DOCSLIB.ORG

Glenwood Springs - January 19, 1960

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Glenwood Springs - January 19, 1960 t Glenwood Springs - January 19, 1960 Auspices Lions and Kiwanis Clubs What I have to say this evening will be divided into two parts. First, I want to discuss the Fryingpan-Basalt agreement and, second, the proposed formation in the main basin of the Colorado River of a conservancy district. F RYINGPAN-BASALT P ROJECTS ACCORD. For years Wester n and Eastern Colorado have been at loggerheads over a proposal to take the water of the Gunnison and Roaring Fork Rivers into the Arkansas Valley by means of two phases of what has been termed the Gunnison-Arkansas Project, originally proposed by the United States Bureau of Reclamation. This scheme would have diverted approximately 600, 000 acre feet of Color ado River water to the Arkansas watershed. In passing, it should be stated that it is now estimated that only about one million acre feet of water remain in the River for the future agricul• tural, municipal and industrial development of all of the natural basin of the Colorado River within the State. The diversion of 60% of all the water we have left was, therefore, unthinkable, and, if accomplished, would be disastrous to Western Color a do and to the State of Colorado itself. Water is t he key which will unlock the vast sto1·ehouse of natural resources which lie on t his side of t he Contine ntal Divide ; without an ample supply of water , t his treasure-house will for ever remain locked up and will never be available to our area, our State or our Nation. It should be borne in mind that practically all of the untapped natural re­ sources in Colorado are in the portion of the State which lies West of the Divide. The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project was originally conceived as the first phase of the Gunnison-Arkansas Project. The second stage com­ prehended the taking, from the Gunnison River itself, by means, among other facilities, of a 34-mile tunnel extending from Almont on the Gunnison to the vicinity of Salida, of more than one-half million acre feet of water. In 1951 an accord was reached between Eastern Colorado and The Colorado River Water Conservation District, in the matter of the Gunnison-Arkansas Project, comprehending these essential agreements: 1. Any diversion from the Gunnison Basin would be abandoned; and only the first phase or stage of the over-all project, the Fryingpan­ Ar kansas Project, would be constructed. 2. This project would be constructed under Federal Reclama­ tion laws with federal funds, the cost of construction being then estimated at approximately $168, 000. 000. 3. An average of 69, 200 acre feet of water per year would be diverted by means of the project. This limitation was not, as I analyze the 1951 agreement, clearly defined or definitely established. Many feared that more water than that amount could and would be taken from the stream in the future. 4. To be used for the purposes of replacement for Fryingpan­ Arkansas diversions, the Aspen Reservoir would be constructed on the ., Roaring Fork River, with a capacity of 28, 000 acre feet. The total capa­ city of this Reservoir would be available for replacement purposes to meet senior demands, both those existing at the time of construction, and demands which will come into existence in the future. 5. The water stored in the Aspen Reservoir, in excess of replacement requirements, would be available for sale for \\estern Colo­ rado uses at a price comparable to the per acre foot cost of project water in the Arkansas Valley. 6. No further federally financed transmountain diveraions from the Colorado River would be approved by the Colorado Water Con­ servation Board until the amount of water needed for use in Western Colorado should be determined. It should be noted that the 1951 settlement did not provide that Western Colorado should be protected in the use of the water it did need. This settlement, in the opinion of many individuals in Western Colorado, including specifically people in Pitkin County, did not adequately protect Western Colorado in the respects I shall later mention; and, when a bill to authorize construction of the project was introduced in Congress, it met with determined opposition from this area and failed of passage. In 1958, the Colorado River Water Conservation District obtained a conditional decree to the Basalt Project. in the District Court 3. of Garfield Countym under the provis ions of which all of the water flowing in the Fryingpan River was awarded to that project, laaving none for transmountain diversions. The Ruedi Reservoir is the heart and soul of the Basalt Project. This decree created somewhat of a furor in Eastern Colorado, particularly in the Arkansas Valley. The South­ eastern Colorado Water UserD Association, the then sponsor of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, filed a petition in the adjudication pro­ ceedings in which the Basalt decree was entered, asking that its state­ ment of claim for that project be permitted to be filed, and that it be awarded a conditional decree for the Fryingpan Project with a priority date senior to that awarded to the Basalt Project. At this point, the Colorado Water Conservation Board stepped in and about about the formation of a new Policy and Review Committee to consider the entire matter and, if possible. to work out a settlement under which both the Basalt and the Fryingpan Projects could be con­ structed. The Committee included representatives of the Water Con­ servation Board, the Arkansas Valley people and representatives of Western Colorado. After several months of negotiations, the Commit- tee worked out a revised set of operating principles for the Fryingpan• Arkansas Project which, in effect, also were to become operating principles for the Basalt Project. These are the effects of these revised principles: 1. The Ruedi Reservoir on the Fryingpan, with a capacity of not less than 100, 000 acre feet, was substituted for the Aspen Reservoir on the Roaring Fork, the total capacity of which had been fixed, as 4. before stated, at 28, 000 acre feet. The Ruedi Reservoir must be con­ structed and in operation before any diversions are made by means of the Fryingpan Project. 2. A definite limitation upon the Fryingpan diversions of an average of 69, 200 acre feet, ov er each consecutive period of 34 years, was established, with a maximum diversion in any one year of 120, 000 acre feet. 3. Of the total storage in Ruedi Reservoir, the Fryingpan Project is entitled to utilize only the amount required for replacement purposes for use in Western Colorado existing at the date of the approval of the operating principles. If, when the participating projects are con­ structed, additional replacement was is required in order that the Fryingpan diversions may not be adversely affected, that project must make provision for such additional replacement requirements. I will speak of this provision and its importance a little later. 4. The operating principles guarantee that the flow of the Fryingpan and all of its tributaries below the points of diversion of the Fryingpan Project. will be maintained in such minimum amounts as will fully protect these streams as sport fishing areas. 5. The use of the water of the stream for fishing is recognized as a beneficial use; and the courts are thus given jurisdiction to enter such injunctive or other orders as are necessary to protect these fish flows. 5. 6. If it be found to be economically feasible. the Ashcroft Reservoir is to be constructed on Maroon Creek for the benefit of the City of Aspen and other water users. present and future. in the Roaring Fork Basin; and this construction is to be a part of the over-all project. 7. The water stored in the Ruedi Reservoir. above replace­ ment requirements. is to be available for use in Western Colorado for irrigation. municipal and industrial purposes. the latter term including. specifically. the development of the oil shale industry. under repayment contracts between the United States and those who actually use the water. The price basis for this water will not be what is paid by Arkansas Valley users; but the repayment s chedule will be based on a formula which is set up in the Colorado River Storage Project Act. which pro­ vides, among other things. that such repayment; as to water used for irrigation purposes; will be without interest. 8. The conditional decree to the Basalt Project and that to the Fryingpan Project are ruade one decree; and the administrntion of these rights is to be in accordance with Colorado laws and by the State E ngineer of Colorado and his subordinate water officials. 9. The sum of $7. 600~ 000 of the cost of construction of t he Ruedi Reservoir is to be paid by the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. This sum represents the original estimated cost of construction of the Aspen Reservoir. 6. These are the highlights of the revised operating principles. There are other provisions which time will not permit me to discuss. Some objection has been made to these principles for the reason that the amount of replacement water which is to be available in Ruedi Reservoir for Fryingpan diver:oions is not definitely limited in terms of acre feet per year; and I should like to discuss that phase of the matter. briefly. What is replacement water? Why is it neces sary. in trans• mountain diversions. that provision be made for replacement water? These are questions which must be answered before the replacement status of Ruedi Reservoir can be understood. It is estimated that about 70% of the total flow of the Colorado River is produced in a period of approximately six weeks.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comprehensive Lower Fryingpan River Assessment 2013-2015
    ROARING FORK CONSERVANCY Comprehensive Lower Fryingpan River Assessment 2013-2015 Summary Given current concerns over the health of the Fryingpan River and fishery, Roaring Fork Conservancy is pursuing a comprehensive study to better understand the current state of the Fryingpan, and create a long-term monitoring plan to track trends over time. Roaring Fork Conservancy’s initial aquatic studies will examine macroinvertebrates, flows, and water temperatures. In addition, we will conduct an assessment of the American dipper population, the extent of Didymosphenia Geminata, and update the 2002 Fryingpan Valley Economic Study to evaluate the role of the river in community vitality. Roaring Fork Conservancy will also work with Ruedi Water and Power Authority, Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Water Conservation District, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to investigate how new and existing contracts for Ruedi Reservoir water can be managed to ensure river and associated economic health. Upon completion of these studies, Roaring Fork Conservancy will disseminate the findings to federal, state and local government agencies and residents of the Fryingpan River Valley. Goal To ensure the environmental and economic sustainability of the Lower Fryingpan River, including its designation as a “Gold Medal Fishery”. Objectives Assess the current biological health of the Lower Fryingpan River and if impaired identify potential causal factors and solutions. Recommend a long-term monitoring strategy for the Fryingpan River. Update Roaring Fork Conservancy’s 2002 Fryingpan Valley Economic Study. Determine and pursue voluntary and, if necessary, policy/legislative solutions for managing releases from Ruedi Reservoir to prevent negative economic and environmental impacts. Components & Time Frame ROARING FORK CONSERVANCY Comprehensive Lower Fryingpan River Assessment 2013-2014 1 BACKGROUND The headwaters of the Fryingpan sub-watershed drain westward from the Continental Divide into the Fryingpan River, which meets the Roaring Fork River at Basalt.
    [Show full text]
  • Ruedi Reservoir Round II Water Marketing Program Repayment Contract – Colorado River Water Conservation District
    EA No. EC-1300-07-01 Ruedi Reservoir Round II Water Marketing Program Repayment Contract – Colorado River Water Conservation District Environmental Assessment U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Great Plains Region Eastern Colorado Area Office April 2007 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS 15-Mile Reach portion of the Colorado River that extends from the confluence of the Gunnison River upstream 15 miles to the Grand Valley Irrigation Company diversion dam near Palisade, Colorado ac-ft acre-feet anchor ice results when a river is allowed to freeze over entirely or in large part cfs cubic feet per second contract Ruedi Reservoir Round II Water Marketing Program Repayment Contract CRO Coordinated Reservoir Operations CRWCD Colorado River Water Conservation District CWCB Colorado Water Conservation Board drought restriction U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service waives Colorado River Water Conservation District’s obligation to provide West Slope water users’ commitment from Wolford Mountain Reservoir under the Programmatic Biological Opinion EA Environmental Assessment Fry-Ark Project Fryingpan-Arkansas Project mi2 square miles NEPA National Environmental Policy Act Operating Principals Operating Principals for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project as described in House Document Number 130 PBO Programmatic Biological Opinion regarding endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado River Basin issued by the Denver Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1999 Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation Recovery Program Recovery Implementation Program
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape Character Descriptions of the White River National Forest
    Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume 3 Landscape Character Descriptions of the White River National Forest Headwaters of the South Fork of the White River Jan Spencer – Landscape Architect Writer/Editor Ron Wright – Soil Scientist Bill Kight – Heritage Resource Manager Kit Buell – Wildlife Biologist Carolyn Upton – Social/Economics Specialist Marsha Raus – Fisheries Biologist Narrative and Photography Contributors: Ron Taussig, Beth Boyst, George Myser, Tom Kuekes, Al Grimshaw, Dan Mathews, Paula Johnston, Kathy Hardy, Angela Glenn, Gary Osier P-1 Appendix P White River National Forest Preface The word landscape evokes certain unique and special images and meanings to each of us as individuals. As children we may have attached a sense of place to some small parcel of ground, be it a backyard or an open meadow blooming with the rainbow color of wildflowers. The rest of our lives then build upon those early impressions, layer upon layer of geographic recognition. Year after year we go back to a stream, yet each time we fish there we read something new into the landscape. It may even be some picnic spot with a backdrop of mountain majesty we can still see in our mind even with our eyes closed. These places uplift our spirit, but we are hard-pressed to put into words exactly how or why we feel the way we do. The comforting sense of familiarity a prominent granite peak holds for us never quite gets communicated beyond the photo image. “Like all real treasures of the mind, perception can be split into infinitely small fractions without losing its quality.
    [Show full text]
  • TO: Colorado Water Conservation Board Members FROM: Linda Bassi
    1313 Sherman Street, Room 718 Jared Polis, Governor Denver, CO 80203 Dan Gibbs, DNR Executive Director P (303) 866-3441 F (303) 866-4474 Rebecca Mitchell, CWCB Director TO: Colorado Water Conservation Board Members FROM: Linda Bassi, Chief Kaylea White, Senior Water Resource Specialist Stream and Lake Protection Section DATE: September 16-17, 2020 Board Meeting AGENDA ITEM: 6. Lease of Ruedi Reservoir Water for Instream Flow Use on the Fryingpan River and 15-Mile Reach of the Colorado River (Water Division 5) Staff recommendation: Pursuant to Rule 6b. of the Rules Concerning the Colorado Instream Flow and Natural Lake Level Program (“ISF Rules”), the Board’s consideration of this proposal at this meeting will initiate the 120-day period for Board review. No formal action is required at this time. The initial presentation of this proposal provides an opportunity for the Board and the public to identify questions or concerns that Staff will address at this or a subsequent meeting. Introduction The Colorado River Water Conservation District, acting through its Colorado River Water Projects Enterprise (“District”), has offered the Colorado Water Conservation Board (“CWCB”) another opportunity to enter into a one-year short-term lease of a portion of water that the District holds in Ruedi Reservoir for instream flow (“ISF”) use. This would be the second of such leases with the District. In 2018, the Board approved a lease from the District for 3,500 acre-feet of water that the District holds in Ruedi Reservoir for ISF use. Ruedi Reservoir releases made in 2019 pursuant to that lease increased flows in the Fryingpan River below Ruedi Reservoir during the winter, and also supplemented flows in the 15-Mile reach of the Colorado River to help reduce shortfalls to the USFWS’ flow recommendations for the endangered fish critical habitat in that reach.
    [Show full text]
  • Fryingpan-Arkansas Project
    Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Water Year 2014 Summary of Actual Operations Water Year 2015 Annual Operating Plans U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Great Plains Region ANNUAL OPERATING PLAN FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT WATER YEAR 2014 OPERATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. GENERAL ............................................................................................................................. 1 II. PROJECT FEATURES IN OPERATION DURING WY2014 ........................................... 2 III. HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS AND WEATHER EVENTS IN WY2014 ...................... 5 IV. SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS DURING WY2014 ........................................................ 8 APPENDIX A: WY2014 TABLES 1. Ruedi Reservoir Operations .................................................................................................. 19 2. Ruedi Reservoir Releases for Contracts .............................................................................. 20 3. Ruedi Reservoir Releases for Endangered Fish ................................................................... 21 4. Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Transmountain Diversions ...................................................... 28 5. Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Imports - Charles H. Boustead Tunnel Outlet ....................... 29 6. Turquoise Lake Operations ................................................................................................... 31 7. Twin Lakes/Mt. Elbert Forebay Operations .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2018
    Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2018 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 2, 2018 1 2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 6 Chapter One: Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning ............................................................. 9 1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 9 1.2 Participating Jurisdictions ...................................................................................................... 9 1.3 Background and Scope .......................................................................................................... 9 1.4 Mitigation Planning Requirements ...................................................................................... 10 1.5 Grant Programs Requiring Hazard Mitigation Plans............................................................ 10 1.6 Plan Organization ................................................................................................................ 11 Chapter Two: Planning Process ..................................................................................................... 13 2.1 2017 Plan Update Process ................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Multi-Jurisdictional Participation
    [Show full text]
  • Lease of Ruedi Reservoir Water for Instream Flow Use on the Fryingpan River and 15-Mile Reach of the Colorado River (Water Division 5)
    1313 Sherman Street, Room 718 Jared Polis, Governor Denver, CO 80203 Dan Gibbs, DNR Executive Director P (303) 866-3441 F (303) 866-4474 Rebecca Mitchell, CWCB Director TO: Colorado Water Conservation Board Members FROM: Linda Bassi, Chief Kaylea White, Senior Water Resource Specialist Stream and Lake Protection Section DATE: November 18-19, 2020 Board Meeting AGENDA ITEM: 22. Lease of Ruedi Reservoir Water for Instream Flow Use on the Fryingpan River and 15-Mile Reach of the Colorado River (Water Division 5) Staff recommends that the Board: 1. Conclude that the proposed acquisition of an interest in 3,500 acre-feet of water by lease from the Colorado River Water Conservation District is appropriate and determine that the acquired interest in water would be best utilized by: a. From January 1 – March 31, 2021, using it to preserve the natural environment of the Fryingpan River at rates up to the existing decreed ISF water right in that reach; and to improve the natural environment in that reach by protecting flows above the decreed ISF rates at rates not to exceed 70 cfs; b. From July 1 – September 30, 2021, using it to preserve the natural environment by supplementing existing ISF water rights in the 15-Mile Reach of the Colorado River; and to improve the natural environment by providing water above the decreed ISF rates to help meet or reduce shortfalls to the USFWS flow recommendations for the endangered fish critical habitat; and c. For the time periods of April 1 – June 30 and October 1 – December 31, 2021, using it to preserve the natural environment in the 15-Mile Reach by providing an incremental amount of water to help meet or reduce shortfalls to the USFWS flow recommendations; 2.
    [Show full text]
  • HSA of Central Roaring Fork Tributaries
    HYDROLOGIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND FORMULATION OF CONCEPTUAL MODELS FOR THE CENTRAL ROARING FORK TRIBUTARIES (CRFT), PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Phase 1 of the Development of County-wide Maps for GIS-Based Groundwater Resources Evaluation, Pitkin County, Colorado By: Dr. Kenneth E. Kolm Integral Consulting Inc. Louisville, Colorado and Paul K.M. van der Heijde Heath Hydrology, Inc. Boulder, Colorado (under subcontract with Integral Consulting Inc.) for: Pitkin County Health Rivers Board and Board of County Commissioners Colorado Contract No. 195-2010 May 25, 2011 Conceptual Models for the Central Roaring Fork Tributaries (CRFT) Study Areas Integral Consulting Inc. – page ii Contents Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 3 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 4 List of Figures................................................................................................................................. 4 1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Development of Conceptual Models of the CRFT Study Area ........................................... 3 2.1 Climate.................................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Topography and Geomorphology........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of Interior Geological Survey
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY STRATIGRAPHIC AND SEDIMENTOLOGIC STUDIES OF LATE PALEOZOIC STRATA IN THE EAGLE BASIN AND NORTHERN ASPEN SUB-BASIN, NORTHWEST COLORADO by Samuel Y. Johnson U.S. Geological Survey, MS-916, Box 25046, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225 Open File Report 87-286 This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature 1987 ABSTRACT This report summarizes strati graphic and sedimentologic data collected during the 1985 and 1986 field seasons from Late Paleozoic strata in the Eagle Basin and northern Aspen sub-basin, west-central Colorado. Strata investigated include the Eagle Valley Evaporite (upper part), the Maroon Formation, the School house Tongue of the Weber Sandstone, and the sandstone of the Fryingpan River. These rocks crop out in structurally low areas and on the margins of the Laramide White River uplift. The Eagle Valley Evaporite (above the lower evaporitic interval) was examined in one section only from the central part of the basin where it predominantly consists of shallow- and marginal-marine clastic deposits of the Eagle Basin seaway. This seaway was gradually filled in by prograding (mainly from the west) nonmarine deposits of the Maroon Formation. The contact between the Eagle Valley Evaporite and Maroon Formation is markedly time transgressive. The Maroon Formation consists of 300 m (in the center of the basin) to 1000 m or more (on the basin margins) of mixed fluvial and eolian sand-sheet deposits. Fluvial sediments were deposited in braided river channels, in sheetfloods, and on floodplains.
    [Show full text]
  • Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Updated Text
    Fryingpan-Arkansas Project1 Colorado: Eagle, Pitkin, Lake, Chaffee, Fremont, El Paso, Pueblo, Otero, Crowley, Bent, Prowers, and Kiowa counties. Great Plains Region, Eastern Colorado Area Office Bureau of Reclamation The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project is a multi-purpose transmountain, trans-basin water diversion and delivery project in Colorado. It makes possible an average annual diversion of 69,200 acre-feet of surplus water from the Fryingpan River and other tributaries of the Roaring Fork River, on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains to the Arkansas River basin on the eastern slope. Water diverted from the western slope, together with available water supplies in the Arkansas River Basin, provides an average annual water supply of 80,400 acre-feet for both municipal/domestic use and the supplemental irrigation of 280,600 acres in the Arkansas Valley. Total project supplies may be further increased through use and reuse of project water. The project also includes one powerplant with a generating capacity of 200 megawatts. Plan There are two distinct areas of the project: the western slope, located within the Hunter Creek and Fryingpan River watersheds in the White River National Forests at elevations above 10,000 feet; and, the eastern slope in the Arkansas Valley. The project consists of facilities designed primarily to divert water from the western slope to the water-short areas of the eastern slope. There are five dams and reservoirs in the project. Ruedi Dam and Reservoir, on the Fryingpan River, is the only facility on the western slope. Four dams and reservoirs exist on the eastern slope.
    [Show full text]
  • Roaring Fork Watershed Inventory
    Roaring Fork Watershed Inventory September 2007 Watershed Inventory Prepared by: Tim O'Keefe & Lindsay Hoffmann ROARING FORK CONSERVANCY P.O. Box 3349 |Basalt, Colorado 81621 (970) 927-1290 | www.roaringfork.org Table of Contents INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................... 5 I. GENERAL INFORMATION ......................................................................................... 6 II. CLIMATE .................................................................................................................... 8 Average Monthly Temperatures – Aspen ................................................................ 8 Average Monthly Temperatures – Glenwood Springs............................................ 9 Average Annual Precipitation................................................................................... 9 Average Annual Snowfall........................................................................................ 10 III. FLOODING/DROUGHT HISTORY .......................................................................... 11 Historical Flood Years,, ........................................................................................... 11 Historic Drought Years............................................................................................ 11 IV. GEOLOGY/TOPOGRAPHY ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Roaring Fork Watershed Management Plan
    2012 ROARING FORK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 WATERSHED OVERVIEW RF- 3 1.1 Geography and Hydrology RF- 3 1.2 Land Uses and Population Characteristics RF- 4 1.3 Watershed Water Quality Management RF- 5 2.0 WATERSHED WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT RF- 9 2.1 Upper Roaring Fork Watershed RF- 9 2.2 Brush Creek RF- 13 2.3 Woody Creek RF-14 2.4 Snowmass Creek RF-15 2.5 Fryingpan River RF-15 2.6 Crystal River RF-16 2.6 Watershed Instream Flows RF-19 3.0 WATER QUALITY ISSUES RF-21 3.1 Point Source Issues RF-21 3.1.1 Municipal Discharges RF-21 3.1.2 Population Statistics and Projections RF-30 3.1.3 Industrial Discharges RF-30 3.1.4 Point Source Issues - Summary RF-31 3.2 Point Source Recommendations RF-31 3.3 Nonpoint Source Issues RF-32 3.3.1 Urban and Construction Activities RF-32 3.3.2 Hydrologic Modifications RF-34 3.3.3 Mining Activities RF-35 3.3.4 Recreational Activities RF-36 3.3.5 Agricultural Activities RF-36 3.3.6 Nonpoint Source Issues - Summary RF-37 3.4 Nonpoint Source Recommendations RF-37 4.0 WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS RF-38 4.1 Existing Projects RF-38 4.1.1 Snowmass Village Sediment Control Efforts in Brush Creek RF-38 4.1.2 Snowmass Creek Projects RF-38 4.1.3 Fryingpan River Projects RF-38 4.1.4 Roaring Fork Stream Bank Stabilization near Carbondale RF-39 4.1.5 Mid-Continent Resources Coal Mine Reclamation RF-39 4.1.6 Anshutz Coal Mine Reclamation RF-39 4.1.7 Basalt Stormwater Evaluation and Recommendation Report RF-39 4.1.8 Glenwood Stormwater Evaluation and Public Education RF-39 4.1.9 Roaring Fork Conservancy
    [Show full text]