DOCSLIB.ORG

Cochetopa Hills Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cochetopa Hills Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service March 2014 Cochetopa Hills Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Vegetation Management Forests Gunnison Ranger District Project Environmental Assessment Saguache County, Colorado Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Official: John Murphy, District Ranger, Gunnison Ranger District, GMUG NF Contact: Arthur Haines, District Silviculturist Gunnison Ranger District, GMUG NF Phone: 970 642-4423 Email: [email protected] The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14 th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Cochetopa Hills Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment Table of Contents 1. PROPOSED ACTION/PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION........................................................1 1.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Background ................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3. Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 3 1.4. Planning Area ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.5. Purpose of and Need for Action ................................................................................................... 6 1.6. Forest Plan Management - Area Prescriptions ............................................................................. 7 1.7. Forest Plan Management – Direction ......................................................................................... 10 1.7.1. Forest Level Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................... 10 1.8. Relationship of the Proposed Action to the Forest Plan and the Purpose and Need ................ 12 1.8.1. Activities to Create/Maintain Forest Age Class and Species Diversity within the Landscape 12 1.8.2. Activities to Protect Forests from Insects, Diseases, and Wildfire ......................................... 13 1.8.3. Activities to Provide Wood Products Now and in the Future ................................................. 14 1.8.4. Activities to Protect and Enhance Range Resources ............................................................... 15 1.9. Decision Framework ................................................................................................................... 15 1.10. Key Issues Associated with the Proposed Action ....................................................................... 16 1.10.1. Key Issue 1- Forest Condition .................................................................................................. 16 1.10.2. Key Issue 2 – Economic Viability of Proposed Treatments ..................................................... 17 1.11. Other Issues ................................................................................................................................ 17 1.12. Public Involvement and Scoping ................................................................................................. 18 2. ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................................................... 19 2.1. Description of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 19 2.1.1. Alternative 1 – Proposed Action ............................................................................................. 20 2.1.2. Alternative 2 –Economic Viability ........................................................................................... 30 2.1.3. Alternative 3 – No Action ........................................................................................................ 35 2.1.4. Treatment Timing (All Action Alternatives) ............................................................................ 35 2.1.5. Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................................... 35 2.1.6. Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Study ............................................... 39 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ....................................... 40 3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 40 ii Cochetopa Hills Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment 3.2. Summary of Analysis ................................................................................................................... 40 3.3. Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities ..................................................... 45 3.3.1. Past Activities .......................................................................................................................... 45 3.3.2. Ongoing Activities ................................................................................................................... 49 3.3.3. Foreseeable Future Activities.................................................................................................. 50 3.4. Forest Resources......................................................................................................................... 50 3.4.1. Existing Conditions – Forest Resources................................................................................... 50 3.4.2. Direct and Indirect Effects, Forest Resources – No Action and Alternatives 1 and 2 ............. 61 3.4.3. Cumulative Effects, Forest Resources – Alternatives 1 and 2 ................................................ 69 3.5. Range Resources ......................................................................................................................... 70 3.5.1. Existing Conditions – Range Resources ................................................................................... 70 3.5.2. Direct and Indirect Effects, Range Resources – Alternatives 1 and 2 ..................................... 72 3.5.3. Cumulative Effects, Range Resources – Alternatives 1 and 2 ................................................. 77 3.6. Soil Resources ............................................................................................................................. 78 3.6.1. Existing Conditions – Soil ........................................................................................................ 78 3.6.2. Direct and Indirect Effects, Soil – Alternatives 1 and 2 ........................................................... 81 3.6.3. Cumulative Effects, Soil – Alternatives 1 and 2....................................................................... 84 3.7. Watershed Resources ................................................................................................................. 85 3.7.1. Existing Conditions – Watershed Resources ........................................................................... 85 3.7.2. Direct and Indirect Effects, Watershed Resources – Alternatives 1 and 2 ............................. 89 3.7.3. Cumulative Effects, Watershed Resources – Alternatives 1 and 2 ......................................... 97 3.8. Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................ 98 3.8.1. Existing Conditions – Wildlife .................................................................................................. 98 3.8.2. Direct and Indirect Effects, Wildlife – Alternatives 1 and 2 .................................................. 102 3.8.3. Cumulative Effects, Wildlife – Alternatives 1 and 2 .............................................................. 122 3.9. Fisheries .................................................................................................................................... 123 3.9.1. Existing Conditions - Fisheries ............................................................................................... 123 3.9.2. Direct and Indirect Effects, Fisheries – Alternatives 1 and 2 ................................................ 123 3.9.3. Cumulative Effects, Fisheries – Alternatives 1 and 2 ........................................................... 127 3.10. Botany ....................................................................................................................................... 127 3.10.1. Existing Conditions – Botany ................................................................................................. 127 iii Cochetopa Hills Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment 3.10.2. Direct and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tom Sharp's Post
    19 Tom Sharp's Post Tom Sharp's Post, a log and adobe Indian trading station, built in 1870, is a familiar sight to those traveling Highway 305, in Huerfano County, between the remnants of Malachite and the top of Pass Creek Pass. The post, flbout a mile from the site of the once-thriving town called Malachite, stands near the Huerfano River crossing of the Gardner-Red Wing. road. Sharp's place was known as Buzzard Roost Ranch be­ cause hundreds of buzzards roosted in the cottonwood trees along the stream there. A well-traveled Ute Indian trail over the Sangre de Cristo range ran through the ranch, thence to Badito, and on to the Greenhorn Mountains. Ute Chief Ouray and his wife, Chipeta, often visited Sharp while their tribes­ men camped nearby. W. T. (Tom) Sharp, a native of Missouri, served with the Confederate forces at the beginning of the Civil War. His general was Sterling Price. In 1861, Sharp was paroled from the service because of wounds, and was placed in a wagon bound for the Far West. Surviving the trip across country, he joined a half-breed Indian hunter named "Old Tex,'' and for a time the two sup­ plied meat to mining camps in California and Oregon . Later Sharp headed eastward. With a partner, John Miller, he contracted to supply telegraph poles for the Union Pacific Railroad, then building into Wyoming. In 1867, he was a de­ puty sheriff in Cheyenne, Wyoming. In the autumn of 1868, Tom Sharp, John White, and John Williams, with an old prairie wagon, came into the Huerfano Valley looking for a location.
    [Show full text]
  • 36 CFR Ch. II (7–1–13 Edition) § 294.49
    § 294.49 36 CFR Ch. II (7–1–13 Edition) subpart shall prohibit a responsible of- Line Includes ficial from further restricting activi- Colorado roadless area name upper tier No. acres ties allowed within Colorado Roadless Areas. This subpart does not compel 22 North St. Vrain ............................................ X the amendment or revision of any land 23 Rawah Adjacent Areas ............................... X 24 Square Top Mountain ................................. X management plan. 25 Troublesome ............................................... X (d) The prohibitions and restrictions 26 Vasquez Adjacent Area .............................. X established in this subpart are not sub- 27 White Pine Mountain. ject to reconsideration, revision, or re- 28 Williams Fork.............................................. X scission in subsequent project decisions Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnison National Forest or land management plan amendments 29 Agate Creek. or revisions undertaken pursuant to 36 30 American Flag Mountain. CFR part 219. 31 Baldy. (e) Nothing in this subpart waives 32 Battlements. any applicable requirements regarding 33 Beaver ........................................................ X 34 Beckwiths. site specific environmental analysis, 35 Calamity Basin. public involvement, consultation with 36 Cannibal Plateau. Tribes and other agencies, or compli- 37 Canyon Creek-Antero. 38 Canyon Creek. ance with applicable laws. 39 Carson ........................................................ X (f) If any provision in this subpart
    [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]
  • Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests DRAFT Wilderness Evaluation Report August 2018
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests DRAFT Wilderness Evaluation Report August 2018 Designated in the original Wilderness Act of 1964, the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness covers more than 183,000 acres spanning the Gunnison and White River National Forests. In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • An Archaeological Inventory in the Pike's Stockade Area, Conejos
    An Archaeological Inventory in the Pike’s Stockade Area, Conejos County, Colorado by Kevin D. Black Principal Investigator Colorado Historical Society with a contribution by Bruce Wahle Denver Chapter Colorado Archaeological Society Sponsored by Colorado Historical Society Office of the State Archaeologist of Colorado Program for Avocational Archaeological Certification Denver, Colorado Colorado State Permits #2004–21, 2005–6, 2006–41 October 2007 Abstract During the 2004–2006 field seasons, an archaeological survey was conducted east of Sanford, Colorado as part of the training available in the Program for Avocational Archaeological Certification (PAAC). The project thus used volunteers largely from the Colorado Archaeological Society (CAS) already enrolled in PAAC, supervised and trained by the Assistant State Archaeologist from the Colorado Historical Society. The inventory was completed on about 907 acres of the Pike’s Stockade State Historic Monument (PSSHM) in Conejos County, Colorado. The study tract encompassed a low shrubland environment on and around a volcanic mesa named Sierro del Ojito, bordering the wooded floodplain of the Conejos River, at elevations of 2,296–2,495 m. This area was intensively surveyed primarily to train PAAC volunteers in archaeological inventory and mapping methods. In addition, this portion of southern Colorado had been the subject of relatively little archaeological research interest, and the PSSHM—as a regional property of the Colorado Historical Society—made a logical choice for a PAAC survey project. As a result of the survey a total of 37 sites and 26 isolated finds (IFs) were recorded, including both American Indian and non-Indian materials. Historic period non-Indian sites comprise a rather diverse mix of artifact scatters, cairns, fences, stone enclosures, and rock inscriptions related primarily to ranching and recreational activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Sangre De Cristo Salida and San Carlos Wet Mountains San Carlos Spanish Peaks San Carlos
    Wild Connections Conservation Plan for the Pike & San Isabel National Forests Chapter 5 – Complexes: Area-Specific Management Recommendations This section contains our detailed, area-specific proposal utilizing the theme based approach to land management. As an organizational tool, this proposal divides the Pike-San Isabel National Forest into eleven separate Complexes, based on geo-physical characteristics of the land such as mountain ranges, parklands, or canyon systems. Each complex narrative provides details and justifications for our management recommendations for specific areas. In order to emphasize the larger landscape and connectivity of these lands with the ecoregion, commentary on relationships to adjacent non-Forest lands are also included. Evaluations of ecological value across public and private lands are used throughout this chapter. The Colorado Natural Heritage Programs rates the biodiversity of Potential Conservation Areas (PCAs) as General Biodiversity, Moderate, High, Very High, and Outranking Significance. The Nature Conservancy assesses the conservation value of its Conservation Blueprint areas as Low, Moderately Low, Moderate, Moderately High and High. The Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project's Wildlands Network Vision recommends land use designations of Core Wilderness, Core Agency, Low and Moderate Compatible Use, and Wildlife Linkages. Detailed explanations are available from the respective organizations. Complexes – Summary List by Watershed Table 5.1: Summary of WCCP Complexes Watershed Complex Ranger District
    [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]
  • Region Forest Roadless Name GIS Acres 1 Beaverhead-Deerlodge
    These acres were calculated from GIS data Available on the Forest Service Roadless website for the 2001 Roadless EIS. The data was downloaded on 8/24/2011 by Suzanne Johnson WO Minerals & Geology‐ GIS/Database Specialist. It was discovered that the Santa Fe NF in NM has errors. This spreadsheet holds the corrected data from the Santa Fe NF. The GIS data was downloaded from the eGIS data center SDE instance on 8/25/2011 Region Forest Roadless Name GIS Acres 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Anderson Mountain 31,500.98 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Basin Creek 9,499.51 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Bear Creek 8,122.88 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Beaver Lake 11,862.81 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Big Horn Mountain 50,845.85 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Black Butte 39,160.06 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Call Mountain 8,795.54 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Cattle Gulch 19,390.45 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Cherry Lakes 19,945.49 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Dixon Mountain 3,674.46 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge East Pioneer 145,082.05 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Electric Peak 17,997.26 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Emerine 14,282.26 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Fleecer 31,585.50 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Flint Range / Dolus Lakes 59,213.30 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Four Eyes Canyon 7,029.38 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Fred Burr 5,814.01 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Freezeout Mountain 97,304.68 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Garfield Mountain 41,891.22 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Goat Mountain 9,347.87 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Granulated Mountain 14,950.11 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Highlands 20,043.87 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Italian Peak 90,401.31 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Lone Butte 13,725.16 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Mckenzie Canyon 33,350.48 1 Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Middle Mtn.
    [Show full text]
  • THE GUNNISON RIVER BASIN a HANDBOOK for INHABITANTS from the Gunnison Basin Roundtable 2013-14
    THE GUNNISON RIVER BASIN A HANDBOOK FOR INHABITANTS from the Gunnison Basin Roundtable 2013-14 hen someone says ‘water problems,’ do you tend to say, ‘Oh, that’s too complicated; I’ll leave that to the experts’? Members of the Gunnison Basin WRoundtable - citizens like you - say you can no longer afford that excuse. Colorado is launching into a multi-generational water planning process; this is a challenge with many technical aspects, but the heart of it is a ‘problem in democracy’: given the primacy of water to all life, will we help shape our own future? Those of us who love our Gunnison River Basin - the river that runs through us all - need to give this our attention. Please read on.... Photo by Luke Reschke 1 -- George Sibley, Handbook Editor People are going to continue to move to Colorado - demographers project between 3 and 5 million new people by 2050, a 60 to 100 percent increase over today’s population. They will all need water, in a state whose water resources are already stressed. So the governor this year has asked for a State Water Plan. Virtually all of the new people will move into existing urban and suburban Projected Growth areas and adjacent new developments - by River Basins and four-fifths of them are expected to <DPSDYampa-White %DVLQ Basin move to the “Front Range” metropolis Southwest Basin now stretching almost unbroken from 6RXWKZHVW %DVLQ South Platte Basin Fort Collins through the Denver region 6RXWK 3ODWWH %DVLQ Rio Grande Basin to Pueblo, along the base of the moun- 5LR *UDQGH %DVLQ tains.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Management Plan
    Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District Strategic Management Plan Including Discussion of Water Management Issues Inventory of Water Resources in the District Legal, Institutional and Environmental Setting Revised September 30, 2016 Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District 210 West Spencer, Suite B Gunnison, Colorado 81230 www.ugrwcd.org - [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . 1 MISSION AND VALUES STATEMENTS . 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 5 SECTION 1. GEOGRAPHY, POPULATION, AND ECONOMY.. 10 1.1 GEOGRAPHY . 11 1.2 POPULATION . 13 1.3 ECONOMY . 14 1.3.1 Agriculture . 14 1.3.2 Water Based Recreation . 14 SECTION 2. DESCRIPTION AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE DISTRICT. 18 2.1 ORGANIZATION . 19 2.2 COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS . 20 2.3 THE BUDGET PROCESS . 22 2.4 MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE UPPER GUNNISON DISTRICT . 23 2.4.1 1975 Taylor Park Reservoir Operation and Storage Exchange Agreement . 23 2.4.2 Taylor Park Reservoir Second Fill Decree . 23 2.4.3 Opposing Transbasin Diversion - Union Park Reservoir Litigation . 23 2.4.4 2000 Aspinall Subordination Agreement . 24 2.4.5 Aspinall Unit Contract Plan for Augmentation . 24 2.4.6 Black Canyon of the Gunnison federal reserved water right settlement . 25 2.4.7 Meridian Lake Reservoir Project . 26 2.4.8 Recreational In-Channel Diversion Water Right. 27 2.4.9 Lake San Cristobal Project . 27 SECTION 3. DISCUSSION OF WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES . 29 3.1 OUT-OF-BASIN DIVERSIONS . 30 3.2 PROTECTION AGAINST DOWNSTREAM SENIOR CALLS . 31 3.3 EXISTING USES SUBJECT TO A DOWNSTREAM SENIOR CALL . 31 3.3.1 Irrigation .
    [Show full text]
  • Life at Ken-Caryl at Life
    Ken-Caryl Ranch Master Association • www.ken-carylranch.org Vol. XXXVI, No. 23 Nov. 6, 2013 Like us on at www.facebook.com/ken-carylranch KCR Veterans Monument To Receive Pro Bono Concrete Work Submitted by Byron Wicks, Aspen Meadows project would be funded by donations from The Veterans Monument Committee has ner. A $500 contribution reaches the “Bronze” Several weeks ago, Aspen Meadow resident the residents, friends of Ken-Caryl Ranch and developed a number of ways for the benefac- level with the appropriate recognition. Chris Sullivan notified the Ken-Caryl Ranch local businesses. tors to be recognized based on the amount Corporate sponsorship will be recognized Veterans Monument committee of a project There are no current plans to have either of their contributions. Private donors con- similarly at a different location at the monu- that he was involved in regarding construc- the Master Association or the Metropolitan tributing $1,000 or more will be recognized at ment. Corporate sponsorship can be in terms tion efforts to support American Veterans. District contribute money to the fund. Con- the “Silver” level. Their names will be engraved of cash donations, materials or construction Chris had been following the articles in Life tributions of any amount are welcome and at the monument if they so desire. Con- activities. Specific levels of corporate recog- at Ken-Caryl and determined that the project all will be acknowledged and recognized in tributors donating $750 or more will be rec- nition will be posted on the Veterans Monu- might qualify for support from the Decorative writing.
    [Show full text]