DOCSLIB.ORG

Dolores River Restoration Partnership: a Private/Public Collaboration Dolores River Restoration Partnership

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

DOLORES RIVER
RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP:
A PRIVATE/PUBLIC
COLLABORATION

DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP

• TIMELINE OF PARTNERSHIP • VISION AND GOALS OF PARTNERSHIP • WHY HAS THE DRRP BEEN SUCH A
SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP?

• WHY THIS PARTNERSHIP HAS BEEN
IMPORTANT TO THE BLM

ORIGINS AND HISTORY OF DRRP

• INITIAL RIPARIAN WORK ON SAN MIGUEL RIVER IN
EARLY 2000’S – LED BY TNC, PRECURSOR TO THE DRRP.

• 2009 – TNC AWARDED CONTRACT TO TAMARISK
COALITION TO DEVELOP A STRATEGY FOR THE DOLORES RIVER (DR-RAP)

• 2010 - DR-RAP FINALIZED • 2010 - FIRST MOU SIGNED • 2010 – FIRST BLM ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT • 2012 – AGO BLUE RIVERS DESIGNATION • 2015 – TRANSITION PLAN FINALIZED • 2015 – DOLORES RIVER HEALTHY LANDS FOCAL AREA • 2015 – SECOND MOU SIGNED • 2016 – SECOND BLM ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT

DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION ACTION PLAN
(DR-RAP)

1. IDENTIFIED A VISION:

“A THRIVING DOLORES RIVER SYSTEM THAT IS ECOLOGICALLY, SOCIALLY, AND ECONOMICALLY SUSTAINABLE IN A MULTIUSE CONTEXT.”

“A DOLORES RIVER WATERSHED DOMINATED BY NATIVE VEGETATION, WHERE THE THREATS FROM TAMARISK AND OTHER ASSOCIATED INVASIVE SPECIES HAVE BEEN MITIGATED AND THE RIPARIAN AREAS OF THE WATERSHED CONTINUE TO BECOME MORE NATURALLY FUNCTIONING, SELF-SUSTAINING, DIVERSE, AND RESILIENT OVER TIME.”

DRRP MANAGEMENT GOALS

Significantly increase the number of sustainable, healthy riparian plant communities while reducing those dominated by tamarisk and other

Ecologic

invasive, non-native plant species. Develop a professional, competitive, and efficient work force; improve aesthetic enjoyment; enhance public safety and protection of property from wildfire-risks associated with tamarisk.

Social

Cultivate employment opportunities; improve both the cost benefit ratio for contractors and youth service corps, as well as the effectiveness and financial efficiency of riparian restoration; and bolster visitor travel to the area

Economic

Adaptively manage the riparian zone by building on and sharing lessons learned; incorporate educational and interpretive practices to enhance public understanding of and appreciation for these management efforts; garner support for agency budgets and attract other sources of funding.

Management

DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION ACTION PLAN
(DR-RAP)

2. IDENTIFIED A PURPOSE:

a. ARTICULATE A SCIENCE-DRIVEN,

CONSISTENT WATERSHED-SCALE

APPROACH FOCUSED ON RIPARIAN HEALTH

b. INCREASE THE COLLABORATION
AND COMMUNICATION AMONG STAKEHOLDERS

DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION ACTION PLAN
(DR-RAP)

3. IDENTIFIED GUIDING PRINCIPLES

a. USE A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH b. SUSTAINED FUNDING TO IDENTIFY
SUCCESS

c. MINIMIZE HARM TO WILDLIFE
SPECIES

d. CONCURRENT WORK WATERSHED
WIDE

e. EDUCATE PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDERS

WHAT HAS MADE DRRP A SUCCESSFUL
PARTNERSHIP?

• ORGANICALLY DRIVEN • INITIAL FUNDING • CHAMPIONS • IDENTIFIED A CLEAR VISION • IDENTIFIED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • DEVELOPED A STRATEGY • GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE • IDENTIFIED ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES • TRUST AND COLLABORATIVE ENVIRONMENT • ALL PARTNERS EQUAL • DECISIONS MADE COLLECTIVELY • CREATIVITY, FLEXIBILITY, ADAPTIVE

DRRP ACCOMPLISHMENTS
(2009 – 2016)

• ACRES OF INITIAL TAMARISK TREATMENTS • ACRES OF TAMARISK RESPROUT TREATMENTS • ACRES OF SECONDARY WEED TREATMENTS • ACRES OF REVEGETATION
956.5 1,390 2,924 536
• RESTORED ACRES
1,319

295 114,100 5,987
• NUMBER OF YOUTH CORPS EMPLOYED • NUMBER OF WORK HOURS BY YOUTH CORPS • VOLUNTEER WORK HOURS • NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED FOR LOCAL CONTRACTORS 87

• ECONOMIC FOOTPRINT $7,773,979

COLORADO COLLABORATION AWARD WINNERS!

• DRRP RECOGNIZED BY THE COLORADO
NONPROFIT ALLIANCE FOR “OUTSTANDING COLLABORATION” IN 2014:

• DEPTH OF COLLABORATION • SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS • INNOVATIVE RESPONSIVENESS TO A SPECIFIC
CHALLENGE OR OPPORTUNITY

• SERVES AS A MODEL FOR OTHER COLLABORATIVE’S
TO REPLICATE

• EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT • COLLABORATIVE AND NONPROFIT BEST PRACTICES

•$50,000 CASH AWARD

LIST OF PARTNERS

••••••••••

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

••••••••••••••••

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, UT & CO
TAMARISK COALITION
US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

WALTON FAMILY FOUNDATION

PACKARD FOUNDATION
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
TERRA FOUNDATION GATES FAMILY FOUNDATION
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
BIRD CONSERVANCY OF THE ROCKIES

CONSERVATION LEGACY, SOUTHWEST CONSERVATION CORPS WESTERN COLORADO CONSERVATION CORPS
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PALISADE INSECTARY UNIVERSITY OF UTAH RIO MESA CENTER NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY
FOUR CORNERS SCHOOL OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION CANYON COUNTRY YOUTH CORPS
FORT LEWIS COLLEGE

••••••••

DOLORES COUNTY, CO
UNIVERSITY OF DENVER
SAN MIGUEL COUNTY, CO

MONTROSE COUNTY, CO MESA COUNTY, CO
WILDLANDS RESTORATION VOLUNTEERS COLORADO CANYONS ASSOCIATION

  • GRAND COUNTY, UT
  • RIMROCKER HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF WESTERN MONTROSE COUNTY

INTERPRETATIVE ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN COLORADO DOLORES RIVER BOATING ADVOCATES
COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES GATEWAY CANYONS RESORT

LIST OF PARTNERS

•••••••••••••••

CHRIS MASINGILL CONSULTING, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY, COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD, DOLORES CONSERVATION DISTRICT, DOLORES RIVER DIALOG, FRED PHILIPS CONSULTING, GRAND CANYON TRUST, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INVASIVE SPECIES SCIENCE, RIM TO RIM RESTORATION, SOUTHEASTERN UTAH TAMARISK PARTNERSHIP, DENVER BOTANIC GARDENS, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY NUMEROUS PRIVATE LANDOWNERS HUNDREDS OF VOLUNTEERS

BLM – COLORADO (AND UTAH)

• THREE BLM CO FIELD OFFICES
(UNCOMPAHGRE, TRES RIOS, GRAND JUNCTION)

• ONE BLM UT FIELD OFFICE
(MOAB)

  • UT
  • CO

AMERICA’S GREAT OUTDOORS
BLUE RIVER DESIGNATION

BLM HEALTHY LANDSCAPES FOCUS AREA PROGRAM

• LANDSCAPE LEVEL SCALE • IDENTIFY CLEAR RESTORATION GOALS • FIVE-YEAR FUNDING PLAN • LEVERAGE PARTNERSHIPS AND FUNDS • 4 HL FOCAL AREAS IDENTIFIED IN
COLORADO

• UTAH INCLUDED AS A FOCAL AREA • WORK CLOSELY WITH LOCAL BLM
OFFICES

CHAMPIONS

• SPARKY TABOR
• PETER MUELLER

• DANIEL OPPENHEIMER • MIKE WIGHT
• AMANDA CLEMENTS • MIKE JENSEN
• RUSTY LLOYD
• ANN MARIE AUBRY

• JORDAN DAVIS
• MARGARET BOWMAN

Recommended publications
  • Figure 12B-01. Mountainous Volcanic Region

    Figure 12B-01. Mountainous Volcanic Region

    108°W 106°W F Ancestral ron t Rang LARIMER Uinta Sand Upl e ift Little Snake River Wash Ba North Platte River MOFFAT s Yampa River in JACKSON Park-Gore Range Axial ROUTT Ba s in Up li h ft rc as A ek e Dougl Cr White River GRAND 40°N Whi EXPLANATION RIO BLANCO 40°N te Ri Neogene Volcanics ver Upli Neogene Sediments ft Paleogene Volcanics Eagle River Blue River Paleocene-Cretaceous Intrusives Piceance Basin Roaring ForkCentral River Colorado TroughEAGLE Cretaceous Seaway Sediment GARFIELD Eagle River Sawatch Range Aquifers SUMMIT Mesozoic Sediment Aquifers Ancestral Rockies Basins Colorado River Precambrian Basement PITKIN Arkansas River East Muddy Creek Mountainous Region MESA LAKE PARK Unc Mountainous Valleys ompa ghre Up Colorado Plateaus Region lif DELTA t Laramide Basin Outlines Laramide Uplift Axis Uncompaghre Uplift G un Taylor River CHAFFEE nison Laramide Basin Axis GUNNISON Upl Ancestral Rockies Uplift Axis Uncompahgre River South Arkansas River ift Ancestral Rockies Basin Axis Paradox Basin FREMONT MONTROSE San Lui CUSTER s OURAY Up San Miguel River li ft 38°N SAN MIGUEL SAGUACHE 38°N Animas River HINSDALE DOLORES SAN JUAN Rio Grande MINERAL ag Dolores River n S West Dolores River ua J RIO GRANDE ALAMOSA e San MONTEZUMA n Dom Jua Archuleta Anticlinorium San Los Pinos River LA PLATA COSTILLA San Juan Piedra River Basin CONEJOS Tusas Uplift COSTILLA ARCHULETA COSTILLA 108°W 106°W 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Geology modified from Tweto (1979); structural features from Hemborg (1996). 0 10 20 30 40 50 Kilometers Figure 12b-01.
  • Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River

    Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River

    Volume 1 | Issue 2 | Summer 2015 Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River Inside this issue: With a fish exclusion barrier in place and a marked decline of catfish, the time was #TRENDINGNOW ................. 2 right for stocking Roundtail Chub into a remote eastern Arizona stream. New Initiative Launched for Southwest Native Trout.......... 2 On April 30, 2015, the Reclamation, and Marsh and Blue River. A total of 222 AZ 6-Species Conservation Department stocked 876 Associates LLC embarked on a Roundtail Chub were Agreement Renewal .............. 2 juvenile Roundtail Chub from mission to find, collect and stocked into the Blue River. IN THE FIELD ........................ 3 ARCC into the Blue River near bring into captivity some During annual monitoring, Recent and Upcoming AZGFD- the Juan Miller Crossing. Roundtail Chub for captive led Activities ........................... 3 five months later, Additional augmentation propagation from the nearest- Department staff captured Spikedace Stocked into Spring stockings to enhance the genetic neighbor population in Eagle Creek ..................................... 3 42 of the stocked chub, representation of the Blue River Creek. The Aquatic Research some of which had travelled BACK AT THE PONDS .......... 4 Roundtail Chub will be and Conservation Center as far as seven miles Native Fish Identification performed later this year. (ARCC) held and raised the upstream from the stocking Workshop at ARCC................ 4 offspring of those chub for Stockings will continue for the location. future stocking into the Blue next several years until that River. population is established in the Department biologists conducted annual Blue River and genetically In 2012, the partners delivered monitoring in subsequent mimics the wild source captive-raised juvenile years, capturing three chub population.
  • Gunnison River

    Gunnison River

    final environmental statement wild and scenic river study september 1979 GUNNISON RIVER COLORADO SPECIAL NOTE This environmental statement was initiated by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources in January, 1976. On January 30, 1978, a reorganization within the U.S. Department of the Interior resulted in BOR being restructured and renamed the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS). On March 27, 1978, study responsibility was transferred from HCRS to the National Park Service. The draft environmental statement was prepared by HCRS and cleared by the U.S. Department of the Interior prior to March 27, 1978. Final revisions and publication of both the draft environmental statement, as well as this document have been the responstbility of the National Park Service. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT GUNNISON WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY Prepared by United States Department of the Interior I National Park Service in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources represented by the Water Conservation Board staff Director National Par!< Service SUMMARY ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Department of the Interior, National Park Service 1. Type of action: ( ) Administrative (X) Legislative 2. Brief description of action: The Gunnison Wild and Scenic River Study recommends inclusion of a 26-mile (41.8-km) segment of the Gunnison River, Colorado, and 12,900 acres (S,200 ha) of adjacent land to be classified as wild in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System under the administration of the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. D. I. This river segment extends from the upstream boundary of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument to approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) below the confluence with the Smith Fork.
  • Dolores River Desert Bighorn Sheep Herd (DBS-61) Executive Summary

    Dolores River Desert Bighorn Sheep Herd (DBS-61) Executive Summary

    Dolores River Desert Bighorn Sheep Herd (DBS-61) Executive Summary GMUs: S-63 (Middle Dolores River) and S-64 (Upper Dolores River) Tier Status: Tier 1 Land Ownership: BLM 45%, Private 29%, USFS 24%, State 2%, 2018 Posthunt Population Estimate: 175 Average Length of Longest Horn (harvested rams): 31 “ Posthunt Population Estimate 300 Dolores River Herd 250 200 150 100 50 0 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Proposed Objective S63 S64 Dolores Herd Figure 1. DBS-61 posthunt population estimate 1987-2019. Background and Issue Summary: The Dolores River Desert Bighorn sheep herd (DBS-61) is located in southwest Colorado and occupies the canyon country of the Dolores River, and its tributaries, downstream of McPhee Reservoir. It consists of Game Management Units (GMUs) S-63 (Middle Dolores River) and S-64 (Upper Dolores River). The majority of the occupied bighorn habitat occurs on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). DBS-61 is a Tier 1 bighorn population and should be given the highest priority for inventory, habitat protection and improvement, disease prevention and research. Although bighorn sheep were likely indigenous, none were present in the past century. The current population was established beginning in 1986 with the release of 25 bighorn from Arizona. There have been a total of four transplants of desert bighorn into the Dolores Canyon. Population sources have been from Arizona (source for two transplants), Nevada, and Utah.
  • WATER USE Flow Regimes for In-Basin Water Users Are Reviewed

    WATER USE Flow Regimes for In-Basin Water Users Are Reviewed

    Water Users and Recreation Appendix D WATER USE Flow regimes for in-basin water users are reviewed in this appendix. Water users include irrigators, municipalities and industry, and recreationalists. Flows include a wide range of parameters, affected by a wide range of uses and in some cases, such as recreation, may be somewhat subjective. The following sections include parameters, and approaches or methods to estimate these flow requirements. Much of the information presented herein was developed and presented in the Upper Colorado River Basin Study, Phase II, Final Report, May 29, (HRC 2003), herein referred to as the ‘UPCO Report’. WATER USE BY MUNICIPALITIES, INDUSTRY AND IRRIGATORS Water use as a parameter for this analysis and in terms of stream flow management focuses on two issues. The first is the physical limitations associated with stream flow that may affect the ability of a local water user to retrieve or use water. The second issue is the water user’s impact on flows in the stream relative to maintaining recommended flows. These issues are discussed in the following sections. Physical Limitations Irrigators: In general, most users are experiencing some difficulty in retrieving or using water, especially during the recent drought years. Many irrigators are constructing make-shift cobble dams to divert flows. In 2002 it was reported that the KB ditch was shut down voluntarily because the diversion was taking the majority of flows out of the Colorado River, leaving it in a dewatered condition. Pumping for irrigation is also limited by the available supply as well as by nuisance clogging from algae growth.
  • Stakeholders Finalize Management Plan for Upper Colorado River

    Stakeholders Finalize Management Plan for Upper Colorado River

    News Release BLM Colorado, Colorado River Valley Field Office, Kremmling Field Office U.S. Forest Service, White River National Forest July 20, 2020 Contacts: Roy Smith, Bureau of Land Management, (303) 239-3940 Kay Hopkins, White River National Forest (970) 945-3265 Stakeholders finalize management plan for Upper Colorado River GLENWOOD SPRINGS, Colo. – The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service have formally accepted the final plan from a group of Upper Colorado River stakeholders that seeks to protect recreational fishing- and boating-related values along the Upper Colorado River from Gore Canyon to lower Glenwood Canyon. The Upper Colorado River Wild and Scenic Stakeholder Group Management Plan represents more than twelve years of work by 26 entities with diverse interests on the Upper Colorado River, from municipal water providers to recreationists. “This diverse group, with seemingly different views for managing the Upper Colorado River, rolled up their sleeves and developed a plan that balances protection of the river with flexibility for water users. The work of this group serves as a model for other flow management efforts across the state,” said White River National Forest Supervisor, Scott Fitzwilliams. “The final plan addresses an arena where federal agencies have very limited authority,” said Larry Sandoval, Colorado River Valley Field Office Manager. “When our federal land management authorities are combined with this cooperative flow management effort, all of the important natural and social values in the river corridor are proactively managed.” In 2008, the stakeholder group formed as the BLM was revising its land use plans to include studies that determined which stretches of the Colorado River had specific values that make them “eligible” for protection under the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
  • Classifications and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin and North Platte River

    Classifications and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin and North Platte River

    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. November 12, 2020 Regulation No. 33 - Classifications and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin and North Platte River Effective March 12, 2020 The following provisions are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes with these few exceptions: EPA has taken no action on: • All segment-specific total phosphorus (TP) numeric standards based on the interim value for river/stream segments with a cold water aquatic life classification (0.11 mg/L TP) or a warm water aquatic life classification (0.17 mg/L TP) • All segment-specific TP numeric standards based on the interim value for lake/reservoir segments with a warm water aquatic life classification (0.083 mg/L TP) Code of Colorado Regulations Secretary of State State of Colorado DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Water Quality Control Commission REGULATION NO. 33 - CLASSIFICATIONS AND NUMERIC STANDARDS FOR UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN AND NORTH PLATTE RIVER (PLANNING REGION 12) 5 CCR 1002-33 [Editor’s Notes follow the text of the rules at the end of this CCR Document.] 33.1 AUTHORITY These regulations are promulgated pursuant to section 25-8-101 et seq. C.R.S., as amended, and in particular, 25-8-203 and 25-8-204.
  • Report No. REC-ERC-90-L, “Compilation Report on the Effects

    Report No. REC-ERC-90-L, “Compilation Report on the Effects

    REC-ERC-SO-1 January 1990 Denver Office U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation 7-2090 (4-81) Bureau of Reclamation TECHNICAL REEPORT STANDARD TITLE PAG 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG ~0. 5. REPORT DATE Compilation Report on the Effects January 1990 of Reservoir Releases on 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE Downstream Ecosystems D-3742 7. AUTHOR(S) 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION E. Cheslak REPORT NO. J. Carpenter REC-ERC-90-1 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Bureau of Reclamation Denver Office 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. Denver CO 80225 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS Same 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE DIBR 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Microfiche and/or hard copy available at the Denver Office, Denver, Colorado. Ed: RDM 16. ABSTRACT Most of the dams built by the Bureau of Reclamation were completed before environmental regulations such as the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Protection Act, or Toxic Substances Control Act existed. The management and operation of dams was instituted under conditions where the ecology of the downstream habitat was unknown and largely ignored. Changing or modifying structures, flow regimes, and land use patterns are some of the efforts being pursued by the Bureau to reconcile or mitigate the effects of impoundment to comply with these environmental policies and to maximize the potential for recreation, fisheries, and water quality in tailwater habitats for the water resource users. The purpose of this report is to provide a reference document intended to aid in the management, compliance, and problem solving processes necessary to accomplish these goals in Bureau tailwater habitats.
  • Green Mountain Reservoir Substitution and Power Interference Agreements Final EA

    Green Mountain Reservoir Substitution and Power Interference Agreements Final EA

    Green Mountain Reservoir Substitution and Power Interference Agreements Final EA Table of Contents Acronyms...................................................................................................................................... vi 1.0 Purpose and Need .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project Purpose and Need .................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Study Area........................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Background.......................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4.1 Prior Appropriation System .....................................................................1-2 1.4.2 Reclamation and Green Mountain Reservoir...........................................1-2 1.4.3 Western Area Power Administration.......................................................1-4 1.4.4 Springs Utilities’ Collection Systems and Customers .............................1-4 1.4.5 Blue River Decree....................................................................................1-7 1.4.6 Substitution Year Operations...................................................................1-8 1.4.7 Substitution Memorandums of Agreement............................................1-10
  • Wild and Scenic Rivers

    Wild and Scenic Rivers

    Analysis of the Management Situation Moab BLM Field Office CHAPTER 17 – WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 17.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (WSRA) established legislation for a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS) to protect and preserve designated rivers throughout the nation in their free- flowing condition and to protect and preserve their immediate environments. The WSRA includes policy for managing designated rivers and created processes for designating additional rivers for the NWSRS. Section 5(d) of the Act directs federal agencies to consider the potential for national wild, scenic, and recreational river areas in all planning for the use and development of water and related land resources. A wild and scenic river (WSR) review is being conducted as part of the current Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Moab Field Office (FO) resource management planning process. The first phase of the WSR review is to inventory all potentially eligible rivers within the planning area to determine which of those rivers are eligible for consideration as part of the NWSRS. To be eligible, rivers must be free-flowing and possess at least one outstandingly remarkable value (ORV). ORVs are evaluated in the context of regional and/or national significance and must be river-related. Each river/segment determined to be eligible is then given a tentative classification based on the current level of human development associated with that river/segment. In the second phase of the WSR review, eligible rivers are taken through the land use planning process of the resource management plan (RMP) to determine their "suitability" for designation as WSRs.
  • Gunnison-Dolores River Watershed

    Gunnison-Dolores River Watershed

    United States Department of Agriculture - Colorado Natural Resources Conservation Service Gunnison-Dolores Rivers The Gunnison- Dolores Rivers Watershed Watershed totals 6,014,600 acres. Resources at work from October 1, 2010 - September 30, 2011 It includes all or por- tions of Delta, Gunni- son, Hinsdale, Mon- trose, Ouray, The Colorado Watershed Approach Saguache, and San Miguel Counties. Instead of the traditional statewide approach in NRCS natural resource addressing priority resource issues like soil erosion, specialists are staffed at the Delta, Gunnison, water quality, grazing lands, wildlife, and animal waste, and Montrose USDA NRCS looks to Colorado’s ten watersheds to identify their Field Service Centers to provide technical particular local resource needs and priorities. assistance to watershed residents. Watershed work groups meet annually to determine which NRCS Vision natural resource concerns are most prevalent in their Productive Lands - Healthy Environment communities. In turn, Colorado NRCS focuses its resources on NRCS Mission Helping People addressing those concerns. Colorado’s local Help the Land conservation districts provide leadership in this effort to foster increased decision making at the local level. www.co.nrcs.usda.gov High Priority Resource Concerns in the Gunnison-Dolores Rivers Watershed • Water Quantity • Water Quality • Rangeland Health • Invasive Species • Erosion Helping People Help the Land Watershed Profile Fiscal Year 2011 Environmental Quality Incentives Program Summary Applications Contracts
  • Sand Canyon & Rock Creek Trails

    Sand Canyon & Rock Creek Trails

    Sand Canyon & Rock Creek Trails Canyons of the Ancients National Monument © Kim Gerhardt CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT Ernest Vallo, Sr. Canyons of the CANYONS Eagle Clan, Pueblo of Acoma: Ancients National OF THE Monument ANCIENTS MAPS & INFORMATION When we come to and the Anasazi a place like Sand Heritage Center Anasazi Heritage Canyon, we pray Center to the ancestral 27501 Highway 184, Hovenweep people. As Indian Dolores, CO 81323 National Monument Canyons people we believe Tel: (970) 882-5600 of the 491 the spirits are Hours: Ancients still here. National Monument 9–5 Summer Mar.- Oct. We ask them Road G for our strength 10–4 Winter Nov.- Feb. and continued https://www.blm.gov/ 160 Mesa Verde survival, and programs/national- 491 National Park thank them conservation-lands/ colorado/canyons-of-the- for sharing their home place. In the Acoma ancients language I say, “Good morning. I’ve brought A public land administered my friends. If we approached in the wrong way, by the Bureau of Land please excuse our ignorance.” Management. 2 Please Stay on Designated Trails Welcome to the Sand Canyon & Rock Creek Trails 3 anyons of the Ancients National Monument was created to protect cultural and Cnatural resources on a landscape scale. It is part of the Bureau of Land Management’s National Landscape Conservation System and includes almost 171,000 acres of public land. The Sand Canyon and Rock Creek Trails are open for hiking, mountain biking, or horseback riding on designated routes only. Most of the Monument is backcountry. Visitors to Canyons of the Ancients are encouraged to start at the Anasazi Heritage Center near Dolores, Mountain Biking Tips David Sanders Colorado, where they can get current information from local rider Dani Gregory: Park Ranger, Canyons of the Ancients: about the Monument and experience the museum’s • Hikers and bikers are supposed to stop for • All it takes is for exhibits, films, and hands-on discovery area.