United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources March 2018

Taylor River above Taylor Dam, Gunnison Ranger District

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] (link sends e-mail). USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources

Contents Contents ...... i Chapter 1. Introduction ...... 1 Key Issues for Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources on the GMUG ...... 1 Summary Public Input ...... 1 Use of Best Available Science ...... 1 Information Gaps ...... 1 Chapter 2. Condition and Trends ...... 2 Setting...... 2 Watershed Condition Class ...... 5 Trends and Drivers ...... 9 Water Resources ...... 11 Surface Waterbodies ...... 11 Groundwater ...... 14 Water Quantity ...... 15 Water Quality ...... 16 Public Water Supplies and Municipal Supply Watersheds...... 21 Water Use and Development ...... 24 Soil Resources ...... 26 Detrimental Soil Disturbance ...... 26 Current Forest Plan Direction ...... 26 Existing Information Sources ...... 27 Existing Condition ...... 27 Chapter 3. Sustainability ...... 30 Environmental Sustainability of Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources ...... 30 Economic and Social Sustainability of Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources ...... 30 Chapter 4. Current Forest Plan and its Context within the Broader Landscape ...... 30 Existing Forest Plan Management Direction for Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources ...... 30 Issues in the Broader Landscape ...... 31 Chapter 5. Potential Need for Plan Changes to Respond to Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources Issues ...... 32 References Cited ...... 33 Appendix 1. Watershed Condition of 6th-Level HUCs on the GMUG NF ...... 37

i USDA Forest Service

List of Tables Table 1. Sub-basins containing the GMUG National Forest lands ...... 2 Table 2. Process categories and indicators of the Watershed Condition Framework ...... 5 Table 3. Watershed condition class ratings for watersheds in each geographic area ...... 6 Table 4. Watershed ratings for watershed condition framework attributes ...... 8 Table 5. Watersheds rated Class 1 that could degrade to Class 2 as a result of small decreases in process category scores ...... 10 Table 6. Percent of total streamflow that is groundwater in the Upper Colorado River Basin ...... 11 Table 7. Ratio of number of dams per stream mile for the GMUG 4th level HUCs ...... 12 Table 8 - Number and estimated springs per acre occurring on the GMUG NF. The data were derived from the Springs Stewardship Institute database and includes all springs in the National Hydrography Dataset. It is very likely these values are underestimated...... 14 Table 9. Segments designated as Outstanding Waters ...... 17 Table 10. Impaired streams and reasons for impairment on the GMUG NF (2018 303(d) list [Colorado Water Quality Control Commission 2018]) ...... 18 Table 11. Surface water-dependent providers (public and private) on the GMUG NF ...... 22 Table 12. Private Groundwater Dependent Providers ...... 23 Table 13. Forest Service Groundwater Dependent Sites ...... 24 Table 14. Erosion hazard ratings on the GMUG NF...... 28 Table 15. Watershed condition of 6th-level HUCs on the GMUG NF ...... 37

List of Figures

Figure 1. Average monthly precipitation at SNOTEL stations around the GMUG for the period 1981 – 2010 ...... 3 Figure 2. Annual hydrograph for North Fork Gunnison River (10/1/15 – 9/30/16) ...... 4 Figure 3. Annual hydrographs for North Fork Gunnison River for the period 1986-2016 ...... 4 Figure 4. Watershed Condition Class Map ...... 6 Figure 5. WCF process category ratings for watersheds across the GMUG ...... 7 Figure 6. WCF process category ratings for watershed by geographic area ...... 8 Figure 7. WCF "proximity to water" attribute rating for watershed by geographic area ...... 13 Figure 8 - Distribution of documented springs occurring on the GMUG NF. The data were derived from the Springs Stewardship Institute database and includes all springs in the National Hydrography Dataset...... 15

ii Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources

Chapter 1. Introduction Key Issues for Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources on the GMUG The most prominent values sustained by water originating on the GMUG include drinking and agricultural water supplies. Also, the GMUG provides much of the available habitat for Colorado River cutthroat trout and boreal toad in southwestern Colorado. There are also several sensitive plant species on the Forests that are dependent on water related habitats, primarily wetlands and/or fens. Healthy watersheds (upland soils, riparian, channel, and groundwater components) that include productive and stable soils provide for absorption of precipitation and attenuation of runoff so streams are in dynamic equilibrium with their channels and floodplains, and are resilient to normal flood and drought events.

Summary Public Input There has been limited public input pertinent to this assessment to-date. A commenter recommended the GMUG reference the results of a Department of Energy East River Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area study (within the Gunnison Basin Geographic Area), but the results are not yet available. One comment submitted during summary 2017 commented on the need to improve existing reservoirs and maintain soil health while managing grazing and logging activities.

Use of Best Available Science The following information was integrated into this assessment: 1) 2011 GMUG watershed condition framework; 2) 2005 GMUG Sub-watershed condition assessment; 3) 2006 Aquatic, riparian, and watershed assessments for GMUG and San Juan National Forests; and 4) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Surveys. Numerous additional peer-reviewed scientific research was integrated into this assessment.

Information Gaps The distribution of vegetation types, including riparian areas, is typically inferred from remotely sensed (GIS) data, which may yield valid inferences at large scales (e.g., the amount of riparian habitat across the forest) but is of limited utility for drawing conclusions at small scales. The same limitation applies to hydrological information, such as streamflow. Inferences on streamflow for any particular stream or watershed are based typically on statistical interpolation. For example, the U.S. Geological Survey tool, SteamStats will generate streamflow predictions for any point within any watershed on the forest; however, precision of resulting estimates is often very low. Condition assessments at the watershed scale (described below) are typically based on remotely sensed data; therefore, the accuracy of the rating assigned to a watershed is dependent on the accuracy of the remotely sensed data used to generate it. Soil carbon effects from management activities are not well known at this time and most carbon sequestration modeling research assumes soil carbon is static. The assumption that soil carbon is static has been proven untrue (Talbot and Treseder 2011). Research in this area is ongoing.

1 USDA Forest Service

Climate change effects on soil temperature and moisture regimes and soil biology are unknown on the GMUG NFs at this time. Research into the potential likely changes would be beneficial. Current analysis of landtype associations is ongoing and forthcoming. This analysis will help inform current conditions of soil-landscape concepts. Soil landscapes is the area of land underlain by a specific type or combination of geologic parent material that exhibits a distinctive pattern of landscape attributes, such as the pattern of terrain features and/or the distribution of plant communities. Chapter 2. Condition and Trends Setting The GMUG National Forests lie entirely within the Upper Colorado River Basin. Principal rivers that drain from GMUG National Forest lands include the Gunnison, North Fork of the Gunnison, Uncompahgre, San Miguel, and Dolores Rivers. These rivers join with the Colorado River downstream of NFS lands and eventually flow into the Gulf of California. River basins are delineated into a nested hierarchy represented by Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) numbered with 2 to 12 digits, which are then categorized with names into regions, sub- regions, basins, sub-basins, watersheds, and sub-watersheds (USGS et al 2013). The GMUG National Forest lies within 11 sub-basins (4th-level HUC) as shown in Table 1. These sub-basins are further divided into watersheds (generally 40,000 to 250,000 acres) and sub-watersheds (10,000 to 40,000 acres.) GMUG National Forest lands lie within 48 watersheds and 235 sub- watersheds (Appendix 1.)

Table 1. Sub-basins containing the GMUG National Forest lands

4th Level HUC 4th Level HUC Name GMUG Geographic Areas 14010005 Colorado Headwaters—Plateau Grand Mesa 14020001 East Taylor Gunnison Basin Gunnison Basin 14020002 Upper Gunnison North Fork of the Gunnison San Juan Mountains 14020003 Tomichi Gunnison Basin Gunnison Basin 14020004 North Fork Gunnison North Fork of the Gunnison Grand Mesa 14020005 Lower Gunnison Uncompahgre Plateau San Juan Mountains 14020006 Uncompahgre Uncompahgre Plateau 14030001 Westwater Canyon Uncompahgre Plateau 14030002 Upper Dolores San Juan Mountains San Juan Mountains 14030003 San Miguel Uncompahgre Plateau 14030004 Lower Dolores Uncompahgre Plateau

2 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources Average annual precipitation across the GMUG varies from about 15 inches at lower elevations to over 50 inches at higher elevations. The majority of the precipitation across the GMUG comes as snow in the winter. Monsoonal rains typical of the southwestern United States occur in the summer months. Summer also brings thunderstorms that produce high intensity, short duration precipitation events, particularly at higher elevations. Figure 1 shows average monthly precipitation at selected SNOTEL stations, one in each geographic area, to show the average across the landscapes on the GMUG. The wetter months are in the winter and the drier months are in the late spring and summer.

Figure 1. Average monthly precipitation at SNOTEL stations around the GMUG for the period 1981 – 2010

Streamflow is predominantly driven by annual snowmelt runoff starting in March, peaking in late May to early June, and tapering off to baseflow levels in late August to early September (Figure 2). Summer thunderstorms can increase streamflow for short periods in localized areas. There can be considerable variability in the shape of a stream’s hydrograph and peak flows from year to year (Figure 3) depending on local and regional meteorological and climatic conditions.

3 USDA Forest Service

Figure 2. Annual hydrograph for North Fork Gunnison River (10/1/15 – 9/30/16)

Figure 3. Annual hydrographs for North Fork Gunnison River for the period 1986-2016

4 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources Watershed Condition Class In 2010, sub-watersheds (6th level HUC, typically, 10,000 to 40,000 acres) were used to define areas of restoration across the Forests using the national Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) (USFS 2011). A watershed condition rating was assigned following an assessment of existing data, knowledge of the land, and professional judgment. Watershed condition is the state of the physical and biological characteristics and processes within a watershed that affect the soil and hydrologic functions supporting aquatic ecosystems. Watershed condition reflects a range of variability from natural pristine (functioning properly) to degraded (impaired). The Forest Service Manual classification defines watershed condition in terms of “geomorphic, hydrologic and biotic integrity” relative to “potential natural condition.” In this context, integrity relates directly to functionality. Integrity is evaluated in the context of the natural disturbance regime, geo-climatic setting, and other important factors within the context of a watershed (USF S 2010a). The Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) is a 12-indicator model that considers both aquatic and terrestrial physical and biological indicators. The indicators are grouped into four process categories: 1) Aquatic, Physical; 2) Aquatic, Biotic; 3) Terrestrial, Physical; and 4) Terrestrial, Biota. The first three categories constitute 30 percent of the total framework rating each. The fourth category constitutes the remaining 10 percent. Each category contains condition indicators (Table 2).

Table 2. Process categories and indicators of the Watershed Condition Framework

Process Category Indicators Aquatic, Physical Water quality, water quantity, aquatic habitat Aquatic, Biota Aquatic biota, riparian, vegetation Terrestrial, Physical Roads and trails, soils Terrestrial, Biota Fire regime, forest cover, rangeland vegetation, invasive species, forest health

For each watershed, attributes within each indicator are individually rated as “good” (Class 1), “fair” (Class 2), or “poor” (Class 3) according to a standardized rule set. The attribute scores are then averaged to give a score for each indicator. The indicator scores are then averaged to give a rating of Class 1 (functioning properly), Class 2 (functioning at risk) or Class 3 (impaired function) for each process category. The Process Category scores are then combined based on a weighting factor to determine a score for each watershed. A watershed is considered to be functioning properly (Class 1) if the physical attributes are appropriate to maintain or improve biological integrity, i.e. the watershed is functioning in a manner similar to natural wildland conditions (USDA Forest Service 2011). Class 2 and Class 3 watersheds have impaired function because some physical, hydrological, or biological thresholds have been exceeded. Class 2 watersheds exhibit moderately impaired functions and Class 3 watersheds exhibit severe impairments. This can occur due to natural processes, such as wildland fire or large slope failures, but are more typically caused by human related disturbance, such as roads close to streams, overgrazing by domesticated animals, invasive species, recreational activities (dispersed camping) or presence of aquatic non-native species.

5 USDA Forest Service

The GMUG has 235 watersheds. Of these, 158 are Class 1; 76 are Class 2, no watersheds are Class 3, and one is not rated due to the small percentage of National Forest System lands in the watershed (Figure 4) (USDA Forest Service 2011a; Appendix 1). Watershed condition ratings for each geographic area are summarized in Table 3. The Grand Mesa geographic area has the greatest percentage of watersheds rated as Class 1 and the North Fork of the Gunnison River has the least. Figure 4. Watershed Condition Class Map

Table 3. Watershed condition class ratings for watersheds in each geographic area [Note: Seven watersheds are located in two Geographic Areas]

Number of Watersheds by Condition Class Geographic Area Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Not Rated Total Grand Mesa 29 8 0 0 37 Gunnison Basin 56 30 0 1 87 Gunnison Basin and North Fork of the Gunnison River 4 0 0 0 4 Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains 1 0 0 0 1

6 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources

Number of Watersheds by Condition Class Geographic Area Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Not Rated Total North Fork of the Gunnison River 15 12 0 0 27 San Juan Mountains 19 9 0 0 28 San Juan Mountains and Uncompahgre Plateau 0 2 0 0 2 Uncompahgre Plateau 34 15 0 0 49 Total 158 76 0 1 235

Across the Plan area, watersheds were most commonly rated as impaired for the “aquatic biological” process category and least commonly for the “terrestrial biological” process category. (Figure 5). This pattern holds when looking at process category ratings across the geographic areas (Figure 6). The Grand Mesa geographic area has the lowest percentage of watersheds rated as impaired for “aquatic biological” and the Gunnison Basin and San Juan Mountains geographic areas have the greatest. More than one-third of the watersheds in the North Fork Gunnison and San Juan Mountains geographic areas are rated as impaired for the “aquatic physical” process category. Nearly one-quarter of the watersheds in the Gunnison Basin and North Fork Gunnison geographic areas are rated as impaired for the “terrestrial physical” process category. The Uncompahgre Plateau geographic area has the highest percentage of watersheds rated as impaired in both the “terrestrial physical” and “terrestrial biological” process categories.

Figure 5. WCF process category ratings for watersheds across the GMUG

7 USDA Forest Service

Figure 6. WCF process category ratings for watershed by geographic area

Within the Process Categories, in “aquatic physical”, the primary indicator that was rated as impaired was “aquatic habitat”, with nearly half of all watersheds rated as “fair” in each of the three “aquatic habitat” attributes (Table 4). In “aquatic biological”, the “aquatic biota” indicator was most often rated impaired, particularly in the “native species” and “exotic and/or aquatic invasive species” attributes with 64 and 82 percent, respectively, of the watersheds rated as “poor” for these attributes. In addition, more than half of the watersheds were rated as “fair” for “riparian/wetland vegetation condition” attribute. In “terrestrial physical”, most attributes have a high percentage of watersheds rated as “good,” with the exception of the “road maintenance” and “proximity to water” attributes of the “roads and trails” indicator. More than half of the watersheds were rated as “fair” or “poor” for the “road maintenance” attribute, 60 percent of the watersheds were rated as “poor” for “[road and trail] proximity to water” and another 25 percent were rated as “fair” for this attribute. Of all the process categories, “terrestrial biological” had the best ratings overall. The attribute with the worst ratings in this process category was “insects and disease” in the “forest health” indicator where 79 percent of the watersheds were rated as “poor”. In the “fire regime” indicator, the “fire regime condition class” was split nearly evenly with about half of the watersheds rated as “good” and half rated as “fair” or “poor.”

Table 4. Watershed ratings for watershed condition framework attributes

Number of Watersheds Process Rated Indicators Attributes Category Good Fair Poor (1) (2) (3) Aquatic Physical Water Quality Condition Impaired Waters (303(d) listed) 211 6 14

8 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources

Number of Watersheds Process Rated Indicators Attributes Category Good Fair Poor (1) (2) (3) Water Quality Problems (not 201 20 10 listed) Water Quantity Flow Characteristics 160 51 20 Habitat Fragmentation 102 114 15 Aquatic Habitat Large Woody Debris 53 110 68 Channel Shape and Function 102 122 7 Life Form Presence 205 6 20 Native Species 60 22 149 Aquatic Biota Exotic and/or Aquatic Invasive Aquatic Biological 33 6 192 Species Riparian/Wetland Vegetation Condition 102 121 8 Vegetation Open Road Density 167 60 4 Road and Trail Maintenance 99 89 43 Roads and Trails Proximity to Water 33 57 141 Terrestrial Mass Wasting 212 15 4 Physical Productivity 171 60 0 Soil Condition Erosion 171 60 0 Chemical Contamination 222 9 0 Fire Regime Condition Class 118 109 4 Fire Regime or Wildfire Wildfire Effects 0 0 0 Forest Cover Loss of Forest Cover 225 2 4 Terrestrial Rangeland Vegetation Rangeland Vegetation Condition 184 45 2 Biological Terrestrial Invasive Extent and Ratio of Spread 200 23 8 Species Insects and Disease 24 22 185 Forest Health Ozone 235 0 0

Trends and Drivers Trends in Class 1 watersheds are relatively static. The primary drivers of change in these areas are wildfires, climate, and insect and disease infestations. Changing climate may have contributed to and possibly exacerbated the magnitude and extent of effects from these drivers. Forest Service policy for the past 10 years has been to allow natural processes to dictate variations in watershed conditions in these areas. Several Class 1 watersheds have the potential to degrade to Class 2 with only moderate climate changes, due to the influence of multiple stressors (Table 5). Changes in temperature and precipitation timing and amount have the potential to affect watershed and soils resources in many ways. The availability and timing of water yield will require changes in water storage operations (Day 2013). Warmer and drier summers could increase the potential for severe wildland fires resulting in greater erosion potential which

9 USDA Forest Service

reduces soil productivity and increases sediment loading to streams and waterbodies. Riparian and wetland features could receive less water, reducing their size and capability of sustaining water dependent plant and animal species.

Table 5. Watersheds rated Class 1 that could degrade to Class 2 as a result of small decreases in process category scores

Watershed Name Hydrologic Unit Code Gunnison Basin Bear Creek-Spring Creek 140200010111 Headwaters Los Pinos Creek 140200030504 Outlet Razor Creek 140200030202 Outlet Willow Creek 140200010106 Roaring Judy Creek 140200010209 North Fork of the Gunnison River Crawford Reservoir 140200021204 San Juan Mountains Upper Cimarron River 140200020902 Uncompahgre Plateau North East Creek 140200050603 Shavano Creek-Tabeguache Creek 140300030603 Spring Creek 140300030604 Upper Dry Creek 140200060502

In road-accessible areas, projects have been designed to incorporate a soil and water improvement component to minimize the potential for soil erosion and mass wasting to aid in restoring water flow patterns and re-establishment of native plant species. Main efforts have included the following: restoration of vegetation to natural species, age, and opening patterns; restoration of soil productivity; and reduction of impacts of forest roads by road reconstruction, maintenance, and decommissioning. In these areas, timber harvest, wildfire, mining, livestock grazing, recreation activities, road location, and management have combined with natural disturbances to either accentuate or lessen the intensity or duration of watershed processes. Changing climate may have either exacerbated or contributed to the magnitude and extent of the effects of these drivers. Local population growth and increased recreation on national forest lands may have significant effects on future watershed conditions. Large urban centers, such as Grand Junction, Colorado, will continue to grow in size (albeit at rates lower than population growth on Colorado’s Front Range). These people will require resources that originate on the forest, particularly fresh water. Local residents as well as out-of-state tourists will continue to use national forest lands for many types of recreation in all four seasons. Local population growth as well as the ability and willingness of people to travel long distances to participate in outdoor recreation in Colorado means more people than ever are likely to use national forest lands.

10 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources The Forest Service is attempting to respond to population growth and recreation growth projections in order to manage areas of the forests, riparian areas for example, that experience the most recreation pressure. All three ski areas on the GMUG NF have proposed expansion of their summer operations and the Forest Service is working with them to ensure responsible growth and mitigate resource pressure from new uses, such as mountain biking within ski area boundaries. Every year, the Forests accomplish up to 1,000 acres of watershed improvement work. Much of this is in conjunction with other projects, including timber, road, and fire projects, but also includes stream restoration and riparian projects. These projects will contribute to improving conditions and ratings across the watersheds.

Water Resources The prominent values sustained by water originating on the GMUG NF include drinking and agricultural water supplies. Water is also important for recreational uses and ecological needs. Also, the GMUG provides much of the available habitat for Colorado River cutthroat trout and boreal toad in southwestern Colorado. There are also several sensitive plant species on the Forest that are depend on water related habitats, primarily wetlands and/or fens.

Surface Waterbodies Surface water conditions vary tremendously across the GMUG, depending on geology, topography, microclimate, soil type, and other factors. The 1991 Land Resource Management Plan notes that there are an estimated 3,657 miles of perennial streams, 1,390 miles of major (named) intermittent streams, and 5,815 miles of minor (unnamed) intermittent streams within the Forests’ boundaries. There are also approximately 11,650 acres of lakes and reservoirs across the Forest.

Perennial Streams Perennial streams on the forest range in size from small, high-elevation tributaries to large rivers. Water flow in these streams varies from its highest volume in the spring, when snow is melting, to lows in late fall or mid-winter. Many streams experience a spike in flow in the summer and fall when rainfall is relatively regular. Perennial streams rely on groundwater to maintain flow, especially during times of the year with little precipitation. Most groundwater discharge to streams occurs in upper elevation catchments (i.e. NFS lands). Approximately 20% of the land area in the Upper Colorado River Basin is NFS lands. The percent of total flow that is groundwater varies throughout the year (Table 6) with total amount being approximately 56% (Miller et al. 2016). See the supplemental Groundwater Assessment for more information.

Table 6. Percent of total streamflow that is groundwater in the Upper Colorado River Basin [Miller et al. (2014).]

Annual Snowmelt Low-flow 21-58% 13-45% 40-86%

Stream Health

11 USDA Forest Service

Healthy streams exhibit good hydrologic function, such as connections with riparian areas, and provide resilience to watersheds following disturbances such as fire, flood, or drought. Stream health depends largely on channel widths and depths, bank stability, and quality of cover and substrate (what makes up the stream bed). Stream temperature is mapped across the forest, and is discussed in depth in the aquatics assessment. The WCF indicator “Aquatic Habitat Condition” indicates overall stream health in a watershed in terms of three attributes: “Habitat fragmentation”, “Large woody debris”, and “Channel shape and function” (USDA Forest Service 2011b.) The “Habitat fragmentation” attribute concerns breaks in aquatic habitat caused by temperature, aquatic organism passage blockages, or dewatering. The “Large woody debris” attribute is concerned with the lack of large wood in stream systems and changes due to management activities that reduce large wood recruitment. The “Channel shape and function” attribute is concerned with channel width-to-depth ratios and floodplain connectivity. Habitat loss from fragmentation and simplification in terms of loss of large woody debris and channelization adversely affects native fish and other native aquatic biota diversity and abundance. Table 3 summarizes the watershed ratings for the “Aquatic Habitat Condition” indicator across the Forest. Appendix 1 lists the rating for the “Aquatic Physical Processes” category for each watershed on the Forest. The “Aquatic Habitat Condition” indicator rating constitutes half of the “Aquatic Physical Processes” category score. As shown in Figure 5, the Uncompahgre Plateau, Gunnison Basin and Grand Mesa geographic areas have more than 75 percent of the watersheds rated as good for the “Aquatic Physical Processes” category. Conversely, the North Fork of the Gunnison River and San Juan Mountains geographic areas have less than two-thirds of their watersheds rated as “Good” for this category.

Steam Connectivity Dams associated with human-made impoundments affect stream connectivity and aquatic organism passage. Small dams on non-NFS land and instream structures, such as “perched” culverts at road-stream crossings and irrigation diversions, also exist, fragmenting the stream network and blocking fish passage. For discussion of the implications for fish habitat, see the Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems Assessment. There are 352 dams located in the 11 4th level HUCs that encompass the GMUG (Table 7); note some of this infrastructure is located outside of NFS lands. These dams are generally located in and around upland areas. The Grand Mesa geographic area has the highest density of dams, followed by the North Fork of the Gunnison River. There dams were built primarily for irrigation and water supply for the agricultural areas that lie below the GMUG. Many of the dams on the Grand Mesa were built prior to 1945.

Table 7. Ratio of number of dams per stream mile for the GMUG 4th level HUCs [Note some of this infrastructure is located outside of NFS lands.]

4th Level HUC Name 4th Level HUC Number of Dams Stream Miles Number per Stream Mile Lower Gunnison 14020005 135 608 0.222 Colorado Headwaters— 14010005 79 831 0.095 Plateau North Fork Gunnison 14020004 46 559 0.082 San Miguel 14030003 19 537 0.035

12 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources

4th Level HUC Name 4th Level HUC Number of Dams Stream Miles Number per Stream Mile Upper Gunnison 14020002 31 1,290 0.024 Westwater Canyon 14030001 3 123 0.024 Uncompahgre 14020006 11 485 0.023 Upper Dolores 14030002 12 597 0.020 Lower Dolores 14030004 5 289 0.017 Tomichi 14020003 7 596 0.012 East Taylor 14020001 4 545 0.007

Unpaved road surfaces are a long-term source of fine sediment input into waterbodies. The proximity of a road to a waterbody increases the potential for sediment input. Roads within Water Influence Zones (WIZs), which are typically the area within 100 feet of a waterbody, and road-stream crossings are typically higher contributors of fine sediment. There are approximately 4,683 road crossings on perennial and intermittent streams on national forest lands on the GMUG NF. There are 6,103 road crossings on all land ownerships, private in-holdings for example, within the GMUG boundary. This number includes existing open roads across all jurisdictions that cross perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, ditches, or other artificial water paths. There is an average of approximately 1 road crossings per 3 miles of stream on the GMUG NF, and there are 689 miles of road within WIZs. According to the watershed ratings for the Watershed Condition Framework, the North Fork of the Gunnison River and Gunnison Basin geographic areas have approximately 75 percent of their watersheds rated as “poor” (Class 3) for the road and trail “proximity to water” attribute (Figure 7). In the Uncompahgre Plateau geographic area, almost half of the watersheds were rated as “fair” (Class 2) and only about one- quarter were rated as “poor” for this attribute.

Figure 7. WCF "proximity to water" attribute rating for watershed by geographic area

Stream Density Stream or drainage density is expressed in terms of total stream or channel length per unit area (miles per square mile, mi/mi2) and characterizes the degree of landscape dissection and network transport capacity (Carlson 1963). It measures network texture and the balance between erosive

13 USDA Forest Service power of overland flow and the resistance of surface soils and rocks. As a result, it reflects the connectivity between hill slopes and the channel system. High stream densities provide rapid translation of overland flow and sediment production into the channel network and therefore are correlated with faster delivery of water, higher peak flows, and higher sediment delivery. Higher density stream networks are more efficient in the delivery of both runoff and sediment. High stream densities are correlated with greater sensitivity to phenomena that affect the terrestrial areas of a watershed, such as fire. Stream density across the GMUG ranges from 0 to 8.9 mi/mi2. The vast majority of the GMUG (97 %) have stream densities ranging from 1.8 to 5.4 mi/mi2.

Groundwater Groundwater resources include aquifers and groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) such as wetlands, lakes, streams, springs, and subterranean ecosystems. Impacts to the quantity, timing and quality of groundwater discharge to these ecosystems have significant consequences to their persistence and viability. Basic spring distribution is noted below; see the Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystem assessment for further discussion of GDEs. Further information on aquifers and existing groundwater information is located in the supplemental Groundwater Assessment.

Springs The Springs Stewardship Institute (SSI) database shows that 287 springs and seeps occur across the GMUG NF, and that springs are most numerous on the Uncompahgre NF (Table 7; Figure 2). The SSI database includes all springs from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), but there are likely many sampled by GMUG NF staff and various contractors that have not yet been included. It is very likely that the number of springs given in the SSI database is an underestimate.

Table 8 - Number and estimated springs per acre occurring on the GMUG NF. The data were derived from the Springs Stewardship Institute database and includes all springs in the National Hydrography Dataset. It is very likely these values are underestimated. Forest Approximate Acres Number of Springs Springs/Acre Grand Mesa 351,200 17 <0.0001 Uncompahgre 1,041,200 140 0.0001 Gunnison 1,760,900 130 <0.0001

14 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources

Figure 8 - Distribution of documented springs occurring on the GMUG NF. The data were derived from the Springs Stewardship Institute database and includes all springs in the National Hydrography Dataset.

Water Quantity

Water Yield The water provided by streams that flow from the GMUG is an important resource utilized for drinking water supplies, irrigation, stock watering, fisheries, and recreation in the surrounding area, and as discussed further below, most of the HUC12 watersheds encompassing the GMUG are Municipal Supply Watersheds. The GMUG produces approximately 2.8 million acre-feet of water yield, minus wells, that feeds approximately 3,657 miles of perennial streams and supports about 11,650 surface acres of lakes and reservoirs. Annual water yield depends upon density or coverage of the forest, type of forest vegetation, whether most of the forest is living or dead, as well as many other factors including climate, weather patterns, geology, slope, soils, stream channel conditions and riparian area conditions. Forested land helps conserve moisture by providing shade and cooler temperatures which result in less evaporation. Floodplains and wetlands store substantial volumes of surface and shallow groundwater, which supports dense vegetative cover. Water transpiration from plants sends moisture to the atmosphere and contributes to rain and snow development in the area.

15 USDA Forest Service

At higher elevations, snow is the dominant form of precipitation. In the Rocky Mountains, as much as 75 percent of annual precipitation is in the form of snow. The tree canopy, whether living or dead, intercepts a significant volume of snowfall. Snow sublimates (changes directly from a solid to a vapor) in subfreezing temperatures. The increased surface area of snow in the tree canopy results in an estimated loss of 20 to 35 percent of the total snowfall to sublimated interception (Lisle, et. al 2010, Elliot 2010). Drainage basin area is the most influential variable in the estimation of yield: larger 6th level HUC sub-watersheds yield more water. To compare the relative yields between sub-watersheds on the GMUG, the estimated total annual yield is expressed as inches of runoff per unit area, which is analogous to the measurement of precipitation in inches. Yield ranges from 1.5 inches to 36.9 inches for the 235 sub-watersheds on the GMUG. The average estimated yield value for all of the GMUG sub-watershed is 10.9 inches. The majority of the sub-watersheds with yields greater than 20 inches drain high elevation areas. The East River basin of the upper Gunnison River is an example of such a high-yield sub-watershed.

Water Quality Water quality standards and classified uses for surface waters are established by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Commission (Commission). Classified uses in Colorado include agriculture, aquatic life (cold or warm), domestic water supply, and recreation. Water quality standards and classified uses for waterbodies within the GMUG are listed in Commission Regulation No. 93 “Classifications and Numeric Standards for Gunnison and Lower Dolores River Basin” (Colorado Water Quality Control Commission 2018). In addition to numeric and narrative criteria for protecting classified uses, water quality standards also provide an antidegradation policy to protect existing water quality where it is currently better than the applicable criteria. Certain waters on the GMUG have been designated by the Commission as “outstanding waters” (Table 9). These waters are to be maintained and protected at their existing quality. With the exception of COGUUG02, all of these segments are within wilderness areas.

16 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources

Table 9. Segments designated as Outstanding Waters

CO WBID Segment Description All tributaries to the Gunnison River, including wetlands, in the La Garita, Powderhorn, West Elk, COGUUG01 Collegiate Peaks, Maroon Bells, Fossil Ridge, or Uncompahgre Wilderness Areas All tributaries and wetlands from North Beaver Creek to Meyers Gulch, from the West Elk COGUUG02 Wilderness boundary to their confluence with Blue Mesa Reservoir, Morrow Point Reservoir, or the Gunnison River, excluding Steuben Creek, North Willow Creek, and Soap Creek All lakes and reservoirs that are tributary to the Gunnison River and within the La Garita, COGUUG33 Powderhorn, West Elk, Collegiate Peaks, Maroon Bells, Raggeds, Fossil Ridge, or Uncompahgre Wilderness Areas All tributaries to the North Fork of the Gunnison River, including all wetlands, within the West Elk COGUNF01 or Raggeds Wilderness Areas All lakes and reservoirs that are tributary to the North Fork of the Gunnison River and within the COGUNF08 West Elk or Raggeds Wilderness Areas All tributaries to the Uncompahgre River, including wetlands, which are within the Mount Sneffels COGUUN01 or Uncompahgre Wilderness Areas All lakes and reservoirs tributary to the Uncompahgre River and within the Mount Sneffels or COGUUN16 Uncompahgre Wilderness Areas All tributaries to the Smith Fork, including all wetlands, which are within the West Elk Wilderness COGULG11B Area COGULG18 All lakes and reservoirs tributary to the Smith Fork and are within the West Elk Wilderness Area All tributaries, including wetlands, to the San Miguel River and within the boundaries of the Lizard COGUSM01 Head or Mount Sneffels Wilderness Areas All lakes and reservoirs tributary to the San Miguel River and within the boundaries of the Lizard COGUSM13 Head or Mount Sneffels Wilderness Areas

Although surface water quality is generally excellent within the Forests’ boundaries, the State of Colorado identified stream segments that do not meet water quality standards. Elevated metals concentrations related to historic mining activities are most often the reasons for failure to meet water quality standards. Impaired streams and their impairments identified within the GMUG watersheds are listed below (Table 10).

17 USDA Forest Service

Table 10. Impaired streams and reasons for impairment on the GMUG NF (2018 303(d) list [Colorado Water Quality Control Commission 2018])1

CO WBID Waterbody Name 303(d) Impairment Identified Pollutant COGULD03a Disappointment Creek Aquatic Life Use Selenium, Iron COGULD04 West Paradox Creek Aquatic Life Use Iron COGULD05 West Creek Aquatic Life Use Copper, Iron COGULG04a Whitewater Creek Water Supply, Aquatic Life Warm Selenium, Manganese, and Sulfate COGULG07b Tongue Creek Aquatic Life Use Iron, Selenium COGULG11b Lunch Creek Aquatic Life Use Sediment COGULG12 Muddy Creek Aquatic Life Use Iron COGUNF04a Ruby Anthracite Creek Water Supply Arsenic COGUNF04b East Muddy Creek Aquatic Life Use Lead, Selenium, Iron COGUNF04c Lake Irwin Aquatic Life Use Silver, Cadmium, Zinc COGUNF06a North Fork of the Gunnison Aquatic Life Use Selenium, Iron COGUNF06b Cottonwood Creek Aquatic Life Use Selenium, Iron COGUSM02 San Miguel River Aquatic Life Use Cadmium, Zinc COGUSM03b San Miguel Aquatic Life Use Temperature COGUSM06a Ingram Creek Aquatic Life Use Cooper, Manganese COGUSM06b Marshall Creek Aquatic Life Use Lead, Cooper COGUSM07 Howard Fork Aquatic Life Use Iron, Macroinvertebrates COGUSM08 South Fork of San Miguel Water Supply Use Manganese, Arsenic COGUSM10b Naturita Creek Aquatic Life Use Dissolved Oxygen

1 Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. 2018. Regulation No. 93 – Colorado’s Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters and Monitoring and Evaluation List.

18 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources

CO WBID Waterbody Name 303(d) Impairment Identified Pollutant COGUSM12a Specie Creek Water Supply Use Arsenic COGUSM12b San Miguel River Water Supply, Aquatic Life Macroinvertebrates, Arsenic, Iron COGUUG01 Stewart Creek Water Supply, Aquatic Life Iron, Macroinvertebrates COGUUG02 Red Creek / E. Elk Creek Aquatic Life, Water Supply Temperature, Manganese COGUUG04 Taylor River Water Supply, Aquatic Life Arsenic, Macroinvertebrates COGUUG05a East River Water Supply Use Arsenic COGUUG07 Slate River below Oh-Be-Joyful Creek Aquatic Life Use Zinc COGUUG08 Slate River Aquatic Life Use Cadmium, Zinc COGUUG09 Coal Creek Aquatic Life Use Arsenic COGUUG10a Oh-be-Joyful Creek Aquatic Life Use Zinc, Lead, Cadmium, Copper COGUUG10b Redwell Creek Aquatic Life Use Zinc, Lead, Cadmium, Copper COGUUG11 Elk Creek Aquatic Life Use Cadmium, Lead, Zinc, Arsenic COGUUG12 Coal Creek Aquatic Life Use Copper, Zinc, Cadmium COGUUG15a South Beaver Creek Aquatic Life Use Iron, Macroinvertebrates COGUUG16a Ohio Creek Water Supply Use Arsenic COGUUG17a West Antelope Creek Water Supply Use Manganese COGUUG17b Antelope Creek Water Supply Use Manganese COGUUG18b Tomichi Creek Water Supply, Aquatic Life Arsenic, Macroinvertebrates, Temperature COGUUG19 Razor Creek Aquatic Life, Water Supply Macroinvertebrates, Arsenic, Iron, Manganese COGUUG21 Marshall Creek Water Supply Use Arsenic COGUUG23 Cochetopa Creek Aquatic Life, Water Supply Temperature, Arsenic COGUUG26 Blue Creek Water Supply Arsenic COGUUG29a Deadman Creek Aquatic Life Use Copper, Selenium, Zinc, Cadmium, Iron, Manganese COGUUG29b Lake Fork of the Gunnison Water Supply Use Arsenic COGUUG30 Henson Creek Water Supply Use Arsenic COGUUG32 North Fork Henson Creek Water Supply Manganese COGUUN02 Uncompahgre River Aquatic Life Use Cadmium, Copper, Zinc

19 USDA Forest Service

CO WBID Waterbody Name 303(d) Impairment Identified Pollutant COGUUN03a Uncompahgre River Aquatic Life, Water Supply Zinc, Manganese COGUUN3b Uncompahgre River Water Supply Use Manganese COGUUN05 Uncompahgre River Aquatic Life, Water Supply Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Zinc, Macros COGUUN06a Red Mountain Creek Aquatic Life Use Silver, Copper COGUUN07 Gray Copper Gulch Aquatic Life Use Copper, Lead, Zinc COGUUN08 Mineral Creek Aquatic Life Use Cooper, Zinc, Cadmium COGUUN09 Imogene Creek Aquatic Life Use Macroinvertebrates, Cadmium, Zinc, Lead COGUUN10a Cow Creek Water Supply Use Arsenic COGUUN11 Coal Creek Aquatic Life, Water Use Macroinvertebrates, Arsenic, Zinc COGUUN12 Dry Creek Aquatic Life Use Iron COLCLC15a Plateau Creek Water Supply Use Iron, Arsenic COLCLC16 Plateau Creek Aquatic Life Use Iron

20 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources

Public Water Supplies and Municipal Supply Watersheds A number of communities rely on surface and groundwater originating on the GMUG NFs for their public drinking water supplies. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) is the lead agency in assuring that safe drinking water is provided by all public systems in the state, and for enforcing standards established by the Safe Drinking Water Act. There are a total of 18 surface water providers (32 separate systems or source water areas) that include at least some GMUG administered lands (Table 11)2. Groundwater dependent systems within the GMUG NFs include 42 active private providers (Table 12) and 39 Forest Service facilities (Table 13). An additional 26 private groundwater based providers occur within 2.5 miles of the GMUG NF. The 2.5-mile distance corresponds to the fixed radius basis used by the CDPHE to define wellhead protection areas. A combined population of about 175,000 people is served by the various sources, according to CDPHE data. There are no EPA-designated sole source aquifers on the GMUG NF nor forest-wide water quality data of aquifers (www.epa.gov/dwssa). Under the state’s Source Water Area Assessment (SWAA) program there are often multiple systems (tracked by identification numbers or SWAA ID#) for one water provider. Each system corresponds to a unique source area. The source areas may include many sub- watersheds on the GMUG like the Gunnison County Dos Rios system, or include only a portion of a sub-watershed such as the Town of Cedaredge. The source areas range from just 500 acres to over 2 million acres in size, with the proportion lying within GMUG NFs varying from approximately 4% to as much as 100%. Generally, the greater the proportion of NF lands in a source water area the greater the potential to be directly affected by Forest Service land use and management activities. The Forest Service recognizes state-delineated “Source Water Areas” as “Municipal Supply Watersheds” per the definition in FSM 2542 (SWAP MOU with CDPHE, 2014). These areas are managed for multiple use outputs while providing protection of water quality to meet municipal water supply needs. Nearly all of the GMUG watersheds are Municipal Supply Watersheds. Forest-wide water quality is generally excellent, because it meets water quality standards established by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE). GMUG lands are considered the principal source for surface-based systems where 70% or more of the total supply area lies within the forest boundary. Forest-wide that includes 21 separate systems (managed by 16 providers), totaling approximately 1,038,000 acres. The current Plan has a Management Prescription 10E emphasizing municipal watersheds only for the Fruita Division of the Grand Mesa NF, an area that totals approximately 7,850 acres. However, the Division is no longer being used as a water source by the City of Fruita. No other source water areas are designated in the 1983 Forest Plan, as amended. The identification of watersheds important as municipal water supplies is a potential need for change in a new forest plan - there should be a consistent management approach for all. The CDPHE 303d list of impaired stream segments includes Coal Creek, which serves as the Town of Crested Butte’s principal drinking water source. The contaminants of concern

2 Note: Our data sharing agreement with CDPHE regarding CDPHE-delineated source water areas prohibits us from publishing maps of those source water areas

21 USDA Forest Service

(Cadmium, Lead, and Zinc) are associated with historic operations at the Standard Mine site. In April 2005, the site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List which if adopted would make it eligible for “Superfund” remediation. Despite the 303d listing, Coal Creek currently meets Safe Drinking Water Act standards.

Table 11. Surface water-dependent providers (public and private) on the GMUG NF [There are also groundwater dependent systems within the GMUG NF, including 42 active private providers and 39 Forest Service facilities. An additional 26 private groundwater based providers occur within 2.5 miles of the GMUG NF.]

Source Percent Geographic System or Acres in Provider Water Area within Area GMUG SWAA ID # (acres) GMUG Grand Mesa 140100-026 Ute Water Conservancy District 544,601 24,302 4.5 Grand Mesa 140100-028 Ute Water Conservancy District 15,349 6,951 45 Grand Mesa 140100-029 Powderhorn MD#1 727 727 100 Grand Mesa 140100-030 Ute Water Conservancy District 11,418 3,758 33 Grand Mesa 140100-032 Ute Water Conservancy District 5,797 1,284 22 Grand Mesa 140100-034 Ute Water Conservancy District 209,403 116,502 56 Grand Mesa 140100-035 Town of Collbran 55,915 43,133 77 Grand Mesa 140200-003 Town of Cedaredge 545 545 100 Grand Mesa 140200-004 Town of Hotchkiss 28,097 22,383 80 Gunnison 140200-007 Town of Crested Butte 8,783 8,783 100 Gunnison 140200-008 Town of Crested Butte 1,161 711 61 Gunnison 140200-009 Mt. Crested Butte WS&D 20,796 20,792 100 Gunnison 140200-010 Gunnison County -Dos Rios 616,948 515,125 83 Grand Mesa 140200-011 City of Grand Junction 1,326 537 40 Grand Mesa 140200-012 City of Grand Junction 1,976 1,616 82 Grand Mesa 140200-013 City of Grand Junction 37,215 36,982 99 Gunnison/ 140200-014 Project 7 Water Authority 1,860,546 915,031 49 Uncompahgre Uncompahgre 140200-016 Town of Ridgway 2,207 2,001 91 Gunnison 140200-017 Fruitland Domestic WC 27,335 23,591 86 Gunnison 140200-018 Bowie Mine #2 37,041 27,327 74 Gunnison 140200-019 Mtn.Coal Co-West Elk Mine 2,442 2,442 100 Gunnison 140200-020 Mtn.Coal Co-West Elk Mine 337,590 293,441 87 Gunnison, Uncompahgre, 140200-022 City of Grand Junction 2,130,075 571,554 27 Grand Mesa Grand Mesa 140200-024 City of Grand Junction 6,455 5,355 83 Grand Mesa 140200-028 Town of Cedaredge 1,801 1,801 100 Grand Mesa 140200-029 Town of Cedaredge 3,957 3,957 100 Grand Mesa 140200-030 Town of Cedaredge 963 963 100 Uncompahgre 140300-005 Wilson Mesa MD 1,979 1,971 99 Uncompahgre 140300-006 Town of Telluride 3,432 3,432 100

22 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources

Source Percent Geographic System or Acres in Provider Water Area within Area GMUG SWAA ID # (acres) GMUG Uncompahgre 140300-009 Town of Nucla 63,930 38,277 60 Uncompahgre 140300-010 Town of Nucla 385,774 233,646 61 Uncompahgre 140300-011 Nucla, Norwood Water Comm. 21,624 21,161 98

Table 12. Private Groundwater Dependent Providers

Bone Mesa WD Cathedral WC Cedaredge, Town of

Coalby Domestic WC Crawford, Town of Crawford Mesa WA

Lazear Water Company Orchard City, Town of Paonia, Town of

Pitkin Mesa Pipeline Comp Crested Butte South Metro Mt. Crested Butte W&SD

Mt. Crested Butte WS&D Meridian Lake Park Riverland Lot Owners

Somerset WD Way Family Ranch-Camp Gun Lake City, Town of - W&SD

Ouray, City of Elk Meadows Estates Aldasoro Ranch HOA

Ilium Valley WS Last Dollar PUD Mountain Village MD

Norwood Water Commission Ophir, Town of Sawpit, Town of

Telluride, Town of Deutsch Pipeline/NeedleRk Frost RV Park

Grand Mesa Christian Assn Mad Dog WC Adventure Experiences, Inc

Almont Resort Big Horn Guest Ranch CBMR-Paradise Warming House

Crystal Meadows Ranch Harmel's Ranch Resort Holt's Guest Ranch

Lost Canyon Resort Rock at Ute Trail Ranch Rocky Mt. Biological Lab

Skyland MD Taylor Park Trading Post Three Rivers Resort

CBMR-Twister Warming House Waunita Hot Springs Youth w/a Mission/High Pk

El Rancho Castle Lake Campgrounds Camp Red Cloud

Crystal Lodge, The Lakeview Resort, Inc. San Juan Ranch HOA

Vickers Dude Ranch Mesa Lakes Resort Powderhorn MD #1

Vega SRA - ASPEN GROVE Vega SRA -Oak Point Twin Peaks Bible Camp

Vega SP-Early Settlers Vega Lodge Cimarron Inn

KOA - Ouray -Switzerlnd Elks Run Telluride Regional Airport

Camp Ilium Miramonte State Wildlife

23 USDA Forest Service

Table 13. Forest Service Groundwater Dependent Sites

Carp Lake CG/Ward Cement Creek Silver Jack Lake CG Campground McClure Campground Campground Divide Forks CG

Dinner Station Spring Creek Crag Crest CG Campground Mosca Campground Campground Fruita Picnic Area

North Bank Cottonwood Eggleston Lake CG Dorchester Campground Campground Cebolla Campground Campground

Mineral Creek Spruce Grove / Jumbo Visitor Center Lake Irwin CG One Mile Campground Trailhead Camp

Island Lake CG/Little Lake View Deer Lakes Amphitheater Bea Campground Pitkin Campground Campground Campground

Quartz Creek Hidden Valley Picnic Curecanti -Ponderosa Lodgepole Campground Campground Grou Matterhorn CG

Lottis Creek Rivers End Slumgullion Almont Campground Campground Campground Campground Sunshine CG

Beaver Lake Erickson Springs Williams Creek Campground Campground Rosy Lane Campground Campground

Water Use and Development Water developments on the GMUG are an integral component of the local economic and social culture of the area. Many of the water diversion and storage facilities pre-date the National Forests. A majority of the streams on the GMUG that are capable of supplying water for agricultural purposes have been developed to either divert water to off-forest uses or store water to provide for more adequate supplies downstream later in the season. Of the 235 sub- watersheds (6th level HUC) on the GMUG, approximately 70 percent of them have some level of water development. Runoff from NFS lands on the GMUG predominately flow into the Gunnison River sub- basin. The GMUG comprises the headwaters for the Gunnison River and portions of the GMUG are headwaters for the Plateau Creek watershed which drains into the Colorado River and the San Miguel River that is tributary to the Dolores River. Since the GMUG NFs play such a major role in the Gunnison sub-basin surface water supplies, the condition and trend of water use and future water demand are best characterized using data for that sub-basin. Runoff from NFS lands in the Gunnison River sub-basin contribute approximately 40 to 45 percent of average annual surface flow in the river. Conditions for the Gunnison River sub- basin are expected to be similar to conditions in the other sub-basins and therefore representative for these other sub-basins where GMUG forest runoff contributes to surface flow. Almost all of the municipal and industrial (MI) needs in the region surrounding the GMUG are met by surface water supplies. About 25 percent of the total surface water runoff is diverted for agricultural purposes with about a quarter of that water being consumptively used by crops and livestock (Colorado Water Conservation Board, 2004). MI consumption uses less than 0.3 percent of the surface water runoff. According to the State Waters Supply Initiative (SWSI) there are approximately 264,000 acres of irrigated farmland in the

24 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources Gunnison River sub-basin that divert about 473,000 acre-feet of water annually. State Engineer’s records indicate that about 208,500 acre-feet of water is diverted from streams on the GMUG for non-forest uses. Existing groundwater development in the plan area is predominantly (71%) for domestic or household use. Approximately 750 wells are permitted within the GMUG administrative boundary, including those on private land inholdings. By comparison, 50,096 well permits have been issued on private lands in the plan area. The average density of constructed wells on private lands in the plan area (which are not densely populated) is an order of magnitude higher than for just GMUG NFS lands. See the supplemental Groundwater Assessment for more information on existing groundwater development. Projections for water demand and use were the focus of the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s Statewide Water Supply Initiative (CWCB, 2004). That study showed about an 85 percent increase in MI water demand from 2000 to 2030 and speculated that most of this increased demand would be met by the conversion of agricultural water use to MI. The SWSI report also indicated that many of the major river basins on the east side of the Continental Divide have much greater unmet water demands than the Gunnison River sub-basin. These findings have continued to fuel speculation and interest in the potential of the Gunnison River sub-basin to provide additional water to the eastern slope basins where future water demands are much greater than in the Gunnison. Based on the SWSI projections, surface water diversion from NFS lands is not likely to decrease nor are they expected to increase. Agricultural water use has a long history in the area and most of the feasible and economically sound water developments have been developed and are continuing activities for agriculture. There is little indication there will be many proposals to develop new diversions on NFS lands, but there may be greater interest in developing more surface water storage on the GMUG due to the higher elevations of NFS lands (less storage lost to evaporation), federally owned lands are generally suitable for multiple use, and the relatively shorter distance to transfer water from the western slope rivers to rivers east of the Continental Divide. The ability to capture more peak flow runoff not currently appropriated as well as provide for future MI use makes new storage a likely strategy for meeting future water needs. Based on public comments, there are local concerns that the Gunnison River sub-basin, because of its high water yield and relative low future water demand for MI, may be a target for water development projects that transfer water to other basins where future water demands exceed yields. The Forest Service has as many as 2,400 recorded water developments on GMUG NF lands. The majority of these water developments are stock ponds that store small volumes of water for livestock and wildlife watering. The Forest Service also has water developments that include both surface and groundwater supplies for developed recreation sites. The Forest Service will continue to develop water facilities for livestock and wildlife watering. Water availability and watering locations for grazing animals is an important component of resource management for both the animals and the related resource protection. Water availability for ecological values (e.g., streams and riparian areas) and social values (e.g., fishing, aesthetics, recreation) are also important water needs on the GMUG. For example, water originating on national forest lands, not just the GMUG NF, provides habitat for four endangered fish species in the Colorado River and Gunnison River: Bonytail Chub, Colorado Pikeminnow, Humpback Chub, and Razorback Sucker. Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the

25 USDA Forest Service

Forest Service consults with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when projects on national forest lands will result in water depletions. Environmental considerations represent an important check on unfettered water development on the national forest. Non-consumptive water uses on the GMUG include instream flows resulting from water rights which identify water in stream channels as a beneficial use. In Colorado, the CWCB has the authority to file for instream flow water rights under its Instream Flow Protection Program (ISF Program). The state holds instream flow rights on approximately 1,184 miles of stream on the GMUG in 77 sub-watersheds, or approximately one third of the perennial stream miles. The quantity and timing of those flows varies by individual stream, but the CWCB program objective is to “preserve and improve the natural environment to a reasonable degree.” The Forest Service’s non-consumptive water needs are not fully inventoried and are generally addressed at the project level based on the need to evaluate environment consequences associated with proposed developments or activities. There is a trend to increase efforts to maintain existing stream flows on many of the streams on NFS lands for aquatic species, baseline recreation and aesthetic values, and to sustain ecological processes.

Soil Resources Soil provides many ecosystem services on which other life forms (including humans) depend. Soil yields supporting ecosystem services by providing a substrate and nutrients from plants. Soil provides regulating ecosystem services through thermoregulation, nutrient cycling, and water purification and storage. Soil contributes to provisioning ecosystem services by providing wildlife habitat, plant-growth media, and fill (construction). Especially important to humans are the cultural ecosystems services that soil provides to society.

Detrimental Soil Disturbance The productivity of Forest Service lands has been mandated by NEPA since 1969 and the National Forest Management Act since 1976. However, the mechanism to do so wasn’t established until 1999, when a detrimental soil disturbance standard was established. This standard was put in place as an actual mechanism to limit activity-caused soil disturbance. The use of the detrimental soil disturbance analyses is based on an underlying assumption that soil and land productivity will be maintained so long as less than 15 percent of the area is detrimentally disturbed. Different types of detrimental soil disturbance include soil compaction, displacement, rutting, severe burning, surface erosion, loss of surface organic matter and soil mass movement. The 15 percent standard applies to all areas on the GMUG where growing vegetation is the prime objective. The standard does not apply to intensively developed sites, such as mines, active gravel pits, administrative sites, highly developed recreation sites.

Current Forest Plan Direction The current Forest Plan provides limited direction with respect to the management of soil resources. The direction can be paraphrased as follows: 1. Maintain soil productivity,

26 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources 2. Minimize man-caused soil erosion, 3. Maintain the integrity of associated ecosystems. As a result of limited guidance at the Forest level, procedures followed rely on regional guidance, the professional expertise of soil scientists and their ability to use best available science to maintain the productivity of soil and land resources.

Existing Information Sources Soil Surveys - Multiple soil surveys of varying age, quality, and type cover portions of the GMUG National Forest. Each soil survey on its own might be considered as the best usable information based on its availability within an existing database. Individual soil surveys, however, vary widely in terms of mapping procedures used, accuracy and precision of map unit concepts, the quality and resolution of field mapping and ability to generate accurate soil interpretations. Watershed Condition Assessment - As discussed in detail earlier, soil condition is just one of the 12 indicators used within the Watershed Condition Framework. Three sub-categories were analyzed to determine soil condition; these are: soil productivity, soil erosion, and soil contamination. While 6th-order HUCs provide an appropriate basis for reporting hydrology and fisheries results, soil impacts that occur more at a local scale can get washed out at the 6th-order HUC scale. As a result, the Watershed Condition Class results generally do not provide useful knowledge at the Forest level and as a result, are not included in the current existing information assessment for soils.

Existing Condition Much of the discussion in this assessment discusses issues of reduced land productivity. A basic question first needs to be answered about the inherent capability of lands within the boundaries of the GMUG NFs to produce desired types and amounts of native vegetation. Soil productivity depends in part on the plan species and/or plant community present on the site. A highly productive soil for one plant community type many not necessarily be productive for a different community type. Overall generalizations can be made, however, about soil and landscape factors that contribute to increased site productivity in general for most plan communities on the forest. For many plan species, ideal soil and site conditions include: • The appropriate soil texture for the desired plant species/community type with some rock fragments in the soil • Appropriate soil pH for the desired species • Primarily deep to very deep soils (most species) • Moderately well drained, i.e., evidence of an ephemeral high water table within 72 inches of the soil surface, or well-drained soil conditions • Run-in landscape positions (areas where water accumulates in the soil from upslope positions). • No other limiting factors, such as soil contamination or saline/sodic soil conditions

27 USDA Forest Service

Appropriate levels of forest litter and coarse woody debris in the soil can improve conditions for conifers on site, but these can build up over time with improper management. Inherent productivity of the soil is more a function of rooting depth, and chemical and physical properties of the soil than transient factors such as litter layer thickness.

Sensitive Soils Certain attributes associated with soils on forest make them sensitive or susceptible to management caused impairment of soil quality and productivity. Sensitive soil properties on the forest are erosion-prone soils and organic surface horizon. Land use practices, such as logging, grazing, and mining, have been occurring on the GMUG NF since their inception. Activity impacts are evident on the soil landscaped today. Dynamic soil characteristics may be indicators of impaired productivity. Compaction may restrict plant rooting, may lower water-holding capacity and may decrease infiltration. Loss of surface soil through displacement and mixing may decrease soil productivity. Displacement occurs during temporary road construction, exaction of skid trails and landings, and displacement of soils during ground-based tree harvest. Areas with greater ground disturbance may become more favorable for weed invasion, which can reduce overall soil productivity.

Soil Erosion Undisturbed forested areas in Colorado typically have very low erosion rates. This is because snow is the predominant precipitation type, the soils have high infiltration rates, and mass movements are relatively inactive or infrequent (MacDonald and Stednick 2003). On the GMUG in general, the potential for the greatest erosion is on steeper slopes and potential decreases as the slope decreases (USDA National Resource Conservation Service undated). The erosion hazard rating (EHR) is a rating of how erodible a soil is and is based on soil type, surface cover, slope gradients, and slope lengths. Soils with severe or very severe EHRs are most prone to erosion when surface cover is removed and the soil surface is disturbed, such as by timber harvest activities or roads (Table 14). The ratings are based upon the combined effects of the surface soil Kw factor (a relative index of susceptibility determined by physical properties) and the prevailing slope. The sub-watershed extent of severe or very severe risk ratings across the GMUG NFs ranges from 0% to 85%. The most extensive areas are associated with the steep terrain of the West Elk and San Juan mountain ranges, although notable areas also occur in the Battlements north of Collbran, and the upper East River. By contrast the lowest amounts occur across the subdued terrain of Uncompahgre Plateau and Grand Mesa.

Table 14. Erosion hazard ratings on the GMUG NF

Erosion Hazard Rating Acres Percent of Forest Area Slight 1,025,262 28 Moderate 1,466,419 41 Severe 467,802 13 Very Severe 645,796 18

28 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources Shallow soils are defined as soils less than 20 inches deep. They are sensitive because they are susceptible to erosion. They are generally weakly developed, with relatively little organic matter, and therefore have low nutrient levels. Any soil displacement or loss can affect their productivity.

Mass Failure Mass failures (also known as mass movement, soil slippage or landslides) can be triggered by natural or man-made disturbances. Mass failures can be triggered by changed conditions resulting from sequences of natural events, such as wildfire followed by high intensity precipitation events. Some areas on the GMUG have characteristics that contribute to a greater potential for instability and are considered to have a greater likelihood or susceptibility to mass failures based on those characteristics which typically include soil or bedrock features. This includes the area in the northeastern portion of Grand Mesa where the recent massive rock avalanche near Collbran occurred.

Organic Soils and Organic Layer Fen soils are unique because they have peat soils that contain high amounts of organic matter. Fens are relatively unique in that they take thousands of years to develop. Meadow soils are not as organic-rich or wet as fen soils, but still have more organic matter and are wetter than most soils on the forest. The organic material and fine grained sediments, plus the degree of wetness, make the meadow soils subject to compaction. Soil organic matter is fundamentally important to sustaining long-term productivity. A review of the soil data shows that a majority of the plan area has soils sensitive to erosion should the surface organic layer be removed.

Stressors and Current Trends Land-use forest practices have affected soil functions, and these functions are intertwined, making it difficult to discuss them separately. Management action such as timber activities, road management, fuels management, recreation, and grazing can all have effects such as compaction, erosion, and loss of organic matter, and can impair the majority of soil functions. While these effects have not been eliminated in current practices, the Forest Service has decreased these types of effects substantially. This reduction of effects, coupled with soil restoration activities, should result in a sustainable or possibly even increased capacity of the soils to support multiple uses and ecosystem services. The relationship between soil and climate change is twofold. First, climate change may affect the soil resource. Second, soil has the ability to either store or release greenhouse gases; thereby, potentially influencing climate change. The potential impacts of climate change on the forest soil resource are not well known at this time. Warmer winters may result in large areas where winter harvest operations are constrained by poor road conditions. Increased frequency and severity of summer droughts could threaten effective vegetation cover through increased wildfire, and pathogen and insect activity. Literature suggests that opportunities may exist to manage the soil carbon pool (Harmon and Marks 2002, Johnson and Curtis 2001, Yanai et al. 2003). However, predicted

29 USDA Forest Service

soil carbon response to climate change is extremely uncertain at this time (Todd-Brown et al., 2013). More carbon is stored in soil than in the atmosphere and above-ground biomass combined (Yanai et al. 2003). Soil carbon is in the form of organic compounds created through photosynthesis in which plants convert atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic carbon compounds. The organic compounds enter the soil system when plants and animals die. Immediately, soil organisms begin consuming the organic matter, releasing water, heat, and CO2 back to the atmosphere. Thus, if no new plant residue is added to the soil, soil organic matter will gradually disappear. If plant residue is added to the soil at a faster rate than soil organisms convert it to CO2, carbon will gradually be removed from the atmosphere and stored (sequestered) in the soil. Some forms of soil carbon are very stable and will persist for long periods. It is unknown at this time as to how forest practices affect soil carbon storage. Research is looking into these questions. Chapter 3. Sustainability Environmental Sustainability of Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources Environmental sustainability of watersheds, water, and soil resources on the GMUG NF implies the ability of these natural features to support biological communities and bio-geo- chemical processes that sustain them. In their current states, watersheds, water, and soil resources on the GMUG NF have the capability to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. National Forests, in conjunction with air and soil resources, are part of the foundation for providing for the full suite of multiple uses available from national forests. Healthy watersheds across the Forests, and the associated properly functioning hydrologic cycle, provide ecological sustainability, which in turn provides the socio-economic setting of the Plan area and areas downstream. For example, people recreate on the Forests to enjoy clean water, flowing streams, and high elevation scenic lakes; annual snowmelt and unpolluted water provides on- and off-Forest uses such as habitat for aquatic organisms, and drinking, industrial, and agricultural supply; and healthy watersheds assist in climate regulation, serving as a sponge and filter system.

Economic and Social Sustainability of Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources See the assessment Benefits to People for more information. Chapter 4. Current Forest Plan and its Context within the Broader Landscape Existing Forest Plan Management Direction for Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources

30 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources The forest plan provides a variety of management direction related to water and soil resources, discussed in more detail below. Much of the direction is based on the Clean Water Act (CWA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and Forest Service policy. The Forest plan directs the Forest to maintain long-term water quality to meet or exceed state water quality standards. To ensure standards are met, the Forest is to monitor surface- disturbing activities where this need is identified; refer to agency-wide soils best management practices, and standards applicable to projects or activities; and analyze and evaluate all project proposals to determine the potential water quantity and quality impacts, and develop mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts.

Issues in the Broader Landscape Issues pertinent to how the Forest Service manages watersheds, water, and soil resources in the future include 1) local population growth and incumbent socio-economic impacts on national forest lands; and 2) regional climate change, which could fundamentally alter the bio-geo-chemical processes that result in sustainable natural and human communities. In 2015, the Colorado Water Conservation Board released “Colorado’s Water Plan”. This plan was developed to provide collaborative and balanced strategies to address Colorado’s water challenges now and in the future. The plan is based on Basin Implementation Plans (BIP) prepared by each of the nine Basin Roundtables, three of which – Colorado, Gunnison, and Southwest – overlap the GMUG. Each BIP articulates broad themes or goals for water supplies in the basin and identifies how future municipal, industrial, agricultural, recreational, and environmental water needs will be met through existing or new projects, policies and processes, out to the year 2050. While most of the projects, policies, and processes identified in the BIPs do not directly relate to National Forest System lands, some of the broader goals align well with the Forest Service mission. Common themes and goals in the three BIPs that overlap the GMUG include: protection and restoration of healthy watersheds, streams, rivers, lakes and riparian areas; protection of drinking water supplies and infrastructure from natural impacts such as extended droughts, wildland fires, and climate change; providing access to and protection of recreational uses; and meeting environmental flow needs for threatened or endangered species and promoting self-sustaining fisheries. Forest plan direction and projects for watershed restoration, vegetation management and creating resilient landscapes, managing aquatic and wildlife species and habitats, and recreation all contribute to the attainment of these goals within the GMUG. The BIPs also have goals and projects related to securing water supplies for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses. As noted previously in this assessment, NFS lands in the GMUG are an important source for these water supplies and the location of numerous diversion and storage facilities. The Forest Service has pledged to use collaborative approaches with partners and stakeholders, consistent with memorandums of understanding that have been established between the Forest Service and the State of Colorado, to help meet the goals articulated in the BIPs for these water supply needs.

31 USDA Forest Service

Chapter 5. Potential Need for Plan Changes to Respond to Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources Issues Current Forest Plan direction is to “maintain soil productivity, minimize man-caused (sic) soil erosion and maintain the integrity of associated ecosystems.” The plan also defines “adjacent upland areas” associated with riparian areas and describes how disturbance in “adjacent upland areas” can cascade into riparian areas. The current plan includes a guideline for mitigation/restoration that states the agency should facilitate the recovery (defined by restored natural vegetation) of disturbed areas so that 80 percent of a disturbed area is recovered within 5 years. Current forest plan direction is to increase water supply (average annual water yield) through vegetation treatments. This was typical direction in Region 2 Forest Plans of that generation (late 1980’s and early 1990’s). Based on experience in implementing those Forest Plans and updated research, the Region has moved away from emphasizing water yield increases through vegetation management for several reasons. First, the primary influence on water yield in large basins is precipitation, which is variable in the short term, but relatively constant in the long term. Second, research shows that a large percentage (25 percent or more) of the basal area of a watershed would need to be removed at once to realize measurable on-site water yield increases. Generally it is undesirable and often infeasible to remove that much basal area on larger watersheds due to physical, biological, legal, and practical constraints. And lastly, while models can be used to show increases in water yield from vegetation treatments, those modelled increases are generally difficult to measure downstream because they are an extremely small fraction of the total streamflow. Rather than focusing on vegetation treatments to increase water yield, the forest plan direction should instead emphasize healthy forests and watershed conditions as these result in the best optimum long-term water yield, water quality, magnitude and timing of flows, and healthy aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. There is no current forest plan direction specifically for watersheds. Forest plans are to identify priority watersheds for restoration (FSH 1909.12 22.31). There is no current forest plan direction specifically for groundwater resources or groundwater-dependent ecosystems. The paucity of standards and guidelines related to watersheds, water, and soil resources does not necessarily represent a significant need for change in a new plan. Myriad current documents are used by Forest Service specialists during their analyses of proposed land management activities. For example, the Watershed Conservation Practices handbook is used extensively in evaluating projects related to timber harvest, road construction and maintenance, wildlife habitat treatments, and ski area development. It may be sufficient to incorporate such existing direction by reference into a new forest plan, along with plan component/s to ensure their implementation (FSH 1909.12 23.12c), such as a standard to incorporate the National BMPs/Regional WCP Handbook, and/or additional specific components of such.

32 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources Current forest plan direction for water uses management is to “…obtain rights to instream flow volumes to protect and maintain stream channel stability and capacity…”. Under state law, the federal government cannot hold instream flow water rights. This direction needs to change to be consistent with state law. Current forest plan direction for water uses management says authorizations for use of NFS lands “…shall contain conditions and stipulations to maintain instream or by-pass flows necessary to fulfill all National Forest uses and purposes.” This language focuses on the method to achieve the desired outcome, rather than the desired outcome itself. Consider modified direction to emphasize resource protection required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and other federal laws when authorizing use of NFS lands, and consider flexibility to use appropriate tools to achieve those requirements. The current Plan has a Management Prescription 10E emphasizing municipal watersheds only for the Fruita division of the Grand Mesa NF, an area that totals approximately 7,850 acres. However, the Division is no longer being used as a water source by the City of Fruita. No other source water areas are designated in the 1991 Forest Plan, yet GMUG lands are considered the principal source for 21 separate surface water-based systems, totaling approximately 1,038,000 acres. The identification of watersheds important as municipal water supplies is a potential need for change in a new forest plan - there should be a consistent management approach for all. Instream barriers are likely contributing to persistence of native Cutthroat Trout in watersheds in which non-native, invasive species such as Brook Trout are present; the barriers keep the non-natives from outcompeting the cutthroat. This may suggest not every fish passage barrier should be removed in favor of more passage-friendly infrastructure; the revised Forest plan could include plan components to ensure this isn’t overlooked. Increased need for water development is anticipated during the life of the plan. Consider incorporating smart growth principles for water development infrastructure that include high- elevation water development to minimize water losses due to evaporation and identifying opportunities to combine water developments/expand existing with the goal of having fewer, larger reservoirs in the future. See also the Infrastructure assessment. Consider direction to prioritize where and how water development will occur to minimize unacceptable environmental impact while honoring the rights of waters users. Consider updating direction regarding equipment use/restrictions on steep slopes to simplify implementation across different programs. Currently, the Forest Plan applies different thresholds to different programs. References Cited Bisson, P. B. Rieman, C. Luce, P. Hessburg, D. Lee, J. Kershner. 2003. Fire and aquatic ecosystems of the western USA: current knowledge and key questions. Forest Ecology and Management 178:213-229. Campbell, J. L., and S. T. Gower. 2000. Detritus production and soil N transformations in old-growth eastern hemlock and sugar maple stands. Ecosystems 3:185-192. Available online http://people.forestry.oregonstate.edu/john-

33 USDA Forest Service

campbell/sites/people.forestry.oregonstate.edu.john- campbell/files/Campbell_2000_ECOS.pdf Carlson, C. W. 1963. Drainage density and streamflow. Geological Survey Professional Paper 422-C. U.S. Geological Survey. Available online: https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0422c/report.pdf Colorado Water Conservation Board. 2004. Statewide Water Supply Initiative Report Overview; Colorado Department of Natural Resources: Denver, CO. Available online: http://cwcbweblink.state.co.us/weblink/0/doc/144066/Electronic.aspx?searchid=2c16c041 -d0b2-4ec5-ac42-8b95aa0c04e3 Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. 2015. Regulation No. 35 – Classification and numeric standards for Gunnison and Lower Dolores River Basins. Available online: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/35_2017%2803%29.pdf Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. 2018. Regulation No. 93 – Colorado’s Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters and Monitoring and Evaluation List (amended 01/08/18, effective 03/02/18). Available online: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/93_2018%2803%29.pdf Dare, M., M. Carrillo, and C. Speas. 2012. Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) Species and Conservation Assessment for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests, Delta, Colorado. Day, C. Andrew. February 2013. Statistically downscaled climate change projections for the Animas River Basin, Colorado, USA. Mountain Research and Development, 33(1):75-84. International Mountain Society. Dwire, K. A. and J. B. Kauffman. 2003. Fire and riparian landscapes of the western USA. Forest Ecology and Management 178:61-74. Elliot, William J.; Miller, Ina Sue; Audin, Lisa. Eds. 2010. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the western United States. General Technical Report RMRS-STR- 231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 299 p. Grigal, D.F., and E.D. Vance. 2000. Influence of soil organic matter on forest productivity. New Zealand J. For. Sci. 30:169-205. Harmon, M.E. and B. Marks. 2002. Effects of silvicultural practices on carbon stores in Douglas-fir-western hemlock forest in the Pacific Northwest, USA: results from a simulation model. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32:863-877. Hassett, J.E. and D.R. Zak. 2005. "Aspen harvest intensity decreases microbial biomass, extracellular enzyme activity, and soil nitrogen cycling." Journal of the Soil Science Society of America 69:227-235. Hyvonen, R., B. Olsson, H. Lundkvist, and H. Staaf. 2000. "Decomposition and nutrient release from Picea abies (L.) Karst. and Pinus sylvestris L. logging residues." Forest Ecology and Management. 126: 97-112. Jenny, H. (1941). Factors of Soil Formation: A System of Quantitative Pedology: Mineola.Johnson and Curtis 2001.

34 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources MacDonald, L.H and J.D. Stednick. 2003. Forests and water: a state-of-the-art review for Colorado. Colorado Water Resources Research Institute Completion Report No. 196. Available online https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_exp_forests/manitou/rmrs_2003_macDonald_l001.pdf Miller, M. P., Susong, D. D., Shope, C. L., Heilweil, V. M., & Stolp, B. J. (2014). Continuous estimation of baseflow in snowmelt‐dominated streams and rivers in the Upper Colorado River Basin: A chemical hydrograph separation approach. Water Resources Research, 50(8), 6986-6999. Miller, M. P., Buto, S. G., Susong, D. D., & Rumsey, C. A. (2016). The importance of base flow in sustaining surface water flow in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Water Resources Research, 52(5), 3547-3562. Minshall, G. W. 2003. Responses of stream benthic invertebrates to fire. Forest Ecology and Management 178:155-161. Rieman, B. E. and D. J. Isaak. 2010. Climate, change, aquatic ecosystems, and fishes in the Rocky Mountain West: implications and alternatives for management. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-250. Fort Collins, CO., 46 pps. Available online https://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/37029. Roccaforte, J. P., P. Z. Fule, W.W. Chancellor, D.C. Laughlin. 2012. Woody debris and tree regeneration dynamics following severe wildfires in Arizona ponderosa pine forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 42:593-604. Rondeau, R., B. Neely, M. Bidwell, I.Rangwala, L. Yung, K. Clifford, and T. Schulz. 2017. Spruce-Fir Landscape: Upper Gunnison River Basin, Colorado. Social-Ecological Climate Resilience Project. North Central Climate Science Center, Ft. Collins. Colorado. Available at http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/documents/2017/SECR_Spruce- Fir_Landscape_Report_4-30-2017_Final_with_Appendices.pdf. Accessed May 16, 2017. Savage, M., and J. N. Mast. 2005. How resilient are southwestern ponderosa pine forests after crown fires? Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35:967-977. Talbot, J. M., & K. K. Treseder. 2011. Ecology: Dishing the dirt on carbon cycling. Nature Climate Change, 1(3), 144-146. Todd-Brown, K. E. O., Randerson, J. T., Post, W. M., Hoffman, F. M., Tarnocai, C., Schuur, E. A. G., and Allison, S. D. 2013. Causes of variation in soil carbon simulations from CMIP5 Earth system models and comparison with observations. Biogeosciences, 10, 1717–1736, doi:10.5194/bg-10-1717-2013, 2013. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011a. Watershed condition framework – A framework for assessing and tracking changes to watershed condition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. FS-977, 24 pp. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011b. Watershed condition classification technical guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. FS-978, 41 pp. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Undated.

35 USDA Forest Service

United States Department of Interior, Geological Survey and United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. Federal standards and procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) (4th ed.): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 11-A3. 63 pp. Vose, J. M., Ford, C. R., Laseter, S., Dymond, S., Sun, G., Adams, M. B., ... & Elder, K. (2012). Can forest watershed management mitigate climate change effects on water resources. Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, T. W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313 (5789): 940-943. Yanai, R.D, W.S. Currie and C.L. Goodale 2003. Soil Carbon Dynamics after Forest Harvest: An Ecosystem Paradigm Reconsidered. Ecosystems, 6: 197-212.

36 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources

Appendix 1. Watershed Condition of 6th-Level HUCs on the GMUG NF

Table 15. Watershed condition of 6th-level HUCs on the GMUG NF

Watershed Aquatic Aquatic Terrestrial Terrestrial Hydrologic Unit Watershed Name Condition Physical Biological Physical Biological Code Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Grand Mesa Alkali Creek 140200050502 1 1 1 1 1 Anderson Gulch-Plateau Creek 140100051306 1 1 1 1 1 Big Creek 140100051302 2 2 2 1 1 Big Wash-Plateau Creek 140100051310 1 1 1 1 1 Brush Creek 140100051106 1 1 2 1 1 Bull Creek 140100051305 1 2 2 1 1 Collier Creek-Buzzard Creek 140100051107 1 1 2 1 1 Coon Creek 140100051307 1 1 1 1 1 Cottonwood Creek 140100051304 2 2 3 1 1 Deer Creek 140200050701 1 1 1 1 1 Dirty George Creek 140200050107 1 1 1 1 1 Dry Creek-Currant Creek 140200050101 1 1 2 1 1 Dry Gulch-Gunnison River 140200050114 1 Grove Creek 140100051301 1 1 2 1 1 Harrison Creek-Buzzard Creek 140100051105 1 1 2 1 1 Hawxhurst Creek 140100051108 1 1 1 1 1 Headwaters Buzzard Creek 140100051102 1 1 2 1 1 Headwaters Kannah Creek 140200050702 1 1 2 1 1 Hightower Creek-Buzzard Creek 140100051103 2 1 2 2 1 Indian Creek 140200050704 1 1 1 1 1 Kimball Creek-Plateau Creek 140100051303 1 1 1 1 1 Kiser Creek 140200050106 2 2 2 1 1

37 USDA Forest Service

Watershed Aquatic Aquatic Terrestrial Terrestrial Hydrologic Unit Watershed Name Condition Physical Biological Physical Biological Code Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Leon Creek 140100051201 1 1 2 1 1 Mesa Creek 140100051308 1 2 1 1 1 Middleton Creek 140100051104 1 1 2 1 1 Negro Creek-Tongue Creek 140200050112 1 1 1 1 1 North Fork Kannah Creek 140200050703 1 1 1 2 1 Oak Creek 140200050109 1 1 1 1 1 Outlet Kannah Creek 140200050705 1 1 1 1 1 Owens Creek 140100051101 2 2 2 2 1 Salt Creek 140100051203 1 1 2 1 1 Spring Creek-Plateau Creek 140100051309 2 2 3 1 1 Surface Creek 140200050111 2 2 2 1 1 Vega Reservoir 140100051202 1 1 2 1 1 Ward Creek 140200050108 2 2 2 1 1 Wells Gulch-Gunnison River 140200050505 1 1 1 1 1 Whitewater Creek 140200050706 1 1 1 2 1 Gunnison Basin 140200030506 140200030506 1 1 1 1 1 Agate Creek 140200030102 1 1 2 1 1 Alder Creek 140200030304 1 1 2 1 1 Alkali Creek 140200010208 1 1 1 2 1 Antelope Creek 140200020201 2 2 2 1 2 Anthracite Creek 140200040307 1 1 2 1 1 Archuleta Creek 140200030503 1 1 2 1 1 Barret Creek-Tomichi Creek 140200030403 1 1 1 2 1 Bear Creek-Spring Creek 140200010111 1 1 2 1 1 Beaver Creek 140200010112 1 1 2 1 1 Beaver Creek 140200020401 1 1 1 1 1

38 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources

Watershed Aquatic Aquatic Terrestrial Terrestrial Hydrologic Unit Watershed Name Condition Physical Biological Physical Biological Code Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Brush Creek 140200010202 1 1 2 1 1 Cabin Creek 140200030602 1 1 1 2 1 Carbon Creek 140200020103 1 1 2 1 1 Castle Creek 140200020102 1 1 2 1 1 Cement Creek 140200010207 2 1 2 1 1 Coal Creek 140200010204 2 2 3 2 1 Corral Creek-Gunnison River 140200021003 1 1 2 2 1 Cow Creek-Soap Creek 140200020705 1 1 2 1 1 Crystal Creek 140200010109 1 1 2 1 1 Curecanti Creek 140200021002 1 1 2 1 1 East Elk Creek 140200020701 2 1 2 2 1 Elk Creek-Lake Fork 140200020606 1 2 2 1 1 Gold Creek 140200030302 2 1 2 1 1 Headwaters Blue Creek 140200020801 1 1 2 1 1 Headwaters Cebolla Creek 140200020502 1 1 2 1 1 Headwaters Coal Creek 140200040304 1 1 2 1 1 Headwaters Cochetopa Creek 140200030501 1 1 1 1 1 Headwaters Lake Fork 140200020601 1 1 1 1 1 Headwaters Los Pinos Creek 140200030504 1 1 2 1 1 Headwaters Razor Creek 140200030201 1 1 2 1 1 Headwaters South Beaver Creek 140200020202 1 1 2 1 1 Headwaters Tomichi Creek 140200030101 2 2 2 1 1 Headwaters Willow Creek 140200010105 1 1 2 1 1 Horse Canyon 130100040102 2 1 3 2 1 Hot Springs Creek 140200030404 2 2 2 2 1 Lake San Cristobal-Lake Fork 140200020602 1 2 2 1 1 Larson Creek-Lake Fork 140200020605 1 1 2 1 1

39 USDA Forest Service

Watershed Aquatic Aquatic Terrestrial Terrestrial Hydrologic Unit Watershed Name Condition Physical Biological Physical Biological Code Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Little Blue Creek 140200020802 1 1 2 1 1 Long Branch Creek 140200030104 1 1 2 1 1 Lottis Creek 140200010108 1 1 2 1 1 Lower East River 140200010210 1 1 2 1 1 Lower Ohio Creek 140200020106 2 1 3 1 1 Lower Quartz Creek 140200030305 2 1 2 2 1 Lower Taylor River 140200010113 1 1 2 1 1 Marshall Creek 140200030103 2 2 2 1 1 Middle East River 140200010203 1 1 2 1 1 Middle Ohio Creek 140200020105 2 2 3 2 1 Middle Quartz Creek 140200030303 2 2 2 1 1 Middle Taylor River 140200010103 1 1 2 1 1 Mill Creek 140200020104 1 1 2 1 1 Mill Creek-Brush Creek 140200020501 1 1 2 1 1 Mineral Creek-Cebolla Creek 140200020505 1 1 2 1 1 Needle Creek 140200030402 2 2 2 1 1 Nellie Creek-Henson Creek 140200020604 1 2 2 1 1 North Fork Henson Creek-Henson Creek 140200020603 2 2 2 1 1 Oh-be-Joyful Creek-Slate River 140200010205 2 2 3 2 1 Outlet Cochetopa Creek 140200030509 1 1 2 1 1 Outlet Razor Creek 140200030202 1 1 2 2 1 Outlet Willow Creek 140200010106 1 1 2 1 1 Owens Creek-Tomichi Creek 140200030401 2 1 2 1 1 Pauline Creek 140200030502 1 1 2 1 1 Pine Creek 140200021001 NR Porphyry Creek-Tomichi Creek 140200030105 1 1 2 1 1 Red Creek 140200020702 2 1 2 2 1

40 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources

Watershed Aquatic Aquatic Terrestrial Terrestrial Hydrologic Unit Watershed Name Condition Physical Biological Physical Biological Code Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Roaring Judy Creek 140200010209 1 1 2 1 1 Rock Creek 140200020506 2 2 2 1 1 Rock Creek-Cochetopa Creek 140200030508 2 2 2 1 1 Rocky Brook-Spring Creek 140200010110 2 1 2 1 1 Rough Creek-Cebolla Creek 140200020503 1 1 2 1 1 Ruby Anthracite Creek 140200040301 1 1 2 2 1 Sewell Gulch-Tomichi Creek 140200030601 1 1 1 1 1 Sheep Gulch-Gunnison River 140200020107 2 1 3 2 1 Spring Creek 140200020504 1 1 2 1 1 Steuben Creek 140200020402 2 1 2 2 1 Stubbs Gulch 140200030604 1 1 1 1 1 Taylor Park Reservoir 140200010107 2 2 2 1 1 Texas Creek 140200010104 1 1 2 1 1 Trail Creek-Cochetopa Creek 140200030505 1 1 2 1 1 Trail Creek-Upper Taylor River 140200010102 1 1 2 1 1 Trout Creek-Lake Fork 140200020607 1 2 2 1 1 Upper East River 140200010201 1 1 2 2 1 Upper Ohio Creek 140200020101 2 2 2 2 1 Upper Quartz Creek 140200030301 2 2 2 2 1 Upper Taylor River 140200010101 1 1 2 1 1 Washington Gulch-Slate River 140200010206 1 1 2 1 1 West Elk Creek 140200020703 1 1 2 1 1 West Pass Creek 140200030507 2 1 2 2 1 West Soap Creek-Soap Creek 140200020704 1 1 2 1 1 Willow Creek 140200020610 2 1 2 1 1 Willow Creek-Blue Mesa Reservoir 140200020403 2 1 3 1 1 Wood Gulch-Tomichi Creek 140200030405 2 1 2 2 1

41 USDA Forest Service

Watershed Aquatic Aquatic Terrestrial Terrestrial Hydrologic Unit Watershed Name Condition Physical Biological Physical Biological Code Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating North Fork of the Gunnison River Anthracite Creek 140200040307 1 1 2 1 1 Bear Creek-North Fork Gunnison River 140200040403 1 1 1 1 1 Clear Fork East Muddy Creek 140200040202 1 1 2 1 1 Cliff Creek 140200040305 1 1 1 1 1 Cottonwood Creek 140200040504 2 2 2 1 1 Cow Creek 140200040101 2 2 3 1 1 Crawford Reservoir 140200021204 1 1 2 1 1 Crystal Creek 140200021004 2 2 2 1 1 Curecanti Creek 140200021002 1 1 2 1 1 Headwaters Coal Creek 140200040304 1 1 2 1 1 Headwaters Leroux Creek 140200040505 1 1 2 1 1 Headwaters West Muddy Creek 140200040102 1 1 2 1 1 Lee Creek 140200040203 1 1 2 1 1 Little Henderson Creek-East Muddy Creek 140200040204 2 2 2 1 1 Little Muddy Creek 140200040201 1 1 2 1 1 Mesa Creek-Gunnison River 140200021005 2 1 3 2 1 Middle Smith Fork 140200021205 2 2 3 1 1 Miller Creek 140200040407 1 2 1 2 1 Muddy Creek 140200021202 2 1 2 2 1 Outlet Clear Creek 140200040306 1 1 2 1 1 Outlet Hubbard Creek 140200040405 2 2 3 1 1 Outlet West Muddy Creek 140200040103 1 1 2 1 1 Paonia Reservoir 140200040401 1 2 2 1 1 Raven Gulch 140200040402 2 2 1 2 1 Reynolds Creek-North Fork Gunnison River 140200040503 2 2 2 1 1 Robinson Creek 140200040303 1 1 1 2 1

42 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources

Watershed Aquatic Aquatic Terrestrial Terrestrial Hydrologic Unit Watershed Name Condition Physical Biological Physical Biological Code Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Ruby Anthracite Creek 140200040301 1 1 2 2 1 Snowshoe Creek 140200040302 2 1 2 1 1 Terror Creek 140200040406 1 2 1 2 1 Upper Smith Fork 140200021201 2 2 2 1 1 San Juan Mountains Alder Creek 140300030110 1 1 2 1 1 Bear Creek 140300030107 1 2 2 1 1 Beaver Creek-Dallas Creek 140200060208 1 1 2 1 1 Big Blue Creek-Blue Creek 140200020803 1 1 2 1 1 Bilk Creek 140300030104 1 1 2 1 1 Canyon Creek 140200060202 2 2 2 1 1 Coal Creek-Uncompahgre River 140200060205 1 2 2 1 1 Deep Creek 140300030105 1 1 2 1 1 Dry Creek 140200060204 1 1 1 1 1 Fall Creek 140300030108 1 1 1 1 1 Fish Creek 140300020103 1 1 2 2 1 Hay Creek-Leopard Creek 140300030109 1 1 2 1 1 Headwaters Beaver Creek 140300030302 2 2 2 1 1 Headwaters Blue Creek 140200020801 1 1 2 1 1 Headwaters Cow Creek 140200060101 1 1 2 1 1 Headwaters Little Cimarron River 140200020903 1 1 2 1 1 Headwaters Naturita Creek 140300030401 2 2 2 1 1 Headwaters San Miguel River 140300030106 2 2 3 2 1 Headwaters Uncompahgre River 140200060203 2 2 3 1 1 Howard Fork 140300030101 1 2 2 1 1 Lake Fork 140300030102 1 2 1 1 1 Lou Creek-Cow Creek 140200060102 1 1 2 1 1

43 USDA Forest Service

Watershed Aquatic Aquatic Terrestrial Terrestrial Hydrologic Unit Watershed Name Condition Physical Biological Physical Biological Code Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Red Mountain Creek 140200060201 2 2 3 1 1 Saltado Creek 140300030301 2 2 2 1 1 Silver Jack Reservoir-Cimarron River 140200020901 2 2 2 1 1 South Fork San Miguel River 140300030103 2 2 3 1 1 Specie Creek-San Miguel River 140300030305 2 1 2 1 2 Summit Creek-San Miguel River 140300030112 1 1 2 1 1 Turner Creek-Beaver Creek 140300030303 2 2 2 1 1 Upper Cimarron River 140200020902 1 1 2 1 1 West Fork Dallas Creek 140200060206 1 1 2 1 1 Uncompahgre Plateau 140300030307 140300030307 2 1 2 2 1 Atkinson Creek 140300030706 1 1 2 1 1 Blue Creek 140300040403 1 1 2 1 1 Bucktail Creeks-San Miguel River 140300030702 1 1 1 1 2 Calamity Creek 140300040402 1 1 2 1 1 Callan Draw 140300030403 1 1 1 1 2 Campbell Creek 140300030605 1 1 2 1 1 Clay Creek 140300030306 2 1 2 2 2 Coal Canyon 140300030705 1 1 1 1 2 Cottonwood Creek 140200050204 2 2 2 1 1 Cottonwood Creek 140300030701 2 2 2 2 2 Dry Fork Escalante Creek 140200050305 2 1 2 2 2 East Fork Escalante Creek 140200050302 1 1 2 1 1 East Fork Escalante Creek 140200050304 1 1 2 2 1 Happy Canyon Creek 140200060403 1 1 1 1 1 Headwaters Dry Creek 140200060501 1 1 2 2 2 Headwaters Little Dolores River 140300010301 1 1 2 1 1

44 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Plan Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources

Watershed Aquatic Aquatic Terrestrial Terrestrial Hydrologic Unit Watershed Name Condition Physical Biological Physical Biological Code Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Headwaters Maverick Draw 140300030405 1 1 2 1 1 Headwaters Naturita Creek 140300030401 2 2 2 1 1 Headwaters Tabeguache Creek 140300030602 2 2 2 1 2 Headwaters West Creek 140300040301 2 1 2 1 1 Lower Dry Creek 140200060505 1 1 1 1 1 Lower Horsefly Creek 140300030203 1 1 1 2 1 Maverick Canyon 140300040404 1 1 1 2 1 McKee Draw 140300030402 2 2 3 1 2 McKee Draw-Naturita Creek 140300030404 2 1 2 2 2 McKenzie Creek 140300030304 2 1 2 1 1 Middle Dry Creek 140200060504 1 1 1 2 1 Middle Fork Escalante Creek 140200050301 1 1 2 1 1 Middle Horsefly Creek 140300030202 1 1 2 1 1 Middle Roubideau Creek 140200050203 1 1 2 2 1 Middle Spring Creek 140200060602 2 1 2 2 2 North East Creek 140200050603 1 2 2 1 1 North Fork Escalante Creek 140200050303 1 1 2 1 1 North Fork Mesa Creek 140300040101 1 1 2 1 1 North Fork Tabeguache Creek 140300030601 1 1 1 2 1 North Lobe Creek-West Creek 140300040302 1 1 1 1 1 Potter Creek 140200050202 2 2 2 2 1 Rocky Pitch Gulch-Dominguez Creek 140200050404 2 1 2 2 2 Rose Creek-Dominguez Creek 140200050402 1 1 2 1 1 Shavano Creek-Tabeguache Creek 140300030603 1 1 2 1 1 Smith Creek-Big Dominguez Creek 140200050401 1 1 2 1 1 Snyder Creek-East Creek 140200050601 1 1 1 1 1 South Fork Mesa Creek-Mesa Creek 140300040102 1 1 2 1 1

45 USDA Forest Service

Watershed Aquatic Aquatic Terrestrial Terrestrial Hydrologic Unit Watershed Name Condition Physical Biological Physical Biological Code Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Specie Creek-San Miguel River 140300030305 2 1 2 1 2 Spring Creek 140300030604 1 1 2 2 1 Upper Dry Creek 140200060502 1 2 1 2 1 Upper Horsefly Creek 140300030201 2 2 2 2 1 Upper Roubideau Creek 140200050201 1 1 2 1 1 Upper Spring Creek 140200060601 2 1 3 1 2 Ute Creek-West Creek 140300040304 1 1 1 1 1

46

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests 2250 South Main Street Delta, CO 81416 www.fs.usda.gov/gmug/