DOCSLIB.ORG

Cdc Aqtsd Feis 04-2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

4. FAR-FIELD MODELING 2008 2022 2022 - 2008 Figure 4-5. CAMx model results for 1-hour NO2. Left and center panels: 2008 and 2022 absolute model results for 1-hour NO2 from all regional emissions sources, including CD-C Project. Right panel: 2022-2008 difference in 1-hour NO2. All three panels show average of results for the 2005 and 2006 meteorological years. Figure 4-6 shows the contribution of the CD-C Proposed Action Alternative (8950 new wells) and the CD-C No Action Alternative (4063 new wells) emissions to regional NOX. For comparison, the NO2 field for 2022 is shown in the left hand panel; this panel is identical to the middle panel of Figure 4-5. The maximum CD-C NOX contributions (which are conservative estimates of the CD-C contributions to regional NO2) from the Proposed Action Alternative and No Action Alternative emissions are 44 and 20 µg m-3, respectively. Although the CD-C Proposed Action makes a discernible contribution to regional 1-hour NO2, the impacts are localized and there is no exceedance of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, WAAQS, and CAAQS. 1-Hour Average NO2 CD-C Proposed Action CD-C No Action All sources NOx Contribution NOx Contribution Figure 4-6. Left panel: 2022 absolute model results for 1-hour NO2 from all regional emissions sources, including CD-C Project. Center panel: CD-C Proposed Action Alternative contribution to 2022 1-hour NOX. Right panel: CD-C No Action Alternative contribution to the 2022 1-hour NOX. All three panels show 1-hour average of results for the 2005 and 2006 meteorological years. Continental Divide-Creston Natural Gas Development Project Final EIS • April 2016 4-24 4. FAR-FIELD MODELING Results for regional annual average NO2 are shown in Figure 4-7. The spatial pattern of the annual NO2 results is similar to that of the 1-hour NO2 results, although the maxima are lower due to the longer averaging time. The NAAQS, WAAQS, and CAAQS for annual average NO2, are identical and are 100 µg m-3. The maximum value within the 4 km domain in 2022 is 32 µg m-3: the NAAQS is therefore attained throughout the 4 km domain. In 2022, modeled annual -3 average NO2 is generally below 15 µg m except near large point sources and regions of oil and gas and trona development. As with 1-hour NO2, the CD-C Project emissions contribute NOX to regional levels (Figure 4-8). The peak values of the Proposed Action Alternative and No Action Alternative NOX contributions are 6.3 and 2.9 µg m-3, respectively. The Proposed Action Alternative contribution is approximately half of the regional value of annual average NO2 in the vicinity of -3 the CD-C Project. However, the annual average NO2 values of 10-15 µg m near the CD-C Project Area are well below the NAAQS of 100 µg m-3. 2008 2022 2022 - 2008 Figure 4-7. CAMx model results for annual average NO2. Left and center panels: 2008 and 2022 absolute model results for annual average NO2 from all regional emissions sources, including CD-C Project. Right panel: 2022-2008 difference in annual average NO2; all three panels show average of results for the 2005 and 2006 meteorological years. Continental Divide-Creston Natural Gas Development Project Final EIS • April 2016 4-25 4. FAR-FIELD MODELING -Hour Average NO2 CD-C Proposed Action CD-C No Action All sources NOx Contribution NOx Contribution Figure 4-8. 2022 absolute model results for annual average NO2 from all regional emissions sources, including the CD-C Project. Center panel: CD-C Proposed Action Alternative contribution to 2022 annual average NOX. Right panel: CD-C No Action Alternative contribution to the 2022 annual average NOX. All three panels show 1-hour average of results for the 2005 and 2006 meteorological years. Figure 4-9 shows the results for 1-hour average SO2. The NAAQS, WAAQS, and CAAQS for 1- -3 -3 hour average SO2 is 196 µg m . 1-hour average SO2 values are generally below 100 µg m except near large point sources. There are two localized regions with 1-hour SO2 exceeding 196 µg m-3 within the 4 km domain in 2022; the maximum value is 230 µg m-3 in central Fremont County, the other exceedance is 222 µg m-3 in western Sweetwater County, both exceedances are on a single grid cell only. The NAAQS, WAAQS and CAAQS are attained everywhere else within the domain. High 1-hour SO2 in Fremont County occurs in the vicinity of a high-emitting (~1400 tpy) point source associated with Peak Sulfur, Inc. and with a single grid cell containing high (~1500 tpy) area source SO2 emissions due to industrial fuel combustion. High SO2 is present in this Fremont County location in both the 2008 baseline and 2022 future year emission inventories. These predicted exceedances are not related to the CD-C project and in the absence of the CD-C project emissions modeled concentrations at these locations would be comparable. The right hand panel of Figure 4-9 shows changes in 1-hour SO2 between the 2008 base year and the 2022 future year. There are SO2 emissions reductions at the Jim Bridger and Naughton EGUs in Wyoming, and there are large SO2 increases in 2022 at point sources in Carbon and Uinta counties. The CD-C Proposed Action and No Action contributions to 1-hour SO2 are shown in Figure 4-10. The SO2 contribution from CD-C sources is extremely small, and is not visible on the same scale used to view regional SO2. The small CD-C contribution to SO2 is consistent with the fact that the Project’s SO2 emissions are small, since the Project does not access reservoirs containing sour gas. Based on the size of the CD-C contribution to regional 1-hour SO2, we conclude that neither the Proposed Action Alternative nor the No Action Alternative emissions contribute to modeled exceedances of 1-hour SO2 ambient air quality standards in Fremont or Sweetwater counties. Continental Divide-Creston Natural Gas Development Project Final EIS • April 2016 4-26 4. FAR-FIELD MODELING 2008 2022 2022 - 2008 Figure 4-9. CAMx model results for 1-hour SO2. Left and center panels: 2008 and 2022 absolute model results for 1-hour SO2 from all regional emissions sources, including CD-C Project. Right panel: 2022-2008 difference in 1-hour SO2. All three panels show average of results for the 2005 and 2006 meteorological years. 1-Hour Average SO2 CD-C Proposed Action CD-C No Action All sources SO2 Contribution SO2 Contribution Figure 4-10. Left panel: 2022 absolute model results for 1-hour SO2 from all regional emissions sources, including CD-C Project. Center panel: CD-C Proposed Action Alternative contribution to the 2022 1-hour SO2 shown in the left hand panel. Right panel: CD-C No Action Alternative contribution to the 2022 1-hour SO2 shown in the left hand panel. All three panels show average of results for the 2005 and 2006 meteorological years. Continental Divide-Creston Natural Gas Development Project Final EIS • April 2016 4-27 4. FAR-FIELD MODELING CAMx results for 3-hour SO2 are shown in Figure 4-11. The NAAQS and WAAQS for 3-hour SO2 -3 -3 are 1,300 µg m , while the CAAQS is 700 µg m . 3-hour SO2 values within the 4 km domain are generally below 200 µg m-3 except in the vicinity of large point sources. The maximum value -3 within the 4 km domain in 2022 is 216 µg m ; all 3-hour SO2 standards are attained throughout the 4 km domain. The largest SO2 increase going from 2008 to 2022 occurs in Uinta County, as noted in the discussion of 1-hour SO2. As for 1-hour SO2, contributions to 3-hour SO2 from the Proposed Action Alternative emissions and the No Action Alternative emissions are too small to be seen on the same scale as regional SO2 (Figure 4-12). 2008 2022 2022 - 2008 Figure 4-11. CAMx model results for 3-hour SO2. Left and center panels: 2008 and 2022 absolute model results for 3-hour SO2 from all regional emissions sources, including CD-C Project. Right panel: 2022-2008 difference in 3-hour SO2. All three panels show average of results for the 2005 and 2006 meteorological years. 3-Hour Average SO2 CD-C Proposed Action CD-C No Action All sources SO2 Contribution SO2 Contribution Figure 4-12. Left panel: 2022 absolute model results for 3-hour SO2 from all regional emissions sources, including CD-C Project. Center panel: CD-C Proposed Action Alternative contribution to the 2022 3-hour SO2 shown in the left hand panel. Right panel: CD-C No Action Alternative contribution to the 2022 3-hour SO2 shown in the left hand panel. All three panels show average of results for the 2005 and 2006 meteorological years. Continental Divide-Creston Natural Gas Development Project Final EIS • April 2016 4-28 4. FAR-FIELD MODELING CAMx results for 24-hour SO2 are shown in Figure 4-13. Although the NAAQS and WAAQS have -3 been revoked the 24-hour SO2 CAAQS of 365 µg m is still applicable. 24-hour SO2 values within the 4 km domain are generally below 40 µg m-3 except in the vicinity of large point sources. The -3 maximum value within the 4 km domain in 2022 is 126 µg m ; all 24-hour SO2 standards are attained throughout the 4 km domain.
Recommended publications
  • Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule EPA-454/B-03-005 September 2003

    Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule EPA-454/B-03-005 September 2003

    Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule EPA-454/B-03-005 September 2003 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Program Contract No. 68-D-02-0261 Work Order No. 1-06 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division Air Quality Trends Analysis Group Research Triangle Park, NC DISCLAIMER This report is a work prepared for the United States Government by Battelle. In no event shall either the United States Government or Battelle have any responsibility or liability for any consequences of any use, misuse, inability to use, or reliance upon the information contained herein, nor does either warrant or otherwise represent in any way the accuracy, adequacy, efficacy, or applicability of the contents hereof. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Environmental Protection Agency wishes to acknowledge the assistance and input provided by the following advisors in the preparation of this guidance document: Rodger Ames, National Park Service, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA); Shao-Hang Chu, USEPA; Rich Damberg, USEPA; Tammy Eagan, Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection; Neil Frank, USEPA; Eric Ginsburg, USEPA; Dennis Haddow, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Ann Hess, Colorado State University; Hari Iyer, Dept. of Statistics, Colorado State University; Mike Koerber, Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium; Bill Leenhouts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; William Malm, National Park Service (CIRA); Debbie Miller, National Park Service; Tom Moore , Western Regional Air Partnership; Janice Peterson, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; Marc Pitchford, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Air Resources Laboratory; Rich Poirot, State of Vermont, Dept.
  • Historical Range of Variability and Current Landscape Condition Analysis: South Central Highlands Section, Southwestern Colorado & Northwestern New Mexico

    Historical Range of Variability and Current Landscape Condition Analysis: South Central Highlands Section, Southwestern Colorado & Northwestern New Mexico

    Historical Range of Variability and Current Landscape Condition Analysis: South Central Highlands Section, Southwestern Colorado & Northwestern New Mexico William H. Romme, M. Lisa Floyd, David Hanna with contributions by Elisabeth J. Bartlett, Michele Crist, Dan Green, Henri D. Grissino-Mayer, J. Page Lindsey, Kevin McGarigal, & Jeffery S.Redders Produced by the Colorado Forest Restoration Institute at Colorado State University, and Region 2 of the U.S. Forest Service May 12, 2009 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY … p 5 AUTHORS’ AFFILIATIONS … p 16 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS … p 16 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION A. Objectives and Organization of This Report … p 17 B. Overview of Physical Geography and Vegetation … p 19 C. Climate Variability in Space and Time … p 21 1. Geographic Patterns in Climate 2. Long-Term Variability in Climate D. Reference Conditions: Concept and Application … p 25 1. Historical Range of Variability (HRV) Concept 2. The Reference Period for this Analysis 3. Human Residents and Influences during the Reference Period E. Overview of Integrated Ecosystem Management … p 30 F. Literature Cited … p 34 CHAPTER II. PONDEROSA PINE FORESTS A. Vegetation Structure and Composition … p 39 B. Reference Conditions … p 40 1. Reference Period Fire Regimes 2. Other agents of disturbance 3. Pre-1870 stand structures C. Legacies of Euro-American Settlement and Current Conditions … p 67 1. Logging (“High-Grading”) in the Late 1800s and Early 1900s 2. Excessive Livestock Grazing in the Late 1800s and Early 1900s 3. Fire Exclusion Since the Late 1800s 4. Interactions: Logging, Grazing, Fire, Climate, and the Forests of Today D. Summary … p 83 E. Literature Cited … p 84 CHAPTER III.
  • COLORADO CONTINENTAL DIVIDE TRAIL COALITION VISIT COLORADO! Day & Overnight Hikes on the Continental Divide Trail

    COLORADO CONTINENTAL DIVIDE TRAIL COALITION VISIT COLORADO! Day & Overnight Hikes on the Continental Divide Trail

    CONTINENTAL DIVIDE NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL DAY & OVERNIGHT HIKES: COLORADO CONTINENTAL DIVIDE TRAIL COALITION VISIT COLORADO! Day & Overnight Hikes on the Continental Divide Trail THE CENTENNIAL STATE The Colorado Rockies are the quintessential CDT experience! The CDT traverses 800 miles of these majestic and challenging peaks dotted with abandoned homesteads and ghost towns, and crosses the ancestral lands of the Ute, Eastern Shoshone, and Cheyenne peoples. The CDT winds through some of Colorado’s most incredible landscapes: the spectacular alpine tundra of the South San Juan, Weminuche, and La Garita Wildernesses where the CDT remains at or above 11,000 feet for nearly 70 miles; remnants of the late 1800’s ghost town of Hancock that served the Alpine Tunnel; the awe-inspiring Collegiate Peaks near Leadville, the highest incorporated city in America; geologic oddities like The Window, Knife Edge, and Devil’s Thumb; the towering 14,270 foot Grays Peak – the highest point on the CDT; Rocky Mountain National Park with its rugged snow-capped skyline; the remote Never Summer Wilderness; and the broad valleys and numerous glacial lakes and cirques of the Mount Zirkel Wilderness. You might also encounter moose, mountain goats, bighorn sheep, marmots, and pika on the CDT in Colorado. In this guide, you’ll find Colorado’s best day and overnight hikes on the CDT, organized south to north. ELEVATION: The average elevation of the CDT in Colorado is 10,978 ft, and all of the hikes listed in this guide begin at elevations above 8,000 ft. Remember to bring plenty of water, sun protection, and extra food, and know that a hike at elevation will likely be more challenging than the same distance hike at sea level.
  • Appendix C - Roadless Areas

    Appendix C - Roadless Areas

    Appendix C - Roadless Areas Purpose The purpose of this appendix is to describe roadless areas and the analysis factors used in evaluating individual roadless areas on the Routt National Forest. It includes a description of the physical and biological features, primitive recreation and education opportunities, resources, and present management situation for each area. Background Roadless Area Review and Evaluation In 1970, the Forest Service studied all administratively designated primitive areas and inventoried and reviewed all roadless areas in the National Forest System greater than 5,000 acres. This study was known as the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE). RARE was halted in 1972 due to legal challenge. RARE identified 711,043 acres of roadless area on the Routt National Forest. In 1977, the Forest Service began another nation-wide Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II) to identify roadless and undeveloped areas within the National Forest System that were suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Twenty nine areas, totalling 566,756 acres, were inventoried on the Routt National Forest (including the Middle Park Ranger District of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest). As a result of RARE II, four areas on the forest - Williams Fork, St. Louis Peak, Service Creek, and Davis Peak - were administratively designated as Further Planning Areas (FPA). This further planning area designation meant that more information was needed before the Forest Service would recommend any of these areas to Congress for wilderness designation. In January 1979, the Forest Service issued nationally a Final Environmental Impact Statement documenting a review of 62 million acres of roadless and undeveloped areas within the 191-million-acre National Forest System.
  • Region Forest Number Forest Name Wilderness Name Wild

    Region Forest Number Forest Name Wilderness Name Wild

    WILD FIRE INVASIVE AIR QUALITY EDUCATION OPP FOR REC SITE OUTFITTER ADEQUATE PLAN INFORMATION IM UPWARD IM NEEDS BASELINE FOREST WILD MANAGED TOTAL PLANS PLANTS VALUES PLANS SOLITUDE INVENTORY GUIDE NO OG STANDARDS MANAGEMENT REP DATA ASSESSMNT WORKFORCE IM VOLUNTEERS REGION NUMBER FOREST NAME WILDERNESS NAME ID TO STD? SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE FLAG SCORE SCORE COMPL FLAG COMPL FLAG SCORE USED EFF FLAG 02 02 BIGHORN NATIONAL CLOUD PEAK 080 Y 76 8 10 10 6 4 8 10 N 8 8 Y N 4 N FOREST WILDERNESS 02 03 BLACK HILLS NATIONAL BLACK ELK WILDERNESS 172 Y 84 10 10 4 10 10 10 10 N 8 8 Y N 4 N FOREST 02 04 GRAND MESA UNCOMP FOSSIL RIDGE 416 N 59 6 5 2 6 8 8 10 N 6 8 Y N 0 N GUNNISON NATIONAL WILDERNESS FOREST 02 04 GRAND MESA UNCOMP LA GARITA WILDERNESS 032 Y 61 6 3 10 4 6 8 8 N 6 6 Y N 4 Y GUNNISON NATIONAL FOREST 02 04 GRAND MESA UNCOMP LIZARD HEAD 040 N 47 6 3 2 4 6 4 6 N 6 8 Y N 2 N GUNNISON NATIONAL WILDERNESS FOREST 02 04 GRAND MESA UNCOMP MOUNT SNEFFELS 167 N 45 6 5 2 2 6 4 8 N 4 6 Y N 2 N GUNNISON NATIONAL WILDERNESS FOREST 02 04 GRAND MESA UNCOMP POWDERHORN 413 Y 62 6 6 2 6 8 10 10 N 6 8 Y N 0 N GUNNISON NATIONAL WILDERNESS FOREST 02 04 GRAND MESA UNCOMP RAGGEDS WILDERNESS 170 Y 62 0 6 10 6 6 10 10 N 6 8 Y N 0 N GUNNISON NATIONAL FOREST 02 04 GRAND MESA UNCOMP UNCOMPAHGRE 037 N 45 6 5 2 2 6 4 8 N 4 6 Y N 2 N GUNNISON NATIONAL WILDERNESS FOREST 02 04 GRAND MESA UNCOMP WEST ELK WILDERNESS 039 N 56 0 6 10 6 6 4 10 N 6 8 Y N 0 N GUNNISON NATIONAL FOREST 02 06 MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT ENCAMPMENT RIVER 327 N 54 10 6 2 6 6 8 6
  • Geology and Coal Resources Op North Park, Colorado

    Geology and Coal Resources Op North Park, Colorado

    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIBECTOR' 596 GEOLOGY AND COAL RESOURCES OP NORTH PARK, COLORADO BY A. L. BEEKLY WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1915 CONTENTS. Page. Introduction _ ______ _,___________ 7 Location and area__ _ _ _____. __________1___ 7 Accessibility_________________________________ 8 Explorations in the region________________________ 8 Preparation of the map___________________________ 10 Base map_.______________________________ 10 ' Field work_______________________________ 10 Office work______________._________ __ 11 Acknowledgments_______________________________ 11 Geography ______________ ______________________ 12 Relief______________________________________ 12 Major features..____________.________________ 12 Medicine Bow Range_______.________ ______ 12 Park Range____________________________ 13 Continental Divide____________.___________ 13 Floor of the park____________ '._.___________ 13 Minor features________________:_. ______ 14 Drainage___________________ ______________ 16 Settlement__________i_______________________ 18 Stratigraphy __________ __________.___________ 19 Sedimentary rocks ______________________________ 19 Age and correlation.. ______!____ .___________ 19 Geologic section________________._________'_ 20 Carboniferous (?) system_______________________ 21 Pennsylvanfan or Permian (?) series______________ 21 Distribution and character_____.___________ 21 Stratigraphic relations________.___________ 21 Fossils_____________________________ 22 Triassic (?)
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC)

    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.
  • Restoration in Action

    Restoration in Action

    “I am honored to have helped to create the Forest Service Legacy Roads and Trails Program. I have watched the work across the nation, especially in the Skokomish Valley in the Sixth Congressional District. This work has helped restore watersheds and improve water quality and !sh habitat, and at the same time provided jobs that are desperately needed in our rural communities. This is a great program and one that I am proud to have sponsored. A lot more restoration work is needed, so I hope this program will continue to help the Forest Service get the job done.” — The Honorable Norm Dicks U.S. Representative for Washington’s 6th Congressional District, 1977 – 2012 We thank USDA Forest Service staff for their assistance in providing data and images, and Marlies Wierenga, Dave Heller, and Dan Funsch for their dedication, long hours, and hard work. Cover photo credits: Recontoured road on the Gallatin National Forest, MT, credit: Wildlands CPR; fisherperson, photo credit: Kent Miller. he Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Program T(Legacy Roads and Trails) is a cornerstone of watershed restoration in our National Forests. Created to !x environmental problems resulting from the Forest Service’s extensive road and trail system, Legacy Roads and Trails has reduced stream pollution, restored !sh and wildlife habitat, created jobs, and improved essential roads to ensure safe access. Legacy Roads and Trails has been a success from the start; it is smartly and e"ciently managed, and achieves on-the-ground results in real time. Since its inception in 2008, Congress has appropriated $270 million to Legacy Roads and Trails.
  • 2017 Colorado Sheep & Goat

    2017 Colorado Sheep & Goat

    C OLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE 2017 Colorado Sheep & Goat APPLICATION DEADLINE: APRIL 4 online brochure cpw.state.co.us 2017 Colorado Sheep & Goat Hunting Online Features Watch more Colorado Parks and Wildlife videos on our VIMEO & YOUTUBE VIDEO CHANNELS VIDEOS: WHAT’S NEW: 2017 BIG GAME GET UPDATED on the new, general regulatory changes to the 2017 Sheep & Goat and Big Game brochures. See this brochure for species- and unit- specific changes. THE FUTURE OF CONSERVATION LEARN HOW your license dollars contribute directly to the conservation of wildlife species and outdoor recreation in Colorado. HUNTER PINK GET INFORMED about the new hunter pink cloth- ing alternative to fluorescent orange. There’s a link MORE ONLINE to the fact sheet in the video too! QUIZ AND RESOURCES: MOUNTAIN GOAT IDENTIFICATION HUNTING COLORADO’S If you are hunting mountain goats, it is difficult — but extremely impor- tant — that you identify female goats properly. Read the CPW online PUBLIC LANDS guide and take the quiz to ensure you know your target and avoid fines once you are hunting in the field. CLICK TO TAKE THE QUIZ HEAR THE DETAILS about big game, small game Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep and waterfowl hunting on Colorado’s public lands, © Wayne Lewis, CPW 2 including State Wildlife Areas, State Trust Lands and State Parks. 2017 Colorado Sheep & Goat Hunting 2017 Colorado Sheep & Goat Hunting TABLE OF CONTENTS 2017 What’s New ...................................................1 CPW OFFICE LOCATIONS cpw.state.co.us License Fees & Information ................................. 1 ADMINISTRATION Watch more Colorado Parks and Wildlife videos on our VIMEO & YOUTUBE VIDEO CHANNELS • Fees and surcharges 1313 Sherman St., #618 • Hunter education requirements Denver, 80203 303-297-1192 In the Field & Special License Information .........
  • The Rockies of Colorado

    The Rockies of Colorado

    THE ROCKIES OF COLORADO THE ROCKIES OF COLORADO BY EVELIO ECHEVARRfA C. (Three illustrations: nos. 9- II) OLORADO has always been proud of its mountains and rightly so; it is often referred to in the Union as 'the mountain state', about 6o per cent of its area is mountainous, and contains fifty-four peaks over 14,ooo ft. and some three hundred over 13,000 ft. Further, its mountaineering history has some unique aspects. And yet, Colorado's mountains have been seldom mentioned in mountaineering journals; if in modern times they may have deserved a passing mention it has been because of a new route on Long's Peak. But on the whole, the Rockies of Colorado are almost unrecorded in the mountaineering world abroad. In this paper, an effort has been made to outline briefly the characteris­ tics of this area, and to review its mountaineering past; a few personal experiences are also added. The mountains of Colorado belong almost completely to the Rocky Mountain range of North America; a few outliers are sometimes mentioned as independent lesser chains, but in features and heights they are unimportant. The Rockies of Colorado are grouped into a number of ranges (see sketch-map), some of which are actually prolongations of others. Some­ what loosely and with some injustice to precise geography, they can be grouped into ten important sections. The state of Colorado is a perfect rectangle in shape; the Rockies enter into its western third from Wyoming, to the north, and split, then, into two parallel chains which unite in the centre of the state.
  • Wilderness Air Quality Value Plan for the Shoshone National Forest

    Wilderness Air Quality Value Plan for the Shoshone National Forest

    Wilderness Air Quality Value Plan Shoshone National Forest Clocktower Creek and Wapiti Ridge, Washakie Wilderness Prepared by: /s/ Greg Bevenger __________________________________ Greg Bevenger, Air Program Manager Recommended by: /s/ Bryan Armel ______________________________________________ Bryan Armel, Resources Staff Officer Recommended by: /s/ Loren Poppert ______________________________________________ Loren Poppert, Recreation Staff Officer Approved by: /s/ Rebecca Aus ______________________________________________ Rebecca Aus, Forest Supervisor May 2010 Wilderness Air Quality Value Plan Introduction Background As part of the USDA Forest Service effort to better understand and monitor wilderness areas, the agency has adopted the 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge (Forest Service 2005). The 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge was developed by the Chief’s Wilderness Advisory Group (WAG) as a quantifiable measurement of the Forest Service’s success in wilderness stewardship. The goal identified by the Wilderness Advisory Group, and endorsed by the Chief, is to bring each wilderness under Forest Service management to a minimum stewardship level by the year 2014, the fiftieth anniversary of the Wilderness Act. The Challenge was initiated in fiscal year 2005. The Challenge contains ten items that highlight elements of wilderness stewardship. These elements are 1) the natural role of fire, 2) invasive plants, 3) air quality, 4) education, 5) protection of recreational opportunities, 6) recreational site inventory, 7) outfitters
  • WYOMING NATIONAL FORESTS Wyomingites Value Their Public

    WYOMING NATIONAL FORESTS Wyomingites Value Their Public

    FACT WYOMING NATIONAL FORESTS SHEET VITAL TO PEOPLE, WILDLIFE AND THE ECONOMY THE NATIONAL FORESTS of Wyoming are a natural treasure highly valued by the state’s residents. ese public lands support an abundance of wildlife—including many imperiled species—protect pristine wilderness, supply critical drinking water and are integral to economic growth in the state, especially the booming recreation and tourism industries. Conserving national forests means protecting all of these important values. Habitat for Wildlife Wyoming national forests are home to a dazzling diver- The U.S. Forest Service manages more than 9 million sity of wildlife, including black bears, mountain lions, acres in Wyoming, including one national grassland (light orange on map) and 10 national forests (green on map), bobcats, martens, minks, swift foxes, elk, moose, big- fi ve within the state and fi ve that cross state lines. horn sheep, mule deer, white-tailed deer, pronghorn, bison, bats, pikas, prairie dogs, snowshoe hares, beavers, paddling, backcountry skiing, horseback riding, wildlife bald eagles, greater sage-grouse, sandhill cranes, cut- watching and other outdoor pursuits. throat trout and brook trout. Fitzpatrick Wilderness in the Shoshone National ese public lands also provide vital habitat for several Forest boasts 44 active glaciers, Gannett Peak—the species protected under the Endangered Species Act such highest point in Wyoming, 75 miles of streams and as the Canada lynx, grizzly bear, gray wolf, yellow-billed 60 lakes. Popo Agie Wilderness also in the Shoshone cuckoo, Kendall warm springs dace and Preble’s meadow National Forest protects 300 alpine and subalpine lakes. jumping mouse. Gros Ventre Wilderness in the Teton National Forest o ers 250 miles of trails and attracts hundreds of hunt- Wilderness for Conservation and Recreation ers in search of moose, elk and bighorn sheep annually.