DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Mt. Graham Astrophysical Area, Pinaleno Mountains, Coronado National Forest

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Mt. Graham Astrophysical Area, Pinaleno Mountains, Coronado National Forest 86 600044 United States Draft Environmental Department of Agriculture Forest Impact Statement, Service Southwestern Region Proposed Mt. Graham October, 1986 Astrophysical Area, Pinaleno Mountains, Coronado National Forest Alm .2",` To Phoenix Dublin Thatcher Safford A/ .1 CORONADO C • Roper Lake 4/ Mt Graham DEIS Ares`' NATIONAL Webb' Peak 4 Riggs 4 Old WE Ptak Prison \ Flat • Columbine' Camp s, , High Peak Emerald FOREST s,Hospita Flat Noon Creek Treams• Park a • Angel Orchard silarrkP n Wet ° , Sno.Flat Canyon a k," •Arcadia Intersection of He,h•Oranh 607 & 386 • P,eak I7n' • Toi':key Flat Fort Grant • d yb u g A Peak 7 -,:,-Powerline Corridor I Stodkto,n _ AZ 266 0 II 2 3 I MILES LOCATION MAP WILDERNESS STUDY AREA PROPOSED MOUNT GRAHAM To I-10 ASTROPHYSICAL AREA and Willcox FIGURE 1. VICINITY MAP OF THE CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST PINALENO MOUNTAINS Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Mt. Graham Astrophysical Area Pinaleno Mountains, Graham County, Arizona, Coronado National Forest DEIS #03-05-86-2 Type of Action Administrative Lead Agency USDA Forest Service, Coronado National Forest 300 West Congress Street, Tucson, AZ 85701 Responsible Sotero Muniz, Regional Forester Official For Further R. B. Tippeconnic, Forest Supervisor, Coronado National Forest Information 300 West Congress Street, Tucson, AZ 85701. (602) 629-6483 Abstract A Forest Service Preferred Alternative and 6 alternatives for managing the 3500 acre proposed Mt. Graham Astrophysical Site on the Coronado National Forest are described and compared. The Forest Service Preferred Alternative and other alternatives are: PA (Forest Service Preferred Alternative): PA places emphasis on simultaneously addressing all issues and concerns, and providing a mix of recreational opportunities including an addition to wilderness and a zoological/botanical area. Astrophysical development is recommended at a level that will provide for this research opportunity while protecting the unique natural environment. A Alternative A is the continuation of management as described in the Forest Plan. (No Action alternative). It emphasizes motorized and nonmotorized dispersed recreation opportunities and other compatible activities. No astrophysical development occurs. Alternative B emphasizes motorized and nonmotorized dispersed recreation opportunities related to wildlife values. No astrophysical development occurs. Alternative C emphasizes a natural environment and more opportunities for nonmotorized recreation. An addition to wilderness and a zoological/botanical area are recommended. No astrophysical development occurs. Alternative D provides for astrophysical development on up to 15 acres. An addition to wilderness and a zoological/botanical area are recommended. Motorized and nonmotorized dispersed recreation opportunities related to wildlife values are also emphasized. Alternative E provides for astrophysical development on up to 31 acres. A zoological/ botanical area is recommended. Motorized and nonmotorized dispersed recreation opportunities related to wildlife values are also emphasized. Alternative F is Steward Observatory's (the proponent) preferred alternative. It provides for astrophysical development on up to 60 acres. Motorized and nonmotorized dispersed recreation opportunities related to wildlife values are also emphasized. PA constitutes the Forest Service preferred alternative. Upon approval, it will become part of the Coronado National Forest Plan and will guide management of that area for the next 10 to 15 years. Comments must be received by the Forest Supervisor, Coronado National Forest, 300 W. Congress, Tucson, Arizona 85701 by JAN 2 0 1987 . SUMMARY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT of the PROPOSED MT. GRAHAM ASTROPHYSICAL AREA. PINALENO MOUNTAINS, CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST THE CORONADO NEEDS YOUR OPINION ON A IMPORTANT ALLOCATION OF LAND RESOURCES Although the broad goals and objectives are set by higher levels of Forest Service management, the Coronado National Forest does have a range of choices in meeting these goals. For example, these choices can emphasize one resource, such as recreation or another such as astrophysical development or both, it that is an important concern of local people. This is why public involvement is so important in this process. Already many individuals and agencies have helped pinpoint issues of special importance to them. Various interest groups, including Steward Observatory, Earth First!, Coalition for the Preservation of Mt. Graham, and the Sierra Club have expressed their viewpoints and ideas. These issues have been incorporated into this process and taken into consideration when alternative management choices were developed. You are asked to remain involved by reviewing this document and by submitting your written comments to the Forest Supervisor, Coronado National Forest, 300 W. Congress, Tucson, Arizona 85701. Development of the Final Environmental Impact Statement will be based in part on your comments. PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATFAFAT This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describes a Forest Service Preferred Alternative and 6 other alternatives for the management of the land and resources of 3500 acres of high elevation country in the Pinaleno Mountains, commonly known as Mt. Graham. Each alternative furnishes a different way of addressing issues; each provides for the use and protection of resources and meets all legislative requirements. Every alternative generates a different mix of goods and services. The EIS also describes the affected environment and discloses environmental consequences of each potential decision. The guidelines set by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) were followed. Included in the range of alternatives is the astrophysical development proposal made by Steward Observatory. Also included in the range of astrophysical development and nondevelopment alternatives are specific suggestions from the public. Each alternative addresses public issues and management concerns specific to this proposal; responds to identified resource management opportunities; and provides for use and protection of resources. NATURE OF DECISION/RELATIONSHIP TO FOREST PLAN The decision to be made by the Forest Service is to choose the appropriate allocation (management direction) for the 3500 acre site. While other mountains may be suitable sites for astronomical development, only the suitability of Mt. Graham for astronomical development is being considered. Consequently, consideration of alternative locations is outside the scope of this analysis and decision. Many thanks are expressed for the comments and information offered by individuals, organizations, and public agencies which have helped Forest managers develop a list of items to be considered in each alternative. These have been organized and are included below under a general heading called ISSUES. CONCERNS, and OPPORTUNITIES (IC0s). ISSUES, CONCERNS, and OPPORTUNITIES (IC0s) Management concerns and issues are termed "issues" and described below. They establish the scope of the EIS (40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.25). The issues were grouped into nine subject matter areas. Additional detail on scoping, Forest Service policies and goals, and these issues can be found in Chapter 1 under the heading "F. ISSUES". These issues can be tracked through Chapters 2 and 3 under the same headings listed on the following pages. Issue Description 1. PLANT AND ANIMAL DIVERSITY Forest Service policies and goals are to sustain or improve floral and faunal diversity by: 1) providing for the conservation or recovery of all threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant and animal species and their respective habitats; 2) developing and implementing management practices to ensure that species do not elevate to a higher listing status, nor significantly impact the habitat capability of any species, because of Forest Service actions or lack of protection; 3) maintaining viable populations of all native and desired nonnative flora and fauna in habitats distributed throughout their geographic ranges on National Forest System lands; 4) maintaining special or unique habitat features or structures and habitat types to ensure ecological diversity (e.g., old growth, riparian zones, cienegas, etc.). The Arizona (Apache) trout is a federally listed Threatened Species and the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel is proposed for listing as an Endangered Species. Other wildlife species of particular concern include the black bear and spotted owl. The Issue Is: How will plant and animal species, communities, and habitat diversity be affected by management alternatives? 2. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT Water quality in the Pinalenos is high. Testing for fecal coliform bacteria indicates that levels of contamination are well within the standards for all except domestic uses. Simple purification methods would allow achieving those standards. Astrophysical construction and development could increase the potential for water runoff and soil erosion, thus impacting water quality. Impacts to flora and fauna along stream channels could also occur. Water is limited on Mt. Graham and competition for it may increase. Most of the surface water is appropriated. Questions of water rights must be resolved including the actual transfer of such rights, if necessary. Construction may impact cienegas, springs, and baseflows in creeks. An estimate of changes in water yield and timing of runoff during and following construction is needed. Frye Canyon Watershed is closed to camping, summer homes, resorts,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2020 Why Invest.Indd
    p x K G u y u i K A X y i X o x y X B o B x N G G A Whyi Invest in the Festival of Books?G p A A D o N A N G D i The Tucson Festival of Books helps make Tucson a better community We are focused on providing Tucson youth a brighter tomorrow. An estimated 25 percent of Festival attendees are age 18 and under. OUR FESTIVAL PROGRAMMING ELEVATES LITERACY & EDUCATION: • Extensive school outreach in the weeks leading up to the festival, including author visits, which encourage students and families from all walks of life to participate in the festival • Field trips that enable 1,000 students from Title I schools to attend the festival. • Contests in which hundreds of young authors and artists learn about and hone their literary skills • More than 70,000 free books given to children since 2009 • Science City – the single-largest event in the state of Arizona promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts / Agriculture and Math (STEAM) – has something for everyone … not just kids! WE SUPPORT YEAR-ROUND LITERACY PROGRAMS IN TUCSON: • Funds raised beyond those needed to produce the festival are given to local literacy programs • To-date more than $2M has been donated to literacy organizations in Southern Arizona • Non-profit programs supported include Literacy Connects, Reading Seed and University of Arizona Literacy Outreach Programs • Administrative costs average less than 15% annually WE HAVE HAD A TREMENDOUS ECONOMIC IMPACT: • Estimated $3.5M - $4.5M in economic impact to the Tucson community annually EXPOSURE AT THE FESTIVAL: • An estimated
    [Show full text]
  • Birds of Coniferous Forest on Mount Graham, Arizona
    Wilson Bull., 107(4), 1995, pp. 719-723 SHORT COMMUNICATIONS Birds of coniferous forest on Mount Graham, Arizona.-Because of interest in the effect upon the biota of Mount Graham by current development for astronomy, I repeated observations and censuses made there forty years ago. Avifaunal changes have occurred. Unlike my companion study in the Sierra Nevada (Marshall 1988), the losses at Mount Graham of nesting species-all at the lower altitudinal limit of Pinus Zeiophylla chihuahuana and P. ponderosa arizonica-lack an obvious connection to human interference with the environment. Study area.-Mount Graham, in southeastern Arizona, is capped with old growth Engel- mann spruce and alpine fir from 3000 m to the summit at 3267 m. This boreal forest of 8 km* is at its southernmost limits on the North American continent. Descending, one passes through other vegetation zones in sequence: Douglas firs and white firs mixed with spruce, and then mixed with Mexican white pines; south slopes of New Mexican locust and Gambel oak; ponderosa pine with Gambel oak, ponderosa pine mixed with silver-leaf oak; and finally Chihuahua pine with Arizona oak (Martin and Fletcher 1943, Hoffmeister 1956, Marshall 1957, Mohlenbrock 1987). From memory, notes, and photographs I detect no change in vegetation during the forty-year study period. Specifically, the trees at the mapped census area in Wet Canyon (Fig. 1) have not closed ranks about the little openings suitable for those foothill birds that forage among grasses, boulders, manzanitas, and nolinas. The mesic luxuriance of Mount Graham’s vegetation is shown by running streams sup- porting tall groves of maples, by the enormous Douglas firs that remain, by the profusion of understory flowers and green forbs, and by the gigantic stature of clear-trunked alders dominating Wet Canyon.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Forest Action Plan 2015 Status Report and Addendum
    Arizona Forest Action Plan 2015 Status Report and Addendum A report on the strategic plan to address forest-related conditions, trends, threats, and opportunities as identified in the 2010 Arizona Forest Resource Assessment and Strategy. November 20, 2015 Arizona State Forestry Acknowledgements: Arizona State Forestry would like to thank the USDA Forest Service for their ongoing support of cooperative forestry and fire programs in the State of Arizona, and for specific funding to support creation of this report. We would also like to thank the many individuals and organizations who contributed to drafting the original 2010 Forest Resource Assessment and Resource Strategy (Arizona Forest Action Plan) and to the numerous organizations and individuals who provided input for this 2015 status report and addendum. Special thanks go to Arizona State Forestry staff who graciously contributed many hours to collect information and data from partner organizations – and to writing, editing, and proofreading this document. Jeff Whitney Arizona State Forester Granite Mountain Hotshots Memorial On the second anniversary of the Yarnell Hill Fire, the State of Arizona purchased 320 acres of land near the site where the 19 Granite Mountain Hotshots sacrificed their lives while battling one of the most devastating fires in Arizona’s history. This site is now the Granite Mountain Hotshots Memorial State Park. “This site will serve as a lasting memorial to the brave hotshots who gave their lives to protect their community,” said Governor Ducey. “While we can never truly repay our debt to these heroes, we can – and should – honor them every day. Arizona is proud to offer the public a space where we can pay tribute to them, their families and all of our firefighters and first responders for generations to come.” Arizona Forest Action Plan – 2015 Status Report and Addendum Background Contents The 2010 Forest Action Plan The development of Arizona’s Forest Resource Assessment and Strategy (now known as Arizona’s “Forest Action Plan”) was prompted by federal legislative requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Fire Regime Patterns in the Southwestern United States Since AD 1700
    This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. Historical Fire Regime Patterns in the Southwestern United States Since AD 1700 Thomas W. Swetnam and Christopher H. Baisan1 Abstract.-Fire-scar chronologies from a network of 63 sites in the South­ western United States are listed and described. These data characterize the natural range and variability of fire regimes from low elevation pine forests to higher elevation mixed-conifer forests since AD 1700. A general pattern of increasing length of intervals between low intensity surface fires was observed along gradients of low to high elevations, and from the rela­ tively drier pine sites to the wetter mixed-conifer sites. However, large vari­ ability in the measures of central tendency and higher moments of the fire interval distributions suggest that elevation and forest type were often weak determinants of fire frequency. Some of the variations in fire interval distri­ butions between similar elevation or forest types were probably due to unique site characteristics, such as landscape connectivity (Le., ability of fires to spread into the sites), and land-use history. Differences in the sizes of sampled areas and fire-scar collections among the sites also limited our ability to compare and interpret fire interval summary statistics. Comparison of both the fire-scar network data (1700 to 1900) and docu­ mentary records of area burned on all Southwestern Region National For­ ests (1920 to 1978) with a Palmer Drought Severity Index time series clearly shows the association between severe droughts and large fire years, and wet periods and small fire years.
    [Show full text]
  • 236 Pinaleño Mountains in the Twentieth Century Atalanta Hoyt
    Pinaleño Mountains in the Twentieth Century Atalanta Hoyt Throughout the twentieth century, a few major events dominated the history of the Forest Service. First, the founding of the National Forest Service in 1905 replaced the Bureau of Forestry and led to the creation of modern National Forests. The new service was created under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture with the purpose of securing a long term supply of timber for the American people.1 Second, the great depression of the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt’s creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and the expansion of the Forest Service changed the shape of National Forests.2 This time period featured a major transition from timber management to hands on putting resources into the forest. The Forest Service and CCC planted trees, carved trails, built roads, and conducted research; actively molding forests and applying the latest forestry techniques instead of letting the forest take its course.3 A third period of great change came in the 1970s during the environmental era.4 The emphasis changed from conceptualizing the forests as resources to be converted into marketable goods to seeing them as wilderness in need of preservation. While conservation has always been an important part of the Forest Service - advocated by both those who saw an intrinsic value in wilderness and by those who used the wilderness for recreational purposes - increased urbanization highlighted the uniqueness of forests. Efforts to catalog and protect the environments of forests became a main priority while ecologists and conservationists gained status.5 These three main shifts defined the Forest Service in the twentieth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for the USA (W7A
    Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) Summits on the Air U.S.A. (W7A - Arizona) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S53.1 Issue number 5.0 Date of issue 31-October 2020 Participation start date 01-Aug 2010 Authorized Date: 31-October 2020 Association Manager Pete Scola, WA7JTM Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Document S53.1 Page 1 of 15 Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHANGE CONTROL....................................................................................................................................... 3 DISCLAIMER................................................................................................................................................. 4 1 ASSOCIATION REFERENCE DATA ........................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Program Derivation ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 General Information ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Final Ascent
    [Show full text]
  • LYNN MARCUS Chronology of Education BA, Stanford University, 1986 JD, New York University School Of
    CURRICULUM VITAE – LYNN MARCUS Chronology of Education B.A., Stanford University, 1986 J.D., New York University School of Law, 1989 Chronology of Employment Director, Immigration Law Clinic, Scholar, April 2018 – Present Co-Director, Immigration Law Clinic, 2007 – present (Professor of the Practice, 2011 – Dec 2017; Associate Scholar, Dec 2017 – April 2018) James E. Rogers College of Law Director, Immigration Law Clinic, 1997 – 2007 (Assistant Adjunct Professor of Law) James E. Rogers College of Law Director, Immigration Law Clinic (and Assistant Adjunct Professor of Law), 1995 – 1996 Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, Inc., Florence and Tucson, Arizona Intake Attorney (part time), 1994 Southern Arizona Legal Aid, Inc., Tucson, Arizona Attorney, Founder/ Coordinator, Southwest Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, 1990-1994 Tucson Ecumenical Council Legal Assistance, Tucson, Arizona Attorney; Legal Assistant, 1989-1990 Southern Arizona Legal Aid, Inc. Immigration Project, Tucson, Arizona Intern, Summer 1988 King County Public Defender’s Office, Seattle, Washington Intern, Summer 1987 Southern Arizona Legal Aid, Inc., Tucson, Arizona Honors and Awards YWCA of Tucson's Women on the Move Recipient, 2004 First Place, Creative Writing Contest (Song/Poetry), Clinical Education Association, 2003 University of Arizona Minority Law Students' Association Community Service Award, 1998 New York University Public Service Fellowship, 1992 Teaching/Advising Courses taught Immigration Law Clinic, 1996 – present Refugee Law and Policy, 2000
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Petition to Revise Mount Graham Red Squirrel Critical Habitat
    December 14, 2017 Department of the Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke FAX: (202) 208-6956 (Email: [email protected]) Fish and Wildlife Service Acting Director Greg Sheehan FAX: (202) 208-6965 (Email: [email protected]) Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director Amy Lueders FAX: (505) 248-6910 (Email: [email protected]) Fish and Wildlife Service State Supervisor Steve Spangle FAX: (602) 242-2513 (Email: [email protected]) Arizona Game and Fish Department Director Ty Gray FAX: (623) 236-7930 (Email: [email protected]) Dear Messrs. Zinke, Sheehan, Spangle and Gray, and Ms. Lueders, RE: Petition to revise the January 5, 1990, Mount Graham Red Squirrel Critical Habitat to reflect the current change in status of the squirrel and its habitat. CURRENT STATUS OF MOUNT GRAHAM’S SPRUCE-FIR FOREST The Mount Graham Red Squirrel has survived in isolation on Mount Graham since the retreat of the continental glaciers 11,000 or more years ago at the end of the Pleistocene. Now only about 35 Mount Graham Red Squirrels survive on Earth. Historically, the summit’s spruce/fir association has contributed “most of the excellent food habitat”1 that has allowed the squirrel to survive long term on Mount Graham. In 1988, approximately 615 suitable acres of the estimated 700 historical acres of the pure spruce/fir association forest remained.2 Now very little of the high elevation, essential spruce-fir habitat survives. Very little spruce-fir forest survives owing to (1) habitat destruction by wildfire, (2) habitat destruction by firefighting efforts focused on the protection of telescopes and structures as opposed to protection of endangered Mount Graham Red Squirrel habitat, and (3) habitat destruction by unnecessary back burning resulting from pressure on fire fighters by University of Arizona astronomers.
    [Show full text]
  • Henderson Street Names A
    Henderson Street Names STREET NAMEP* FIRE SAM NUMBERING ADDRESS LOCATION MAP MAP STARTS/ENDS A Abbeystone Circle 3728-94 86 Mystical / 360’ CDS 2484-2495 Sunridge Lot 21 Abbington Street 3328-43 77 Courtland / Muirfield 300-381 Pardee GV South Abby Avenue 3231-64 120 Dunbar / Sheffield 1604-1622 Camarlo Park Aberdeen Lane 3229-23 102 Albermarle / Kilmaron 2513-2525 Highland Park Abetone Avenue 4226-16 422 CDS/Cingoli Inspirada Pod 3-1 Phase 2 Abilene Street (Private 3637-94, 260 Waterloo / Mission / San 901-910 Desert Highlands; Blk Mt Ranch within Blk Mtn Ranch) 3737-14 Bruno Ability Point Court 3533-48 169 Integrity Point / 231-234 Blk Mt Vistas Parcel C Unit 3 Abracadabra Avenue 3637-39 259 Hocus Pocus / Houdini 1168-1196 Magic View Ests Phs 2 Abundance Ridge Street 3533-46/56 169 Solitude Point / Value 210-299 Blk Mt Vistas Parcel C Unit 2, 3 Ridge Acadia Parkway 3332-92 143 Bear Brook/American Acadia Phase I Pacific Acadia Place 3329-63 99 Silver Springs / Big Bend No #’s Parkside Village Acapulco Street 3638-42 270 DeAnza / Encanto 2005-2077 Villa Hermosa Accelerando Way 3236-85 233 Barcarolle/Fortissimo Cadence Village Phase 1-G4 Ackerman Lane 3329-16 100 Magnolia / CDS 400-435 The Vineyards Acorn Way 3427-52 54 Wigwam / Pine Nut No #’s Oak Forest Acoustic Street 3537-29 257 Canlite / Decidedly 1148-1176 The Downs Unit 3 Adagietto Drive 3828- 87, 88 Moresca / Reunion 1361-1399 Coventry Homes @ Anthem 3, 4 66/56/46 Adagio Street 3728-11 85 Anchorgate / Day Canyon 801-813 Sunridge Lot 18 Adams Run Court 3735-63 218 155' CDS
    [Show full text]
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC)
    Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC) Summits on the Air USA - Colorado (WØC) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S46.1 Issue number 3.2 Date of issue 15-June-2021 Participation start date 01-May-2010 Authorised Date: 15-June-2021 obo SOTA Management Team Association Manager Matt Schnizer KØMOS Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Page 1 of 11 Document S46.1 V3.2 Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC) Change Control Date Version Details 01-May-10 1.0 First formal issue of this document 01-Aug-11 2.0 Updated Version including all qualified CO Peaks, North Dakota, and South Dakota Peaks 01-Dec-11 2.1 Corrections to document for consistency between sections. 31-Mar-14 2.2 Convert WØ to WØC for Colorado only Association. Remove South Dakota and North Dakota Regions. Minor grammatical changes. Clarification of SOTA Rule 3.7.3 “Final Access”. Matt Schnizer K0MOS becomes the new W0C Association Manager. 04/30/16 2.3 Updated Disclaimer Updated 2.0 Program Derivation: Changed prominence from 500 ft to 150m (492 ft) Updated 3.0 General information: Added valid FCC license Corrected conversion factor (ft to m) and recalculated all summits 1-Apr-2017 3.0 Acquired new Summit List from ListsofJohn.com: 64 new summits (37 for P500 ft to P150 m change and 27 new) and 3 deletes due to prom corrections.
    [Show full text]
  • Salida Buena Vista
    CHAFFEE COUNTY, COLORADO R 82 W R 81 W R 80 W R 79 W R 78 W R 77 W R 76 W South Peak Mt Elbert Casco Peak Black Mountain Bull Hill Independence Mountain Parry Peak T 11 S Lower Lake Upper Lake Monitor Rock T 11 S Star Mountain LAKE COUNTY Ouray Peak l Y Grizzly Lake 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 36 31 32 33 34 35 33 34 T 34 32 Grizzly Peak 35 36 31 35 l 31 G r a n i t e 398-D G r a n i t e 2905 l Twin Peaks +$ N 2903 l Rinker Peak 2901 4 2899 6 5 3 2 1 6 5 6 4 3 1 Garfield Peak 4 3 2 1 5 2 6 4 2 l La Plata Peak 5 3 U l lRed Mountain 7 8 O 7 9 10 11 12 9 Willis Lake l 8 9 10 11 8 10 Mt H11ope 12 7 12 Crystal Lake lQuail Mountain 7 8 9 10 11 Middle Mountain Clear Creek Reservoir l C 3 18 17 16 15 13 16 14 18 17 15 14 18 17 16 15 14 13 13 18 15 14 0 $+390 17 16 13 N 5 V i c k s b u r g 7 I V i c k s b u r g 9 T 12 S 21 0 20 19 20 19 21 022 23 24 $+388 23 24 19 20 21 022 23 22 0 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 l T 12 S K 3 0 West Buffalo Peak 0 ¤£204 21 l $+371 P Antero Reservoir W i n f i e l d East Buffalo Peak T W3i n f i e l d 30 Winfield Pea2k9 28 27 26 I 3 A l 25 3 25 30 29 26 28 27 26 27 26 l 25 30 29 28 25 30 29 28 l Cross Mountain Waverly Mountain 1 R P Jenkins Mountain Middle Mountain 371 K l $+ Virginia Peak 1 l Mt Oxford l 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 35 Browns Peak 33 34 35 36 C 32 34 35 Mt Belford 31 33 36 31 032 33 l Waupaca Reservoir O l 3 2 U Rainbow Lake 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 l6Missouri Mountain5 4 2 Huron Peak Cloyses Lake 3 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 N l 5 4 Lois Lake Granite Mountain T l Iowa Peak l l 1 6 386 Y 12 $+ Marmot Peak 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8
    [Show full text]
  • Red Gap Ranch Biological Resource Evaluation
    RED GAP RANCH BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION Prepared for: Southwest Ground-water Consultants, Inc. Prepared by: WestLand Resources, Inc. Date: February 14, 2014 Project No.: 1822.01 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................ 1 2. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................... 2 2.1. Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2. Physical Environment ................................................................................................................... 2 2.3. Biological Environment and Resources ....................................................................................... 3 3. SCREENING ANALYSIS FOR SPECIES OF CONCERN ................................................................ 5 3.1. Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2. Screening Analysis Results .......................................................................................................... 7 3.2.1. USFWS-listed Species ...................................................................................................... 7 3.2.2. USFS Coconino National Forest Sensitive Species ........................................................ 15 3.2.3. USFS Management Indicator Species ............................................................................
    [Show full text]