DOCSLIB.ORG

1.2. Watershed Resilience

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1.2. Watershed Resilience Upper Poudre Watershed Resilience Plan Final Milton Seaman Reservoir Resilient Pine Cones Upper Cache La Poudre River January 2017 Prepared for Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed Prepared by JW Associates Inc. Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final Table of Contents 1. Summary .............................................................................................................................................. S-1 2. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Why Resilience is Important ..........................................................................................................................1 1.2 Watershed Resilience ....................................................................................................................................1 1.3 Geographic Scope of the Plan ......................................................................................................................3 1.4 Stakeholder Process .....................................................................................................................................5 1.5 Values for Analysis ........................................................................................................................................6 1.5.1 Value A Resilient Upland Habitats .....................................................................................................6 1.5.2 Value B - Resilient River Corridor .......................................................................................................7 1.5.3 Value C - Reliable Water Supply ........................................................................................................ 7 2. Resilient Conditions .................................................................................................................................9 2.1 The Impact of Climate Change and Future Conditions ...............................................................................9 2.2 Resilient Conditions for Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat .......................................................................9 2.2.1 Forest Life Zones ...............................................................................................................................9 2.2.2 VeGetation Types of the Upper Poudre Watershed ........................................................................10 2.2.3 Forest VeGetation Type Resiliency Descriptions ..............................................................................11 2.3 Resilient Conditions for Value B - Resilient River Corridor ........................................................................15 2.3.1 Stream Channel Equilibrium ............................................................................................................16 2.3.2 Sediment Transport and Deposition ...............................................................................................16 2.3.3 Floodplain and Riparian Function ...................................................................................................17 2.3.4 Aquatic Habitat ...............................................................................................................................18 2.3.5 Roads ..............................................................................................................................................19 2.4 Resilient Conditions for Value C - Reliable Water Supply ..........................................................................19 2.4.1 Land Use History and Affect on the Watershed .............................................................................. 20 3. Resiliency Analysis .................................................................................................................................23 3.1 Ranking/Categorization Approach .............................................................................................................23 3.2 Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat .............................................................................................................23 page iP Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final 3.2.1 Factor 1 - Canopy Closure .................................................................................................................24 3.2.2 Factor 2 - Comparison of Forest Types to Resilient Conditions .......................................................28 3.2.3 Factor 3 - Wildfire Hazard ...............................................................................................................30 3.2.4 Value A - Resilient Upland Habitat Composite RankinG ..................................................................33 3.3 Value B - Resilient River Corridor ...............................................................................................................34 3.3.1 Factor 1 - Roads ...............................................................................................................................35 3.3.2 Factor 2 - Debris FloW Hazard .........................................................................................................38 3.3.3 Factor 3 - Soil Erodibility/Granitic Parent Material Hazard .............................................................39 3.3.4 Factor 4 - Sediment Transport ........................................................................................................43 3.3.5 Value B - Resilient River Corridor Composite RankinG ....................................................................48 3.4 Value C - Reliable Water Supply .................................................................................................................49 3.4.1 Factor 1 - Land Use Impacts on Water Quality ................................................................................50 3.4.2 Factor 2 - ExistinG Water Quality Impairment .................................................................................51 3.4.3 Factor 3 - Source Supply Areas .......................................................................................................52 3.4.4 Factor 4 - Sediment Deposition ......................................................................................................54 3.4.5 Value C - Reliable Water Supply Composite RankinG ......................................................................56 3.5 Overall Watershed Priority Analysis ........................................................................................................... 57 4. Priority Watershed Targets and Treatments ....................................................................................... 59 4.1 Priority Watershed Target Areas ................................................................................................................ 59 4.2 Actions to Increase Watershed Resilience ................................................................................................59 4.2.1 Forest/VeGetation ManaGement .................................................................................................... 60 4.2.2 ManaGinG Wildland Fire .................................................................................................................. 62 4.2.3 Road ManaGement ......................................................................................................................... 62 4.3.4 Riparian and Floodplain Restoration ............................................................................................. 63 4.3 Horsetooth Reservoir Target Area ............................................................................................................ 63 4.3.1 Summary of Conditions in the Horsetooth Reservoir TarGet Area ................................................. 63 4.3.2 TarGeted Actions in the Horsetooth Reservoir Watershed TarGet Area ........................................ 65 4.4 Lone Pine Creek Target Area ..................................................................................................................... 67 4.4.1 Summary of Conditions in the Lone Pine Creek TarGet Area .......................................................... 67 4.4.2 TarGeted Actions in the Lone Pine Creek TarGet Area ................................................................... 68 4.5 Lower Poudre - Hill Gulch Target Area ...................................................................................................... 70 page iiP Upper Poudre Resilience Watershed Plan Final 4.5.1 Summary of Conditions in the LoWer Poudre - Hill Gulch Target Area ........................................... 70 4.5.2 TarGeted Actions in the LoWer Poudre - Hill Gulch Target Area ..................................................... 72 4.6 Meadow Creek Target Area ....................................................................................................................... 73 4.6.1 Summary of Conditions in the MeadoW Creek Target Area ........................................................... 73 4.6.2 TarGeted Actions in the MeadoW Creek Target Area ..................................................................... 75 4.7 Pennock Creek Target Area ........................................................................................................................ 77 4.7.1 Summary of Conditions in the Pennock Creek Target Area ...........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Health of Colorado's Forests
    The Health of Colorado’s Forests Special Issue: Threats to Colorado’s Current and Future Forest Resources 2009 Report Acknowledgements William M. Ciesla, Forest Health Management International, Fort Collins, Colo., and Aerial Survey Coordinator, Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS), is the primary author of the 2009 Report on the Health of Colorado’s Forests. Thanks to the following Colorado State Forest Service employees who served on the Report Working Group and/or provided information, guidance and feedback. Chuck Dennis, Special Projects Forester, Broomfield, Colo. Joe Duda, Forest Management Division Supervisor, Fort Collins, Colo. Jan Hackett, Policy and Legislative Affairs Specialist, Denver, Colo. Meg Halford, Assistant District Forester, Franktown District, Franktown, Colo. Ben Pfohl, Assistant District Forester, Boulder District, Longmont, Colo. Tim Reader, Utilization and Marketing Forester, Durango District, Durango, Colo. Kelly Rogers, District Forester, Grand Junction District, Grand Junction, Colo. Dr. S. Sky Stephens, Entomologist, Fort Collins, Colo. Thanks to those who reviewed and/or provided information for this report: Dr. Donald Bright, C. P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Biodiversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo. Robert Cain, Entomologist, USDA Forest Service, Lakewood, Colo. Dr. Tony Cheng, Director, Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, Warner College of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo. Patricia M. Ciesla, Forest Health Management International, Fort Collins, Colo. Brian Howell, Aerial Survey Program Manager, USDA Forest Service, Lakewood, Colo. Dr. Brian Kent, Research Forester, Human Uses, Economics, and Decision Sciences, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colo. Dave Leatherman, Entomologist, CSFS (retired), Fort Collins, Colo.
    [Show full text]
  • On Our Drive Back Through Utah from Rocky Mountain National Park, We Had a Couple of Hours to Stop at the Dinosaur National Monu
    DINOSAUR NATIONAL MONUMENT: QUARRY EXHIBIT HALL, SPLIT MOUNTAIN VIEWPOINT, AND SWELTER SHELTER ! PETROGLYPHS AND PICTOGRAPHS On our drive back through Utah from Rocky Mountain National Park, we had a couple of hours to stop at the Dinosaur National Monument after driving out of RMNP through the Trail Ridge Road. Best known for the huge wall of dinosaur fossils, protected by a large and enclosed building, which visitors can see by taking a shuttle bus from the main visitors center, this national monument also has a surprising collection of amazing rock formations. Unfortunately, we did not have time to see much of the monument, but there are many paved, dirt, and 4WD access roads to overlooks of the Green and Yampa Rivers, petroglyphs and pictographs, slot canyons, and historical cabins. After visiting the Quarry Exhibit Hall, we briefly checked out the Fossil Discovery Trail, then continued on to an overlook of Split Mountain and the Green River. We had considered continuing along this road to see more overlooks on the way to the Josie Morris Cabin, but we didn't have enough time, and therefore only were able to stop at the Swelter Shelter petroglyphs and !pictographs. The views from Trail Ridge Road on our drive out of Rocky Mountain National Park were a little different on such a clear day; this is Sundance Mountain pictured below: ! ! There was still quite a bit of snow on the peaks, making for good photography again: ! ! Looking over towards the Gorge Lakes (in the valley to the left, with Arrowhead Lake visibly iced over and Highest
    [Show full text]
  • To See the Hike Archive
    Geographical Area Destination Trailhead Difficulty Distance El. Gain Dest'n Elev. Comments Allenspark 932 Trail Near Allenspark A 4 800 8580 Allenspark Miller Rock Riverside Dr/Hwy 7 TH A 6 700 8656 Allenspark Taylor and Big John Taylor Rd B 7 2300 9100 Peaks Allenspark House Rock Cabin Creek Rd A 6.6 1550 9613 Allenspark Meadow Mtn St Vrain Mtn TH C 7.4 3142 11632 Allenspark St Vrain Mtn St Vrain Mtn TH C 9.6 3672 12162 Big Thompson Canyon Sullivan Gulch Trail W of Waltonia Rd on Hwy A 2 941 8950 34 Big Thompson Canyon 34 Stone Mountain Round Mtn. TH B 8 2100 7900 Big Thompson Canyon 34 Mt Olympus Hwy 34 B 1.4 1438 8808 Big Thompson Canyon 34 Round (Sheep) Round Mtn. TH B 9 3106 8400 Mountain Big Thompson Canyon Hwy 34 Foothills Nature Trail Round Mtn TH EZ 2 413 6240 to CCC Shelter Bobcat Ridge Mahoney Park/Ginny Bobcat Ridge TH B 10 1500 7083 and DR trails Bobcat Ridge Bobcat Ridge High Bobcat Ridge TH B 9 2000 7000 Point Bobcat Ridge Ginny Trail to Valley Bobcat Ridge TH B 9 1604 7087 Loop Bobcat Ridge Ginny Trail via Bobcat Ridge TH B 9 1528 7090 Powerline Tr Boulder Chautauqua Park Royal Arch Chautauqua Trailhead by B 3.4 1358 7033 Rgr. Stn. Boulder County Open Space Mesa Trail NCAR Parking Area B 7 1600 6465 Boulder County Open Space Gregory Canyon Loop Gregory Canyon Rd TH B 3.4 1368 7327 Trail Boulder Open Space Heart Lake CR 149 to East Portal TH B 9 2000 9491 Boulder Open Space South Boulder Peak Boulder S.
    [Show full text]
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC)
    Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC) Summits on the Air USA - Colorado (WØC) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S46.1 Issue number 3.2 Date of issue 15-June-2021 Participation start date 01-May-2010 Authorised Date: 15-June-2021 obo SOTA Management Team Association Manager Matt Schnizer KØMOS Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Page 1 of 11 Document S46.1 V3.2 Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC) Change Control Date Version Details 01-May-10 1.0 First formal issue of this document 01-Aug-11 2.0 Updated Version including all qualified CO Peaks, North Dakota, and South Dakota Peaks 01-Dec-11 2.1 Corrections to document for consistency between sections. 31-Mar-14 2.2 Convert WØ to WØC for Colorado only Association. Remove South Dakota and North Dakota Regions. Minor grammatical changes. Clarification of SOTA Rule 3.7.3 “Final Access”. Matt Schnizer K0MOS becomes the new W0C Association Manager. 04/30/16 2.3 Updated Disclaimer Updated 2.0 Program Derivation: Changed prominence from 500 ft to 150m (492 ft) Updated 3.0 General information: Added valid FCC license Corrected conversion factor (ft to m) and recalculated all summits 1-Apr-2017 3.0 Acquired new Summit List from ListsofJohn.com: 64 new summits (37 for P500 ft to P150 m change and 27 new) and 3 deletes due to prom corrections.
    [Show full text]
  • Rocky Mountain National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Geologic Resources Division Denver, Colorado Rocky Mountain National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report Rocky Mountain National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Geologic Resources Division Denver, Colorado U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1 Dedication and Acknowledgements............................................................................ 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 Purpose of the Geologic Resource Evaluation Program ............................................................................................3 Geologic Setting .........................................................................................................................................................3 Geologic Issues............................................................................................................. 5 Alpine Environments...................................................................................................................................................5 Flooding......................................................................................................................................................................5 Hydrogeology .............................................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Cache La Poudre River Management Plan
    CACHE LA POUDRE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER FINAL MANAGEMENT PLAN MARCH 1990 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Estes-Poudre Ranger District Larimer County, Colorado For Information Contact: Michael D. Lloyd, District Ranger 148 Remington Street Fort Collins, CO 80525 (303) 482-3822 CACHE LA POUDRE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE 1 B. LOCATION AND MAPS 1-3 C. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 4 D. AREA DESCRIPTION 5 E. VISION FOR THE FUTURE 8 II RECREATIONAL RIVER MANAGEMENT A. RECREATION 1. Overnight camping 11 2. picnicking, Fishing and River Access 11 3. Kayaking and Non-commercial Rafting 13 4. Commercial Rafting 14 5. Trails 16 6. Information and Interpretation 17 B. CULTURAL RESOURCES 18 C. SCENIC QUALITY 19 D. VEGETATION 20 E. ROADS 21 F. WATER 22 G. FISHERIES 24 H. WILDLIFE 25 I. FIRE 26 J. OTHER LAND USES 27 III. WILD RIVER MANAGEMENT A. RECREATION 29 B. WATER 30 C. WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 31 D. FIRE, INSECTS AND DISEASE 31 E. OTHER LAND USES 31 IV. SUMMARY OF PROJECTS AND COSTS 32 V. APPENDIX A. BOUNDARY MAPS 37 B. SITE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS 46 C. WATER QUANTITY 54 D. RECREATION CAPACITY 56 E. COOPERATION WITH LARIMER COUNTY 63 F. COOPERATION WITH STATE AGENCIES 67 G. LAWS, FOREST PLAN, AND OTHER AUTHORITIES 71 H. CONSULTATION WITH OTHERS 76 I. BIBLIOGRAPHY 79 I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE The purpose of this plan is to identify Forest Service actions needed to manage and protect the Cache La Poudre Wild and Scenic River and adjacent lands.
    [Show full text]
  • An Evaluation of the Cache La Poudre Wild and Scenic River Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Study Report by Michael J
    An Evaluation of the Cache La Poudre Wild and Scenic River Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Study Report by Michael J. Eubanks Information Series Report No. 43 AN EVALUATION OF THE CACHE LA POUDRE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND STUDY REPORT By Michael J. Eubanks Submitted to The Water Resources Planning Fellowship Steering Committee Colorado State University in fulfillment of requirements for AE 795 AV Special Study in Planning August 1980 COLORADO WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Norman A. Evans, Director ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to acknowledge the cooperation and helpful parti­ cipation of the many persons interviewed during preparation of this report. Their input was essential to its production. The moral support provided by my dearest friend and fiancee l Joan E. Moseley has been very helpful over the course of preparing this report. The guidance and contribution of my graduate committee is also acknowledged. The Committee consists of Norman A. Evans, Director of the Colorado Water Resources Research Institute and Chairman of the Committee; Henry Caulfield, Professor of Political Science; R. Burnell Held, Professor of Outdoor Recreation; Victor A. Koelzer, Professor of Civil Engineering; Kenneth C. Nobe, Chairman of the Department of Economics; and Everett V. Richardson, Professor of Civil Engineering. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This critique of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement-Study Report (DEIS/SR) found it deficient with respect to several of the statutory requirements and guidelines by which it was reviewed. The foremost criticism of the DEIS/SR concerns its failure to develop and evaluate a water development (representing economic development) alternative to the proposed wild and scenic 'river designation of the Cache La Poudre.
    [Show full text]
  • Report 2008–1360
    The Search for Braddock’s Caldera—Guidebook for Colorado Scientific Society Fall 2008 Field Trip, Never Summer Mountains, Colorado By James C. Cole,1 Ed Larson,2 Lang Farmer,2 and Karl S. Kellogg1 1U.S. Geological Survey 2University of Colorado at Boulder (Geology Department) Open-File Report 2008–1360 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 Suggested citation: Cole, James C., Larson, Ed, Farmer, Lang, and Kellogg, Karl S., 2008, The search for Braddock’s caldera—Guidebook for the Colorado Scientific Society Fall 2008 field trip, Never Summer Mountains, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008–1360, 30 p. 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. 2 Abstract The report contains the illustrated guidebook that was used for the fall field trip of the Colorado Scientific Society on September 6–7, 2008. It summarizes new information about the Tertiary geologic history of the northern Front Range and the Never Summer Mountains, particularly the late Oligocene volcanic and intrusive rocks designated the Braddock Peak complex.
    [Show full text]
  • Erin Ann Bohler And/ Cercle De Macgregor…...……………
    Newsletter Vol. 2017, No. 4 July, 2017 Table of Contents | From the Editor………………………………….4 | New Members…………………………………..5 | Message from the Chair…………..………….6 | New Trip Leader – Erin Ann Bohler and/ Cercle de MacGregor…...……………..........9 | Nominating Committee ……………...……..15 | Basic Mountaineering Course………………14 2 Table of Contents | Did You Know?..................................................22 { Internet Links { Information on the Group Web Page { Colorado Outdoor Adventure Blog | Trip Reports…………………................................26 | Parting Shots……………………………………….30 3 From the Editor: What’s in this Issue? A tribute to David Wasson as he “retires” from leading the Mountain Hiking School, we welcome a new Trip Leader, a request for Nominating Committee help, a request for new Council Members, Basic Mountaineer Course students praise their BMC experiences, a review of information on our group web site, Trip Reports, and a few Parting Shots. Thanks go out to Ward, Bill, Christina Scott Farquhar and Jason for their input to the newsletter. One issue I do want to touch on here is the weekly e-mail. Data the system records indicates less than 55% of the members open it. The e-mail lists important information and all trips sponsored by the Fort Collins Group. I would encourage all members to monitor the weekly e-mail for news flashes and for new trips. Sign up as soon as possible on trips that look interesting since most weekend trips tend to fill up fast (as a side note, often trips scheudled during the week go unfilled). The only way to get involved is to stay informed! Next, as I always do, I would like to welcome the 10 new members (actually memberships, my apologies to the family members not mentioned) that have joined the Fort Collins Group since April (see the next page for a listing).
    [Show full text]
  • Poudre Fire Authority Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2011
    POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN September, 2011 In the Dead of the Night, depicting the 2011 Crystal Fire by Lori Forest www.forestimages.com POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN 2011 Prepared for: Poudre Fire Authority 102 Remington St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Prepared by: ______________________________________ Geoff Butler Poudre Fire Authority Reviewed by: _____________________________________ Bob Bundy Colorado State Forest Service Poudre Fire Authority Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2011 1 Table of Contents Process for Revision and Updates ................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... 5 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 6 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 9 1.1 Legislative Authority and Guidance ............................................................................ 9 2. PFA Area Profile ........................................................................................................ 11 2.1 Summary ................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Climate .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Field Delineation of Geomorphic Process Domains Along River Networks in the Colorado Front Range
    THESIS FIELD DELINEATION OF GEOMORPHIC PROCESS DOMAINS ALONG RIVER NETWORKS IN THE COLORADO FRONT RANGE Submitted by Bridget Livers Department of Geosciences In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Fall 2013 Master’s Committee: Advisor: Ellen Wohl Sara Rathburn Brian Bledsoe Copyright by Bridget Livers 2013 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT FIELD DELINEATION OF GEOMORPHIC PROCESS DOMAINS ALONG RIVER NETWORKS IN THE COLORADO FRONT RANGE Many of the conceptual models developed for river networks emphasize progressive downstream trends in morphology and processes. Such models are well-suited for larger, low-gradient rivers, but fall short in describing the extreme variability associated with headwater streams, which occupy the majority of length of stream networks, provide unique biological productivity and habitat, and can be sites of great sediment production. A more thorough understanding of the influence of local variability of process and form in headwater stream channels is required to remotely and accurately predict channel geometry characteristics for management purposes. Local variability of valley types and sediment production, or local process domains defined as glacial versus non-glacial valleys and levels of valley confinement, was evaluated for the Colorado Front Range by systematically following stream channels, categorizing them into stream type and process domain, and evaluating a number of channel geometry characteristics. The 111 reaches were then evaluated for significant differences in channel geometry among stream types and process domains, location and clustering of stream types on a slope-drainage area (S-A) plot, and downstream hydraulic geometry relationships. Statistical analyses revealed significant correlations between channel type and channel gradient, and channel type and substrate size.
    [Show full text]
  • Cache La Poudre River Watershed- Based Plan
    Cache la Poudre River Watershed- Based Plan April 2020 (National Park Service, 2019) Cache la Poudre Watershed Plan April 2020 Acknowledgements CPRW is a 501(c)3 nonprofit based in Fort Collins, CO. Our mission is to improve & maintain the ecological health of the Poudre River watershed through community collaboration. The Cache la Poudre Watershed plan would not be possible without the support from our partners & stakeholders. Our stakeholders have expertise in restoration science, ecology, collaboration, forestry, water quality, water supply management, and river management. Our stakeholder committees include representatives from the US Forest Service, Colorado State University, Larimer County, Rocky Mountain Research Station, City of Fort Collins, City of Greeley, Colorado State Forest Service, Town of Windsor, and University of Northern Colorado among others. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment provided technical and administrative support during this process. LRE Water provided technical analysis and consultation services, without which this project would not have been possible. ii Cache la Poudre Watershed Plan April 2020 Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary 1 2 Introduction 6 2.1 CPRW Mission and Background of CPRW 6 2.2 Project Goals and Objectives 7 2.3 Stakeholder Concerns 8 3 Watershed Characteristics 9 3.1 Project focus 10 3.1.1 North Fork Lone Pine Creek ............................................................................. 14 3.1.2 Sheep Draw ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]