DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment SUMMIT HUTS ASSOCIATION PROPOSED WEBER GULCH BACKCOUNTRY HUT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2015 USDA Forest Service White River National Forest Dillon Ranger District The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (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, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. SUMMIT HUTS ASSOCIATION WEBER GULCH BACKCOUNTRY HUT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SUMMIT COUNTY, COLORADO Proposed Action: Responsible Official: Further Information: Summit Huts Association Scott Fitzwilliams, Shelly Grail Braudis Forest Supervisor Winter Sports Lead White River National Forest (970) 262-3484 Location: Glenwood Springs, CO White River National Forest Summit County, CO Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Dillon Ranger District White River National Forest Summit County, Colorado Abstract: The Summit Huts Association (SHA) is a 501-(c)(3) non-profit corporation based in Breckenridge, Colorado. It operates four backcountry huts under special use permit (SUP) from the Forest Service in Summit and Park counties. SHA emphasizes non-motorized, self-reliant backcountry travel and an intimate connection with the natural environment. This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to analyze a proposal designed to respond to current and anticipated consumer demands for public enjoyment and dispersed winter and backcountry recreation on the White River National Forest (WRNF) in Summit County. A final Decision Notice accompanies this EA. The draft Decision Notice and EA were previously subject to the pre-decisional objection process. In an attempt to clarify and resolve the objections, the Forest Service held meetings and conference calls with the objectors. The objection reviewing officer recommended changes that resulted in this EA and final Decision Notice. Approved projects may be implemented immediately. The purpose of the proposed project is for the construction of a new hut on National Forest System (NFS) lands administered by the Dillon Ranger District of the WRNF. The proposed Weber Gulch backcountry hut site is located at an approximate elevation of 11,500 feet on the northern aspect of Bald Mountain, east of Breckenridge. Bald Mountain is a popular year-round recreation destination for backcountry skiers, snowshoers, mountain bikers, and hikers. Weber Gulch provides backcountry skiing opportunities, especially in the northern-aspect trees. This EA discusses the Purpose and Need for the proposal, the process used to develop alternatives, potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of implementing the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), and Management Requirements. Table of Contents Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 B. Background ................................................................................................................................................. 1-3 C. Relationship to Previous Analyses and Approvals ...................................................................................... 1-3 D. Purpose and Need for The Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 1-4 E. Summary of the Proposed Action ................................................................................................................ 1-4 F. Public Involvement ..................................................................................................................................... 1-5 G. Issues and Indicators ................................................................................................................................... 1-6 Human Environment ........................................................................................................................................ 1-6 Biological Environment ................................................................................................................................... 1-8 H. Issues Not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis .................................................................................... 1-10 I. Scope of Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 1-11 J. Forest Service Policy and Direction .......................................................................................................... 1-11 2002 Land and Resource Management Plan Direction ................................................................................. 1-11 2008 Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction .................................................................................... 1-11 2012 Southern Summit County Lynx Assessment ........................................................................................... 1-12 K. Decision to be Made .................................................................................................................................. 1-12 L. Other Necessary Permits, Licenses, Entitlements And/Or Consultation ................................................... 1-12 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................... 2-1 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 2-1 B. Alternatives Considered in Detail ............................................................................................................... 2-1 Alternative 1 – No Action ..................................................................................................................................2-1 Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action ................................................................................................................2-1 C. Modifications Made to the Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 2-5 D. Alternatives and Design Components Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ........................ 2-5 Hut Location .....................................................................................................................................................2-5 Hut Design ........................................................................................................................................................2-8 Trailhead Locations ..........................................................................................................................................2-8 Trail Access .......................................................................................................................................................2-8 Parking Lot Locations .......................................................................................................................................2-8 E. Management Requirements ....................................................................................................................... 2-10 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................................... 3-1 A. Recreation ................................................................................................................................................... 3-2 Scope of Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 3-2 Affected Environment ....................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences......................................................................................... 3-10 Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................................................... 3-14 B. Parking and Traffic .................................................................................................................................... 3-16 Scope of Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 3-16 Affected Environment ....................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cycling-Utah-Rocky-Mountain-Tour-Race-Guide-2012
    ROCKY MOUNTAIN TOUR & RACE GUIDE Volume 5 Editor’s February, 2012 NOTES Publisher Seattle Publishing Jay Stilwell, President With the 2012 season well underway, the focus of some of the Ryan Price, Vice-President David Ward, CU Publisher nation’s best elite athletes is on the upcoming Olympics. Among Dave Iltis, CU Editor those that are still in the hunt for a ticket to London, many are from Associate Publisher / Editor the Rocky Mountain region. Boulder, Colo., could be well repre- Claire Bonin sented should track specialist Cari Higgins, mountain bikers Jeremy Assistant Editor Horgan-Kobelski and Heather Irmiger as well as road and track Darren Dencklau hopeful Taylor Phinney make the national team cut. Willow Rockwell Contributors (Durango), Georgia Gould (Fort Collins) and Katie Compton Claire Bonin Darren Dencklau (Colorado Springs) are also contenders for the available women’s Katie Hawkins mountain bike positions. Based on performances during the past sea- Dave Iltis son and so far this year, David Zabriskie from Salt Lake City, Utah, Art / Production could also find his way to London, representing the country in the Amy Beardemphl time trial event. Photography Bicycle Paper However, the vast majority of cyclists do not have such grandiose Mitchell Clinton Photography aspirations. For most, riding locally and discovering new routes and Dave Iltis/cyclingutah.com rides is what matters. In the fifth installment of the Rocky Mountain WheelsinFocus/Amara Edwards Tour and Race Guide you will find more than 1,245 rides and races, Sales Claire Bonin many you may be familiar with, but there is a fair amount of new Darren Dencklau events listed as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Personal Recollections of Early Denver
    Personal Recollections of Early Denver .J OSEPII EMERSOX S11nTn* Recollections, like everything else, must have a beginning, and my first memory of early Denver has to do with a Fourth of .July Christmas. It has remained vivid, unforgettable, undoubtedly because of th<:' successive shocks to the sensitive ear drums of a small child. Tt was prior to the Chinese riot of 1880 and the large Chinatown of the city, extending from Sixteenth along vVazee and Vlynkoop streets and directly in the rear of the American House for seYeral blocks, was a busy mart, a growth of the steady immi­ gration of the "Celestials" to Colorado, where thousands had been, and still were, employed in placer mining around Central City, at Fairplay, Tarryall, California Gulch, and other gold camps. Chinatmn1 was their suppl~' source. Here \Yere silk and clothing shops, stores of exotic atmosphere with shelves crowded with im­ ports, fine tea, spices, drugs, and foods from China, tapestries, fans, laces, and there were many laundries. Underground floors were tunnels leading to burrows and the larger rooms where Nepen- 1heized sleepers lay in bunks, the air sticky and sweet with the fumes of opium. 'l'he steam laundry hadn't come, and the Chinese had a monop­ oly on laundering. 'l'o homes all over the city trotted the tireless, affable, pig-tailed little yellow men in their blue-black tunics, flap­ ping trousers and felt white-soled slippers, delivering newspaper­ wrapped bundles. We " ·ere living at Coffield 's ''family boarding house,'' a spacious two-story verandahed frame residence where the Colorado National Bank now stands at Seventeenth and Champa streets.
    [Show full text]
  • San Luis Valley Conservation Area Land Protection Plan, Colorado And
    Land Protection Plan San Luis Valley Conservation Area Colorado and New Mexico December 2015 Prepared by San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex 8249 Emperius Road Alamosa, CO 81101 719 / 589 4021 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region Branch of Refuge Planning 134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 Lakewood, CO 80228 303 / 236 8145 CITATION for this document: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Land protection plan for the San Luis Valley Conservation Area. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 151 p. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy, an environmental assessment and land protection plan have been prepared to analyze the effects of establishing the San Luis Valley Conservation Area in southern Colorado and northern New Mexico. The environmental assessment (appendix A) analyzes the environmental effects of establishing the San Luis Valley Conservation Area. The San Luis Valley Conservation Area land protection plan describes the priorities for acquiring up to 250,000 acres through voluntary conservation easements and up to 30,000 acres in fee title. Note: Information contained in the maps is approximate and does not represent a legal survey. Ownership information may not be complete. Contents Abbreviations . vii Chapter 1—Introduction and Project Description . 1 Purpose of the San Luis Valley Conservation Area . 2 Vision for the San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex . 4 Purpose of the Alamosa and Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuges . 4 Purpose of the Baca national wildlife refuge . 4 Purpose of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area .
    [Show full text]
  • WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST Adam Mountain (8,200 Acres)
    WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST Adam Mountain (8,200 acres) ........................................................................................................ 3 Ashcroft (900 acres) ........................................................................................................................ 4 Assignation Ridge (13,300 acres) ................................................................................................... 4 Baldy Mountain (6,100 acres) ......................................................................................................... 6 Basalt Mountain A (13,900 acres) .................................................................................................. 6 Basalt Mountain (7,400 acres) ........................................................................................................ 7 Berry Creek (8,600 acres) ............................................................................................................... 8 Big Ridge to South Fork A (35,400 acres) and Big Ridge to South Fork B (6,000 acres) ............. 9 Black Lake East (800 acres) and Black Lake West (900 acres) ................................................... 11 Blair Mountain (500 acres) ........................................................................................................... 12 Boulder (1,300 acres) .................................................................................................................... 13 Budges (1,000 acres) ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Classification of Riparian Wetland Plant Associations of Colorado a Users Guide to the Classification Project
    A Classification of Riparian Wetland Plant Associations of Colorado A Users Guide to the Classification Project September 1, 1999 By Gwen Kittel, Erika VanWie, Mary Damm, Reneé Rondeau Steve Kettler, Amy McMullen and John Sanderson Clockwise from top: Conejos River, Conejos County, Populus angustifolia-Picea pungens/Alnus incana Riparian Woodland Flattop Wilderness, Garfield County, Carex aquatilis Riparian Herbaceous Vegetation South Platte River, Logan County, Populus deltoides/Carex lanuginosa Riparian Woodland California Park, Routt County, Salix boothii/Mesic Graminoids Riparian Shrubland Joe Wright Creek, Larimer County, Abies lasiocarpa-Picea engelmannii/Alnus incana Riparian Forest Dolores River, San Miguel County, Forestiera pubescens Riparian Shrubland Center Photo San Luis Valley, Saguache County, Juncus balticus Riparian Herbaceous Vegetation (Photography by Gwen Kittel) 2 Prepared by: Colorado Natural Heritage Program 254 General Services Bldg. Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 [email protected] This report should be cited as follows: Kittel, Gwen, Erika VanWie, Mary Damm, Reneé Rondeau, Steve Kettler, Amy McMullen, and John Sanderson. 1999. A Classification of Riparian Wetland Plant Associations of Colorado: User Guide to the Classification Project. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 80523 For more information please contact: Colorado Natural Heritage Program, 254 General Service Building, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523. (970)
    [Show full text]
  • Grand County Master Trails Plan
    GRAND COUNTY MASTER TRAILS PLAN PREPARED FOR: Headwaters Trails Alliance July, 2015 CONTACT INFORMATION: Headwaters Trails Alliance Meara Michel, Executive Director Phone: 970.726.1013 Email: [email protected] Web: www.headwaterstrails.org HEADWATERS TRAILS ALLIANCE Master Trails Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS GRAND COUNTY MASTER TRAILS PLAN OVERVIEW...............................................................................................................................1 EXISTING PLANS AND DATA..............................................................................................5 HTA MISSION AND GOALS................................................................................................14 OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS................................................................................16 SUBAREA PLANS PLANNING SUBAREAS.......................................................................................................19 WINTER PARK/FRASER AREA.........................................................................................20 OVERVIEW.....................................................................................................................20 EXISTING TRAIL CONDITIONS...............................................................................22 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH SUMMARY..............................................................23 OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS........................................................................24 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, & BENCHMARKS..............................................................27
    [Show full text]
  • Unaweep Tabeguache Byway Corridor Management Plan
    UNAWEEP-TABEGUACHE SCENIC AND HISTORIC BYWAY CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN UNAWEEP-TABEGUACHE SCENIC AND HISTORIC BYWAY CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN Embrace and maintain the area’s history, lifestyles, cultures and unique community spirit. Embrace and protect the natural beauty, outdoor experiences and recreation opportunities. Increase the economic viability and sustainability of Byway communities. Facilitate synergy and collaboration with all Byway communities, partners and governing agencies. The UTB Mission September 12, 2013 Advanced Resource Management, Inc. Advanced Resource Management, Inc.706 Nelson The Park National Drive Longmont, Trust CO 80503 for Historic 303-485-7889 Preservation Whiteman Consulting UNAWEEP-TABEGUACHE SCENIC AND HISTORIC BYWAY CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary……. ....................................................................... 3 2. Byway Overview……. ............................................................................. 6 3. Updating the CMP .................................................................................. 8 4. Intrinsic Qualities .................................................................................. 10 A. Archaeological Quality ..................................................................................... 11 B. Cultural Quality ................................................................................................ 12 C. Historic Quality ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 OHV Grant Recommended Funding Approval
    State Trails Program 13787 US Hwy. 85 N., Littleton, Colorado 80125 P 303.791.1957 | F 303.470-0782 May 6-7, 2020 2020-2021 OHV Trail Grant funding awards as recommended by the State Recreational Trails Committee. This letter is a summary and explanation of the enclosed Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) 2020-2021 OHV Trail Grant funding recommendations for Parks and Wildlife Commission (PWC) approval during the May 2020 meeting. We are requesting approval for 60 grants for a total award amount of $4,273,860. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division’s (CPW) Trails Program, a statewide program within CPW, administers grants for trail-related projects on an annual basis. Local, county, and state governments, federal agencies, special recreation districts, and non-profit organizations with management responsibilities over public lands may apply for and are eligible to receive non- motorized and motorized trail grants. Colorado’s Off-highway Vehicle Trail Program CPW’s OHV Program is statutorily created in sections 33-14.5-101 through 33-14.5-113, Colorado Revised Statutes. The program is funded through the sale of OHV registrations and use permits. It is estimated that almost 200,000 OHVs were registered or permitted for use in Colorado during the 2019-2020 season. The price of an annual OHV registration or use- permit is $25.25. Funds are used to support the statewide OHV Program, the OHV Registration Program and OHV Trail Grant Program, including OHV law enforcement. The OHV Program seeks to improve and enhance motorized recreation opportunities in Colorado while promoting safe, responsible use of OHVs.
    [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]
  • All Grants Awarded Through Fiscal Year 2020 INTRODUCTION and KEY
    All Grants Awarded Through Fiscal Year 2020 INTRODUCTION AND KEY This report is a list of all grants awarded by the Colorado Historical Society’s State Historical Fund (SHF) since its inception in 1992 (state Fiscal Year 1993) through the end of Fiscal Year 2020. The amounts listed are the original award amounts. If for some reason the entire grant amount was not used (i.e. a project was terminated or was completed under budget) the full amount awarded will appear. In other instances grant awards were increased either to enable project completion or to cover the costs of easements. In these instances, the additional award amount is shown in a separate entry as an increase. In those cases where no work was accomplished and the funds were either declined by the grant recipient or were required to be returned to the SHF through rescissions, no entry will appear. For this reason, projects listed in one version of this report may not appear in later versions, and the financial information shown in this report may not be comparable to other revenue reports issued by the SHF. Grants listed in this report are identified by project ID number. The first two characters in the project ID number represent the fiscal year from which the grant was scheduled to be paid. The state is on a July 1 – June 30 fiscal year. So, for example, all grants made between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2007 will be coded “07”. The next two characters identify the type of grant. In the case of grants that are awarded based on specific application due dates, the grant round in which the project was funded will be paired with either a letter or number.
    [Show full text]
  • Recreation & Leisure
    Recreation & Leisure According to a 2008 survey of Garfield County residents, up to 60 percent said they live in the county for its recreational opportunities. As such, tourism is a high priority for the county, which benefits from both significant summer and winter visitations. Over 15 percent of countywide respondents resided or relocated to Garfield County due to its proximity to ski resorts. While many of the signature recreational amenities of the area have been provided in this section, it is impossible to list them all. For more recreational opportunities, visit the town’s chambers, visitor centers or recreation centers. Rio Grande, Glenwood Canyon, and White River National Forest Crystal River Bike Trails Nestled in the heart of the Rocky Mountains, the For biking enthusiasts, pedaling from Aspen to 2.3 million acre White River National Forest is the Glenwood Springs is one of the best things to do while top recreation Forest in the nation. Home to world- visiting Garfield County. The 44 miles of continuous renowned ski resorts and the birthplace of designated multi-use trail features many access points, so one wilderness, the White River has something to offer can pick the ride that is the right length for either a every outdoor enthusiast. Accessible from every town weekend or lunch-hour ride. The trail is a Rails-to-Trails in Garfield County, the White River National Forest is project and was developed along the old Rio Grande available for one to enjoy such pleasures as camping, railway corridor. It has an easy grade up and down the ATV riding, fishing, skiing, rock climbing, or a quiet valley.
    [Show full text]