NF System Lands P A S E M 2005 Roadless Inventory & Evaluation of Potential Wilderness Areas Page 1 of 27 Grand Mesa – Roadless Evaluation Kannah Creek #20401 2005 Inventory Description: Kannah Creek #20401 – 34,630 Acres – Mesa County General Description: Unit 20401 is located on the west end of the Grand Mesa approximately 17 miles southeast of Grand Junction and 10 miles northwest of Delta.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Mesa Moose Day
    3rd annual Grand Mesa Moose Day Saturday July 28, 2012 USFS VC is locatedlocate off of HHwywy 65 aatt 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. 2002009090 BaronBaron LakeLa Drive US Forest Service Visitor Center on Grand Mesa Enjoy a day on the Grand Mesa and attend a FREE family event! MooseMoose DayDay Activites:Activites: Family hikes and hands-on activities for kids Programs on moose viewing and safetyety Moose biology & telemetry presentationstations Free fly fishing demos by A-n-G Outfittersfitters Welcome to the 3rd Annual Grand Mesa Moose Day! Program schedule – in the Visitor Center 11:00 a.m. Moose biology/reintroduction to the Grand Mesa , Stephanie Duckett, Terrestrial Biologist, CPW 12:00 p.m. Free Casting Demonstration by A-n-G Outfitters 1:00 p.m. Moose viewing/safety on the Grand Mesa – Trina Romero, Watchable Wildlife Coordinator, CPW 2:00 p.m. Free Casting Demonstration by A-n-G Outfitters 3:00 p.m. Moose biology/reintroduction to the Grand Mesa , Stephanie Duckett, Terrestrial Biologist, CPW Family activities – outdoors and on the Discovery Trail 12:00 p.m. Kid’s puppet show “The True Story of Smokey Bear” – deck of the VC, Brenda Winfrey, USFS 10:00 – 4:00 p.m. Discovery Trail – Moose hike! (Hourly, based on attendance) – CPW Officers Kids, bring your parents along to learn some moose facts during a hike with a Wildlife Officer! Learn about scat, tracks, and why some moose wear collars. Upon completion of the hike, take your signed form to the OGT trailer for your prize! Ongoing events throughout the day: Make a “Moose Meal”! Pick the perfect ingredients a moose would like to eat.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Creek, (2,600 Acres)
    GRAND MESA, UNCOMPAHGRE, AND GUNNISON NATIONAL FOREST Agate Creek, (11,800 acres)............................................................................................................ 3 American Flag Mountain, (11,900 acres) ....................................................................................... 4 Baldy, (2,300 acres) ........................................................................................................................ 5 Battlements, (24,400 acres)............................................................................................................. 6 Beaver (3,700 acres) ....................................................................................................................... 7 Beckwiths, (18,400 acres) ............................................................................................................... 8 Calamity Basin, (12,500 acres) ....................................................................................................... 9 Cannibal Plateau, (14,500 acres) .................................................................................................. 10 Canyon Creek (10,900 acres); Canyon Creek/Antero, (1,700 acres) ........................................... 11 Carson, (6,000 acres) .................................................................................................................... 13 Castle, (9,400 acres) ...................................................................................................................... 14 Cataract,
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Roadless Areas
    PROFILES OF GRAND MESA, UNCOMPAHGRE, AND GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS ROADLESS AREAS Prepared by the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region July 23, 2008 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS GRAND MESA, UNCOMPAHGRE, AND GUNNISON NATIONAL FOREST ........................................................5 Agate Creek, # 40 (12,700 acres)...............................................................................................................................5 American Flag Mountain, # 32 (9,500 acres) ............................................................................................................5 Baldy, #53 (2,300 acres).............................................................................................................................................6 Battlements, #04 (24,700 acres).................................................................................................................................7 Beaver # 18 (3,600 acres) .........................................................................................................................................7 Beckwiths, #16 (18,600 acres)...................................................................................................................................8 Calamity Basin, #63 (12,200 acres) ...........................................................................................................................9 Cannibal Plateau, #44 (14,500 acres).......................................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Dissolved Selenium Loading for Selected Sites in the Lower Gunnison River Basin, Colorado, 1978–2005
    Prepared in cooperation with Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Analysis of Dissolved Selenium Loading for Selected Sites in the Lower Gunnison River Basin, Colorado, 1978–2005 Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5287 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover photograph. Agricultural area in foreground with Mancos Shale outcropping at the base of the Grand Mesa in the background, Whitewater Creek area (photograph by Cory A. Williams, U.S. Geological Survey). Analysis of Dissolved Selenium Loading for Selected Sites in the Lower Gunnison River Basin, Colorado, 1978–2005 By Judith C. Thomas, Kenneth J. Leib, and John W. Mayo Prepared in cooperation with Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5287 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. Suggested citation: Thomas, J.C., Leib, K.J., Mayo, J.W., 2008, Analysis of dissolved selenium loading for selected sites in the Lower Gunnison River Basin, Colorado, 1978–2005: Reston, VA, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Mesa County Resource Management Plan (RMP)
    NOVEMBER 17, 2020 Mesa County Resource Management Plan Natural Resource Management Plan Y2 Consultants, LLC & Falen Law Offices (Intentionally Left Blank) CONTENTS ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................................... IV LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. VII LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................. VIII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... IX CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 1.1 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 MESA COUNTY’S PLAN OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................. 2 1.2.A Organization ................................................................................................................................ 2 1.2.B Process ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2.C Amending the Plan ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Museum of the West History Docent Guide 2017 Spanish Exhibit Gallery
    Museum of the West History Docent Guide 2017 Spanish Exhibit Gallery Exploring the Northern Frontier The Rivera Expedition The “Kingdom and Province of New Mexico” and its northern frontiers was a huge geographical area. This kingdom included all or part of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas. In 1765 New Mexican Governor Tomas Velez Cachupin asked explorer Don Juan Maria Antonio de Rivera to lead an expedition to explore the northern frontier. Governor Cachupin was worried about encroachment by other European powers and wanted to find the legendary Rio del Tizon (Colorado River) and a place to ford it. The Governor was also interested in the legend that was on the other side of the Rio del Tizon River, was Lake Copala, home of an unknown wealthy civilization. Rivera had traveled north before in 1761 and had his own reasons for going that included searching for gold and silver deposits and evidence of native mining activity. Rivera and his men traveled as far north as the present-day City of Durango, Colorado and then returned home to Santa Fe with no news of European intrigue or finding a mysterious civilization. Governor Cachupin, although discouraged, sent Rivera north one more time to reach the Rio del Tizon and report on evidence of this much-rumored civilization. Rivera left Santa Fe in October of 1765 and headed north as far as present-day Delta, Colorado before returning home to Santa Fe. Although unsuccessful in their quest, the expedition had mapped and kept journals of the new lands and people they met.
    [Show full text]