Historical Information H.4 Pre-Event Reports Book 1 Project Rulison: Pre

Copy Link

DISCLAIMER
Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document.

This page intentionally left blank

Recommended publications

PCA) Report Name Colorado River Site Code S.USCOHP*15679

Level 4 Potential Conservation Area (PCA) Report Name Colorado River Site Code S.USCOHP*15679 IDENTIFIERS Site ID 1328 Site Class PCA Site Alias Colorado River Megasite Network of Conservation Areas (NCA) NCA Site ID NCA Site Code NCA Site Name - No Data County Garfield (CO) Grand (UT) Mesa (CO) SITE DESCRIPTION Site Description This site includes the stretch of the Colorado River that extends from Rifle to the Utah border. The Colorado River riparian corridor is the most heavily developed area in Mesa County. The floodplains near the river were historically dominated by stands of Rio Grande cottonwood (Populus deltoides ssp. wislizeni) with an understory of skunkbrush (Rhus trilobata). However, development of the floodplain, agriculture, and most notably, the invasion of non-native species such as tamarisk ( Tamarix ramosissima), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), and Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) have greatly reduced the amount of native riparian vegetation within this site. Extensive gravel mining operations in the river floodplain up and downstream of the City of Rifle has included the removal of cottonwood gallery forests and commensurate riparian and stream values that these forests provide. Along the immediate banks of the river and around wetlands in the floodplain, coyote willow (Salix exigua), cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), reedcanary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), common reed (Phragmites australis), cattail (Typha latifolia), hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus), threesquare bulrush (S. pungens), alkali bulrush (S. maritimus), and redroot flatsedge (Cyperus erythrorhizos) are typically dominant. This site provides critically important habitat for endangered fish such as the razorback sucker ( Xyrauchen texanus), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), and humpback chub (Gila cypha).
Coal Fields of Northwestern Colorado and Northeastern Utah

COAL FIELDS OF NORTHWESTERN COLORADO AND NORTHEASTERN UTAH. By HOYT S. GALE. INTRODUCTION. NATURE OF THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION. This paper is a preliminary statement of the results of work in the coal fields of northwestern Colorado and northeastern Utah during the summer of 1907.° In 1905 a preliminary reconnaissance of the Yampa coal field, of Routt County, was made.6 In the summer of 1906 similar work was extended southwestward from the Yampa field, and the Danforth Hills and Grand Hogback coal fields, of Routt, Rio Blanco, and Garfield counties, were mapped.6 The work of the past season was a continuation of that of the two preceding years, extend ing the area studied westward through Routt and Rio Blanco counties, Colo., and including some less extensive coal fields in^Uinta County, Utah, and southern Uinta County, Wyo. ACCESSIBILITY. At present these fields have no_ railroad connection, although surveys for several projected lines have recently been made into the region. Of these lines, the Denver, Northwestern and Pacific Railway ("Moffat road") is under active construction in .the eastern part of Routt County and bids fair to push westward not far from the lower Yampa and White River fields in the near future. An extension of the Uintah Railway has been surveyed from Dragon to Vernal, Utah, crossing the projected route of the "MofFat road" near Green River. The Union Pacific Railroad has made a preliminary survey south from Rawlins, Wyo., intending to reach the Yampa Valley in the vicinity of Craig. a A more complete report combining the results of the preceding season's work in the Danforth Hills and Grand Hogback fields with those of last season's work as outlined here, together with detailed contour maps of the whole area, will be published as a (separate bulletin of the Survey.
Grand Junction Field Office Proposed Resource Management Plan And

Appendix C Wild and Scenic Rivers Suitability Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. ES-1 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Process ..................................................................................... 1-4 1.1.1 Eligibility Phase ................................................................................................................ 1-4 1.1.2 Suitability Phase .............................................................................................................. 1-4 2. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Suitability Criteria Used to Evaluate River and Stream Segments .................................... 2-1 2.2 Data Sources and Methodology ................................................................................................ 2-3 2.2.1 Geographic Information Systems ............................................................................... 2-3 2.2.2 BLM Resource Interdisciplinary Team ...................................................................... 2-3 2.2.3 Informational Sources ................................................................................................... 2-4 2.2.4 Other Agencies .............................................................................................................
()Olorado Native Piant Society

()olorado Native PIant Society NEWSLETTER VOLLl'lE 4 NLmER 1 JANUARY - FEBRUARY 1980 llIEnlCATED TO lHE ApPRECIATIGl AND lDNSERVATION OF lHE CoLORADO FLORAII OFFICERS 1979-l9OO CORRESPONDENCE President: Lloyd Hayes Please direct all correspondence and inquiries Vice-President: Scott Peterson to the Secretary, Sue Martin, USDA Crops Secretary: Sue Martin Research Laboratory, Colorado State University Treasurer: ~Ia 1t Ruzzo Ft. Collins 80523 MEI>1BERSHIP RENEWALS & INFORfAATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS * Please direct all membership applications, Ann Armstrong (81) Boulder 494-0545 renewals and address changes to Myrna Miriam Denham (80) Boulder 442-1020 Steinkamp. USDA Crops Research Laboratory. Virginia Dionigi (80) Hygiene 776-2609 Colorado State University. Ft. Collins 80523 Tom Eamon (81) Golden 279-1076 Hugo Ferchau (80) Gunnison SCHEDULE OF ~1BERSHIP FEES Lloyd Hayes (80) Ft. Collins 226-5365 Bob Heapes (81) Parker 841-3978 LIFE $ 250.00 Sue Martin (81) Ft. Collins 226-3371 SUPPORTING 50.00 Scott Peterson (80) Ft. Collins 484-2884 SOCIETY 25.00 Mark Phillips (80) Lafayette 823-3021 FAMILY 12.00 Walt Ruzzo (81) Ft. Collins 493-0305 INDIVIDUAL 8.00 STUDENT &RETIRED 4.00 The CONPS Newsletter is sent to all other *Year when term expires is given in (). Native Plant Societies in exchange for Numbers following names are phones theirs. Nonmembers may subscribe to the where Directors can be reached. All of Newsletter for $ 4.00. Colorado is covered by the area code 303. Cct.f>1 ITTEES NEWSLETTER EDUCATION Virginia Oionig; EDITOR: Dieter H. Wilken, Dept. of Botany HORTICULTURE & &Plant Pathology, Colorado State Univ. REHABI UTATI ON f1ark Phi 11 ; ps Ft.
Birds Western Colorado

BIRDS . Ill WESTERN COLORADO by William A. Davis prepared for the Colorado Field Ornithologists CONTENTS General Topography of Western Colorado •• 1 H~it~s • • • • • • • 2 Explanation of text 6 Acknowledgements and references •••••••••••••••• ·7 BIRDS IN WESTERN COLORADO 8 through 37 Trips and Special Birds • • • • • • • 38 Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument ••••• 39 Colorado National Monument • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 40 De Beque Canyon • • • 43 The Grand Mesa • • 44 Hanging Lake •• 46 Hart's Basin . o •• o ••••••••• 47 Highline Lake and Mack-Mesa Reservoir • 48 Mesa Verde National Park •••••••• 49 Rifle Gap Reservoir, Falls and Fish Hatchery ••• 50 Rock Creek Bird Nesting Area ••••• • • 51 The San Juan Mountains • • • • • 52 Sweitzer Lake 55 Black Swifts • 56 Gray Vireo, Burrowing Owls • • • • • • • •••• 56 & 57 White-tailed Ptarmigan, Rosy Finches • • 57 & 58 Empidonax Flycatchers • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 58 I Western Colorado is Colorado west of the Continental Di vide. It has an area of about 38, 000 square miles and consti tutes about one third of the state. Much of it is wild or sparse ly inhabited, and unreachable by paved roads. It is rich in num bers of species of birds, some of which are unknown in most parts of the country. Yet it is relatively unexplored ornitho logically. Bailey and Niedrach's "Birds of Colorado" has few records from the western side of the state and notes " that there has been comparatively little field work in the counties west of the Continental Divide". This booklet has two purposes. One is to present a pre liminary fi'e1d list of the birds of Western Colorado which will be increased, improved and corrected by future observers.
Tertiary Geology and Oil-Shale Resources of the Piceance Creek Basin Between the Colorado and White Rivers Northwestern Colorado

Tertiary Geology and Oil-Shale Resources of the Piceance Creek Basin Between the Colorado and White Rivers Northwestern Colorado By JOHN R. DONNELL CONTRIBUTIONS TO ECONOMIC GEOLOGY GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1082-L UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1961 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C. CONTENTS Page Abstract___-_-----.__--.-_-.-_._ ............................ 835 Introduction._ __--_---_--_-__-_-----_-----___-_-------_-__.____--- 836 Location of area..._-_-_-_--__-------_-_-___-_-_-_-___-________ 836 Purpose of the investigation_____-_-___-________________________ 836 Geography .-_. ._..---_-.. ._. _____ 838 Industry..--.--_---------------------------------_-- ----'--- 838 Population......________----_-_____j^___.____ _.___._.__ 839 Accessibility ___-_-----------------_---_-_-.._-_..-.__._-_-____ 839 Previous investigations....-------_---_--_--..-----__---_-_..--- 840 Present investigation ____-_-_-_____-___-________________ _.__ 840 Acknowledgments _____________________________________________ 841 Stratigraphy. ________-_---___-_---------_____-___-_-______________ 842 Cretaceous system___________________________________________ 842 Upper Cretaceous series----------_-_-___-----_-_-_________- 842 Mesaverde group.______________ .....^................. 842 Tertiary system_______________________________________________ 843 Paleocene(?) series_--___-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_______.________ 843 Ohio Creek conglomerate.______________________________ 843 Paleocene series______._---_-_-___: ___-_-_-_.____________ 844 Unnamed unit_-__--_-----_---_---_-___-______________ 844 Eocene series__ ......................................... 846 Wasatch formation. _--___-_-_-________________________ 846 Green River formation .............................iL.
Glenwood Springs and Kremmling Field Offices RMP Revision Evaluation of Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Glenwood Springs and Kremmling Field Offices RMP Revision Evaluation of Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Glenwood Springs and Kremmling Field Offices RMP Revision Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria November 2007 Prepared by: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Glenwood Springs & Kremmling Field Offices Approval: /s/ Jamie Connell /s/ David Stout Jamie Connell David Stout Glenwood Springs Field Manager Kremmling Field Manager Glenwood Springs, Colorado Kremmling, Colorado 2 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary 4 II. Introduction 7 III. Requirements for ACEC Designation 7 IV. Evaluation Process 9 A. Glenwood Springs Relevant and Importance Criteria 11 Determinations B. Kremmling Relevant and Importance Criteria 36 Determinations V. List of Preparers 46 Appendices 1 – References 2 – Natural Heritage Program Definitions 3 – Maps of Proposed ACECs found to meet the relevance and importance criteria 3 I. Executive Summary As part of the Glenwood Springs and Kremmling Resource Management Plan (RMP) revisions, the BLM Interdisciplinary (ID) Team analyzed whether proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) meet the relevance and importance criteria. The Glenwood Springs Field Office (GSFO) analyzed 91 proposed ACECs (existing, internally and externally proposed) and found that 17 met the relevance and importance criteria (total proposed acres = 66,497 acres): Blue Hill ACEC (existing) Bull Gulch ACEC (existing) Deep
Survey of Critical Wetlands and Riparian Areas in Mesa County

Survey of Critical Wetlands and Riparian Areas in Mesa County Colorado Natural Heritage Program College of Natural Resources, 254 General Services Building Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Survey of Critical Wetlands and Riparian Areas in Mesa County Prepared for: Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife, Wetlands Program 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203 Prepared by: Joe Rocchio, Georgia Doyle, Peggy Lyon and Denise Culver May 29, 2003 Colorado Natural Heritage Program College of Natural Resources 254 General Services Building Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Copyright © 2002 by Colorado Natural Heritage Program Cover photograph: Rio Grande cottonwood riparian forest (Populus deltoides ssp. wislizenii/Rhus trilobata) along the Colorado River near the Mesa/Garfield county line (CNHP photo). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Financial support for this study was provided by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Program. We greatly appreciate the support and assistance of Alex Chappell, Coordinator of the Division of Wildlife's Wetlands Program and John Toolen, Habitat Biologist with the Division of Wildlife and the Western Colorado Five Rivers Wetland Focus Area Committee Coordinator. This project would not have been possible without the help of many dedicated individuals. We appreciate the support of the members of the Western Colorado Five Rivers Wetland Focus Area Committee for providing their local knowledge of important wetlands in Mesa County. Rob Bleiberg and James Ferriday of Mesa Land Trust provided maps of conservation easements to aid in assessing threats. We thank Dave Soker, Bob Burdick, Doug Osmundson, and Terry Ireland of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Grand Junction for invaluable assistance with information on conservation easements, endangered fish, and Southwest Willow Flycatchers.
Landscape Character Descriptions of the White River National Forest

Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume 3 Landscape Character Descriptions of the White River National Forest Headwaters of the South Fork of the White River Jan Spencer – Landscape Architect Writer/Editor Ron Wright – Soil Scientist Bill Kight – Heritage Resource Manager Kit Buell – Wildlife Biologist Carolyn Upton – Social/Economics Specialist Marsha Raus – Fisheries Biologist Narrative and Photography Contributors: Ron Taussig, Beth Boyst, George Myser, Tom Kuekes, Al Grimshaw, Dan Mathews, Paula Johnston, Kathy Hardy, Angela Glenn, Gary Osier P-1 Appendix P White River National Forest Preface The word landscape evokes certain unique and special images and meanings to each of us as individuals. As children we may have attached a sense of place to some small parcel of ground, be it a backyard or an open meadow blooming with the rainbow color of wildflowers. The rest of our lives then build upon those early impressions, layer upon layer of geographic recognition. Year after year we go back to a stream, yet each time we fish there we read something new into the landscape. It may even be some picnic spot with a backdrop of mountain majesty we can still see in our mind even with our eyes closed. These places uplift our spirit, but we are hard-pressed to put into words exactly how or why we feel the way we do. The comforting sense of familiarity a prominent granite peak holds for us never quite gets communicated beyond the photo image. “Like all real treasures of the mind, perception can be split into infinitely small fractions without losing its quality.
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Coal

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Coal Resource and Development Potential Report (2004, revised 2006) ii TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Scope .......................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgments........................................................................................................... 1 II. Geologic Units............................................................................................................... 1 Description.................................................................................................................. 5 III. Coal Fields .................................................................................................................... 5 Carbondale Coal Field .................................................................................................... 6 Crested Butte Coal Field................................................................................................. 6 Grand Mesa Coal Field ................................................................................................... 8 Somerset Coal Field........................................................................................................ 8 Tongue Mesa Coal Field................................................................................................. 9 IV. Coal Characteristics
Access Status Recreation Potential

Recreation BLM BLM Parcel Potential Potential State District/Field Project Area Name County Size (approx. Access Status 1 - Low Acquisition Office acres) 2 - Medium Tool 3 - High Colorado River CO Harris Gulch Garfield 2,500 Restricted Access 3 Easement, Fee Valley Colorado River CO Upper Grand Hogback Garfield 7,600 Restricted Access 3 Easement, Fee Valley Colorado River CO Consolidated Reservoir Garfield 1,950 Restricted Access 3 Easement, Fee Valley Colorado River CO South Canyon (2 parcels) Garfield 3,790 Restricted Access 3 Easement, Fee Valley CO Grand Junction Bangs Canyon Clarks Bench Mesa 831 Restricted Access 3 Easement, Fee CO Grand Junction Bangs Canyon East Creek Mesa 6,268 Restricted Access 3 Easement, Fee CO Grand Junction Bottle Rock Mesa 869 no legal access 2 Easement CO Grand Junction Bull Draw Mesa 2,480 Restricted Access 2 Easement CO Grand Junction Larsen Canyon Mesa 878 Restricted Access 2 Easement CO Grand Junction Mount Logan Garfield 760 Restricted Access 2 Easement CO Grand Junction Mud Spring Canyon Garfield 6,313 Restricted Access 3 Easement CO Grand Junction Pritchard Spring Garfield 1,278 no legal access 2 Easement CO Grand Junction Sink Creek Mesa 8,481 Restricted Access 2 Easement CO Grand Junction Snyder Creek Mesa 698 no legal access 2 Easement CO Grand Junction South Grand Mesa Slopes Mesa 6,113 Restricted Access 2 Easement CO Grand Junction The Breaks Mesa 2,543 no legal access 2 Easement CO Grand Junction The Palisade Fish Creek Mesa 2,026 Restricted Access 2 Easement CO Grand Junction The Palisade
Bibliography of United States Landslide Maps and Reports Christopher S. Alger and Earl E. Brabb1 Open-File Report 85-585 This Re

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Bibliography of United States landslide maps and reports Christopher S. Alger and Earl E. Brabb 1 Open-File Report 85-585 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. 1 Menlo Park, California Contents Page Introductlon......................................... 1 Text References...................................... 8 Bibliographies With Landslide References............. 8 Multi State-United States Landslide Maps and Reports. 8 Alabama.............................................. 9 Alaska............................................... 9 American Samoa....................................... 14 Arizona.............................................. 14 Arkansas............................................. 16 California........................................... 16 Colorado............................................. 41 Connecticut.......................................... 51 Delaware............................................. 51 District of Columbia................................. 51 Florida.............................................. 51 Georgi a.............................................. 51 Guam................................................. 51 Hawa i i............................................... 51 Idaho................................................ 52 II1i noi s............................................. 54 Indiana.............................................