DOCSLIB.ORG

December 2011 Newsletter Dr.Indd

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
December 2011 Newsletter Dr.Indd protecting wild places and wildlife, for their sake – and ours December 2011 Sloan Shoemaker A VOICE FOR WILD NATURE Celebrating successes on behalf of the land and its creatures aybe it’s the tough economy; pressure. It’s challenging work, and acres is steadily getting its Congres- Mmaybe it’s the increasingly stri- only getting more so, but with your sional ducks in a row (page 8). dent political climate. At any rate, these support we’ve scored some significant And the first project of our new days it seems like discussions about our victories in the past few months: restoration program (page 4) and a public lands too often turn into shout- A recent court ruling upholding the conference on forest health (page ing matches, with a chorus of voices Roadless Rule gives us much stron- 11) both bode well for the future. asserting their “right” to use this or that ger grounds for challenging drilling piece of ground. in roadless areas (page 2). The threats will always be with us; But what about the land itself – does the price of a healthy environment is it have a say in all this? The human restraint evidenced in eternal vigilance. But as we approach When decisions about public lands the final Travel Management Plan is a new year, let’s take a moment to cel- are made, do the elk and lynx have a a testament to the power of patient, ebrate our successes and remember our seat at the table? Do the trees have a strategic advocacy for wild ecosys- strength in numbers. Because the more voice? tems (page 6). voices we join together in the defense Of course the answer is yes, but only The Hidden Gems Campaign to of wild places and wildlife, the more indirectly. The land and its non-voting, protect hundreds of thousands of successful we – and they – will be. non-political-campaign-contributing creatures rely on a relatively few mem- bers of the human race to speak for ROLLING UP OUR SLEEVES them. Their fate is in the hands of those who care. WW board member Mary Dominick wielded a mighty Fortunately in Colorado we have a shovel against invasive thistles lot of humans who care, and together and houndstongue at our fi rst- we do a pretty fair job of advocating for ever volunteer work day, held in the rights of nature, sometimes even the Maroon Creek Valley in July. at the expense of our own short-term The pilot project of our new interests. We support a strong network habitat restoration program of conservation groups, including the was a big success, with more Wilderness Workshop here in the than 50 participants. White River National Forest region. More photos on page 4. WW speaks for some important Melanie Finan ecosystems that are under considerable Get ready for Naturalist Nights - see schedule, page 7 Roadless ruling good for Th ompsonompson DivideDivide n October 21, the cated here in Colorado. Oheadwind that we’ve The Roadless Rule has been fighting for nearly been plagued by compli- five years in efforts to pro- cations all along. While tect the Thompson Divide opponents contested it in eased substantially, when various courts, the Bush the Tenth Circuit Court of administration in 2005 Appeals upheld the 2001 attempted to replace it Roadless Area Conserva- with an optional “petition” tion Rule. process that made states Conservation groups responsible for developing around the country are their own roadless plans. hailing the decision as a This rollback was met by a major victory, because it Sloan Shoemaker swift legal challenge of its lifts the cloud of uncer- Community for Thompson Divide: A rally in Carbondale in October own, and was eventually tainty that has hung over ended with an impromptu parade led by local ranchers. overturned by the Ninth 49 million acres of Forest Circuit Court in 2009. But Service roadless areas since a Wyoming derness,” says WW staff attorney Peter in the meantime, two states – Colorado federal district judge enjoined the Hart, who has been on the front lines and Idaho – had started their own road- Roadless Rule in 2008. Although there of this issue for four years. “Healthy less rule-making processes. may be a bit of judicial foot-dragging forests equal a healthy economy, and The Colorado Roadless Rule, now before the case is finally closed, what’s the ’01 Roadless Rule helps protect awaiting final approval by Forest Ser- certain is that these roadless areas will both.” vice honchos in Washington, is inferior retain the protections of the 2001 Rule. The Thompson Divide, the vast to the federal one on multiple levels. It For us at the Wilderness Workshop, headwaters area southwest of Carbon- provides “top tier” protection to only the ruling vindicates all the time and dale, contains the largest contiguous 12 percent of Colorado’s roadless acre- effort we put into defending roadless roadless-area complex in the state. The age, allowing road-building for scien- areas on the White River National For- Tenth Circuit’s ruling offers new hope tifically indefensible beetle and wildfire est while their status was in legal limbo. for that landscape, which is threatened treatments in the rest. It gives exemp- We’d also hedged our bets in case the by oil and gas drilling. Of the 80 gas tions for coal mining in the North Fork ruling went the other way (more about leases there, about 45 were issued in Valley, and for ski area expansions. that in a minute), but this was by far the roadless areas after the 2001 Rule was And dismayingly, it leaves the status better outcome. implemented. It’s now clear that the of the gap leases (more than half of roadless portions of these so-called which happen to be in the Thompson Firm legal ground “gap” leases cannot be developed with Divide) uncertain. The phrase “gap Locally and regionally, many of our roads. leases” is really a misnomer – it alludes favorite places are roadless areas. Think “Basically nobody thinks oil and gas to the fact that the leases were issued Grizzly Creek outside of Glenwood development is appropriate in those during the period when the legal status Springs, Red Mountain and North roadless areas in the Thompson Divide,” of the 2001 Rule was contested. Now Woody in the upper Roaring Fork says Peter. “What this decision tells us is that the Tenth Circuit has upheld the Valley, Spraddle Creek in the Vail area. that it would in fact be illegal.” 2001 Rule, we contend that there never These are areas that provide clean wa- was any gap in roadless protections, and ter, wildlife habitat, hunting, fishing and Complicated Colorado they should be called what they are: a host of other recreational activities. Unfortunately the Tenth Circuit’s “illegally issued leases.” Unfortunately, “Roadless areas generally represent ruling doesn’t automatically settle the the Forest Service’s reading is that the dwindling reserve of healthy forest- matter. Of course nothing’s ever that land that hasn’t been protected as wil- simple, is it? No, and it’s extra compli- CONTINUED ON PAGE 4 2 Wilderness Works December 2011 Lake Ridge Unit remains a puzzle Texas company’s proposal to Roadless Rule and you A “unitize” 18 gas leases in the can bet we’ll challenge it. heart of the Thompson Divide re- More than 450 of you mains the most immediate threat to sent emails via our take- the area, despite a host of encourag- action page to urge the ing recent developments. BLM to deny the unit re- In June we sounded the alarm that quest or at least to subject SG Interests – the same company that it to a more public pro- built the Bull Mountain Pipeline just cess. The unprecedented to the west of the Thompson Divide number of comments on in 2009 – had applied to the BLM a unit proposal apparently to unitize, or combine, the leases in gave the agency pause, what amounts to a long-term lease because it made a point of extension and development plan. The publicly announcing it was process is typically carried out behind going to take its time on closed doors, and the BLM’s regula- the decision. tions require no public notification or Meanwhile, opponents input. of the unit (you know SG’s proposed Lake Ridge Unit who you are) persuaded stretches from Sunlight Peak south- Senators Mark Udall and ward to the edge of Coal Basin, and Michael Bennet to weigh includes much of the headwaters of in with a letter in Octo- Thompson Creek. If you’re a cross- ber calling for more local country skier or a snowmobiler, input and meaningful you’ll know the area as the high coun- stakeholder discussions try just west of Spring Gulch ski area, on the proposal before which is accessed via Marion Gulch, the BLM made a decision. Fourmile Road or Coal Basin. Around the same time, a If the BLM approves SG’s applica- group of citizens calling Alison Galensky/Rocky Mountain Wild tion, the company will then have six themselves Community SG Interests’ “unit” proposal amounts to a long-term months to drill a test well somewhere for Thompson Divide natural-gas development plan for 32,000 acres in in the area. If the well produces gas, staged a massive rally in the heart of the Thompson Divide. SG will be able to hold the entire Carbondale, gathering 32,000 acres as long as it complies more than 300 signatures on a peti- from environmental analysis and with its long-term development plan.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Colorado Fourteeners Checklist
    Colorado Fourteeners Checklist Rank Mountain Peak Mountain Range Elevation Date Climbed 1 Mount Elbert Sawatch Range 14,440 ft 2 Mount Massive Sawatch Range 14,428 ft 3 Mount Harvard Sawatch Range 14,421 ft 4 Blanca Peak Sangre de Cristo Range 14,351 ft 5 La Plata Peak Sawatch Range 14,343 ft 6 Uncompahgre Peak San Juan Mountains 14,321 ft 7 Crestone Peak Sangre de Cristo Range 14,300 ft 8 Mount Lincoln Mosquito Range 14,293 ft 9 Castle Peak Elk Mountains 14,279 ft 10 Grays Peak Front Range 14,278 ft 11 Mount Antero Sawatch Range 14,276 ft 12 Torreys Peak Front Range 14,275 ft 13 Quandary Peak Mosquito Range 14,271 ft 14 Mount Evans Front Range 14,271 ft 15 Longs Peak Front Range 14,259 ft 16 Mount Wilson San Miguel Mountains 14,252 ft 17 Mount Shavano Sawatch Range 14,231 ft 18 Mount Princeton Sawatch Range 14,204 ft 19 Mount Belford Sawatch Range 14,203 ft 20 Crestone Needle Sangre de Cristo Range 14,203 ft 21 Mount Yale Sawatch Range 14,200 ft 22 Mount Bross Mosquito Range 14,178 ft 23 Kit Carson Mountain Sangre de Cristo Range 14,171 ft 24 Maroon Peak Elk Mountains 14,163 ft 25 Tabeguache Peak Sawatch Range 14,162 ft 26 Mount Oxford Collegiate Peaks 14,160 ft 27 Mount Sneffels Sneffels Range 14,158 ft 28 Mount Democrat Mosquito Range 14,155 ft 29 Capitol Peak Elk Mountains 14,137 ft 30 Pikes Peak Front Range 14,115 ft 31 Snowmass Mountain Elk Mountains 14,099 ft 32 Windom Peak Needle Mountains 14,093 ft 33 Mount Eolus San Juan Mountains 14,090 ft 34 Challenger Point Sangre de Cristo Range 14,087 ft 35 Mount Columbia Sawatch Range
    [Show full text]
  • Lands Suitable for Timber Management
    C a S r l a en C Hefty, Mount d k Bushnell Hill z e g Fro r e e e C r k T ree r C C C e olts e r n C k e h e e k k e en e h Tuchuck Mountain r is ek C K re e n C T c tio u a r rv p Sta Th S om a Cr Creek eek Johnson T uc hu ck C T r rail C Bald Mountain ee reek k k e T ek e re r N t C C o Yakinikak Creek ef a k l tl i C o Trailcreek in C k ! Twin Buttes e Cleft Rock Mountain K re e k e r e k C e A T r o C k m o e d k r e a Lewis, Mount S o l ek F a e Cr Wedge Mountain C y r tle e n T e A k Hornet MountainHorne t Creek N Tepee Creek in T Thompson-Seton, Mount k o C T r ee In k u K y oop T a ee Cr Babb C eek Whale Buttes ! re Center Mountain e k k e TT re t Akinkoka Peak n C e m a ge k k na k e o a ree T M C e k k r e e le r n e b ha i r m C i W k T Locke, Mount C se r o o A f o y le M b t ta i Red Buttes T r Su H o ds a n w h La k S Cr eek Huntsberger Peak T Young, Mount T Nasukoin Mountain k n T e a k l e e t P e r s r re C C o F w e 6 c 8 o 9 Hoodoo Hill d u 1 Lake Mountain ea pr S M S p ed rin T R g C re Fortine ek ! T Polebridge !@ Link Mountain ! Ha WhiteTfish Mountain y C re ek Wetzel T ,000 ! k 5 ree 7 n C 1 ra : Mo 1 k e e k .
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Wide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction Project
    107°0'0"W VAIL k GYPSUM B e 6 u 6 N 1 k 2 k 1 h 2 e . e 6 . .1 I- 1 o 8 70 e c f 7 . r 0 e 2 2 §¨¦ e l 1 0 f 2 u 1 0 3 2 N 4 r r 0 1 e VailVail . 3 W . 8 . 1 85 3 Edwards 70 1 C 1 a C 1 .1 C 8 2 h N 1 G 7 . 7 0 m y 1 k r 8 §¨¦ l 2 m 1 e c . .E 9 . 6 z W A T m k 1 5 u C 0 .1 u 5 z i 6. e s 0 C i 1 B a -7 k s 3 2 .3 e e r I ee o C r a 1 F G Carterville h r e 9. 1 6 r g 1 N 9 g 8 r e 8 r y P e G o e u l Avon n C 9 N C r e n 5 ch w i r 8 .k2 0 N n D k 1 n 70 a tt e 9 6 6 8 G . c 7 o h 18 1 §¨¦ r I-7 o ra West Vail .1 1 y 4 u h 0 1 0. n lc 7 l D .W N T 7 39 . 71 . 1 a u 1 ch W C k 0 C d . 2 e . r e 1 e 1 C st G e e . r 7 A Red Hill R 3 9 k n s e 5 6 7 a t 2 .
    [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]
  • Colorado Topographic Maps, Scale 1:24,000 This List Contains The
    Colorado Topographic Maps, scale 1:24,000 This list contains the quadrangle names and publication dates of all Colorado topographic maps published at the scale of 1:24,000 by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). One, non-circulating copy of each map is held in the Map Room Office. The Library does not own maps labeled "lacking." The maps are sorted alphabetically by sheet name. Colorado 1:24,000 Topos -- A Abarr 1974 printed 1977 Abarr SE 1968 printed 1971 1968 (without color) printed 1971 Abeyta 1971 printed 1974 1971 (without color) printed 1974 Adams Lake 1974 printed 1978 (dark), 1978 (light) 1974 (without color) printed 1978 1987 printed 1988 Adena 1963 printed 1965, 1975 1963 (without color) printed 1965 1984 printed 1984 1984 (without color) printed 1984 Adler Creek 1968 printed 1971 1968 (without color) printed 1971 Adobe Downs Ranch, New Mexico-Colorado 1963 printed 1965 1963 (without color) printed 1965 1979 printed 1980 (dark), 1980 (light) Adobe Springs 1969 printed 1972, 1992 1969 (without color) printed 1972 Agate 1970 printed 1973 (dark), 1973 (light) 1970 (without color) printed 1973 Agate Mountain 1983 printed 1983 1994 printed 1998 Aguilar 1971 printed 1974 1971 (without color) printed 1974 Akron 1973 printed 1976 1973 (without color) printed 1976 Akron SE 1973 printed 1976 Akron SW 1973 printed 1976 Alamosa East 1966 printed 1968, 1975 1966 (without color) printed 1968 Alamosa West 1966 printed 1969, 1971 1966 (without color) printed 1969 Aldrich Gulch 1957 printed 1958, 1964, 1975 (dark), 1975 (light) 1957 (without color)
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Timeline of Snowmass History
    A Brief Timeline of Snowmass History Pre-1850s The Utes use the valley as part of their summer range. 1853 First non-natives explore the Elk Mountains as part of the Gunnison Survey. 1870s During the Hayden Survey, several prominent Snowmass peaks are named. Mt. Daly with its prominent granite stripe is named for then-president of the National Geographic Society, Augustus Daly. Distinctive triangular Capitol Peak is named to pay tribute to the Washington, D.C., building. The mountain after which Snowmass is named (which actually is located in the next drainage over) was renamed from the Ute’s preference for “Cold Woman” (because the mountain often was enshrouded in clouds and believed to cause bad weather) to “Snow Mass” because of the abundant year-round snow between its two summits. 1890s Ranchers and settlers first move into the valley. 1894 The Brush Creek Frontier School (later known as the Little Red School House, which still operates as an early childhood center) opens. 1900 The BJ Adams Victorian Farmhouse on Brush Creek Road is built by the Hoaglunds as the original hub of this 160-acre sheep ranch and is considered one of the oldest homes remaining in Snowmass Village. 1910 The Hoaglund Ranch (now the Anderson Ranch Arts Center) is built as a cattle and sheep outfit in the Brush Creek Valley until the mid-1930s when their eldest daughter Hildur marries Bill Anderson. The Andersons continued to work the land until the mid-1960s. 1955 Pitkin County zones the Snowmass Village area as agriculture, forestry and residential and establishes a minimum lot size of two acres.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rockies of Colorado
    THE ROCKIES OF COLORADO THE ROCKIES OF COLORADO BY EVELIO ECHEVARRfA C. (Three illustrations: nos. 9- II) OLORADO has always been proud of its mountains and rightly so; it is often referred to in the Union as 'the mountain state', about 6o per cent of its area is mountainous, and contains fifty-four peaks over 14,ooo ft. and some three hundred over 13,000 ft. Further, its mountaineering history has some unique aspects. And yet, Colorado's mountains have been seldom mentioned in mountaineering journals; if in modern times they may have deserved a passing mention it has been because of a new route on Long's Peak. But on the whole, the Rockies of Colorado are almost unrecorded in the mountaineering world abroad. In this paper, an effort has been made to outline briefly the characteris­ tics of this area, and to review its mountaineering past; a few personal experiences are also added. The mountains of Colorado belong almost completely to the Rocky Mountain range of North America; a few outliers are sometimes mentioned as independent lesser chains, but in features and heights they are unimportant. The Rockies of Colorado are grouped into a number of ranges (see sketch-map), some of which are actually prolongations of others. Some­ what loosely and with some injustice to precise geography, they can be grouped into ten important sections. The state of Colorado is a perfect rectangle in shape; the Rockies enter into its western third from Wyoming, to the north, and split, then, into two parallel chains which unite in the centre of the state.
    [Show full text]
  • The Proposed Gunnison Forest Reserve, Colorado
    THE PROPOSED GUNNISON FOREST RESERVE COLORADO _________ Examination, Report, and Recommendations By Smith Riley _________ Bureau of Forestry U.S. Department of Agriculture 1904 A facsimile of a copy acquired from the National Archives and Records Administration, Rocky Mountain Regional Office at Denver Federal Center February 24, 2005 by David Bradford. 1 The Proposed Gunnison Forest Reserve, Colorado ________ Location – Area – Topography The proposed Gunnison Forest Reserve is in Central Western Colorado, lying mostly in the Gunnison County with small projections into Delta and Montrose Counties. Designed largely to protect the flow of the Gunnison River, it covers the northern and eastern watershed of that stream, including the West Elk Mountains, Fossil Ridge, and all the mountainous area on the headwaters of Taylor and East Rivers. It contains 929,704 acres, and is 72 miles from east to west and 36 miles from north to south. The larger portion of the Tin Cup, Italian Mountain, Crested Butte, and Sunset mining districts are within the area. Only mountain lands are included, the higher points being between 13,000 and 14,000 feet in altitude, and the lowest limits between 7,000 and 8,000 feet. With the exception of the Taylor Park district and the Black Mesa, just above the Gunnison Canon, the entire area is rough in the extreme and difficult to traverse. The streams rising in the West Elk Mountains flow in deep rough canons which divide the lower south and west slopes into many mesas. The Taylor Park district is precipitous along the divide, and breaks off to tough mountainous country just above the south line of the reserve.
    [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]
  • Texas Creek, (2,600 Acres)
    GRAND MESA, UNCOMPAHGRE, AND GUNNISON NATIONAL FOREST Agate Creek, (11,800 acres)............................................................................................................ 3 American Flag Mountain, (11,900 acres) ....................................................................................... 4 Baldy, (2,300 acres) ........................................................................................................................ 5 Battlements, (24,400 acres)............................................................................................................. 6 Beaver (3,700 acres) ....................................................................................................................... 7 Beckwiths, (18,400 acres) ............................................................................................................... 8 Calamity Basin, (12,500 acres) ....................................................................................................... 9 Cannibal Plateau, (14,500 acres) .................................................................................................. 10 Canyon Creek (10,900 acres); Canyon Creek/Antero, (1,700 acres) ........................................... 11 Carson, (6,000 acres) .................................................................................................................... 13 Castle, (9,400 acres) ...................................................................................................................... 14 Cataract,
    [Show full text]
  • ¥¦70 $+9 $+6 $+7 ¥¦70
    ]" 77 3 6 023 60 2 32 3 .1 6 C N199 701 ! 73 1 4 70 7 0 0 0 ! ! 2 7 0 e r u t l u c i r g A f o t n e m t r a p e D s e t a t S d e t i n U 5 0 ! 7 3 1 02 6 7 290000 300000 310000 320000 330000 340000 350000 360000 7 370000 107°30'0"W 107°22'30"W 107°15'0"W 107°7'30"W 107°0'0"W 106°52'30"W 106°45'0"W 106°37'30"W 106°30'0"W ! e c i v r e S t s e r o F o d a r o l o C Blue !C ! Lake 7 ! Flatiron Mountain 1 E 7 ! R ! a 0 2 y a M - 3 2 v o N : s e t a D e v i t c e f f E i ! g f g Haypress l l l e ! e e Casteel Ridge 7 74 ! Lake R ! R Legend ! ! See Eagle/Holy Cross ! ! a a ! ! ! n n ! ! ! n n Gypsum !Winter Motor Vehicle Use Map Bellyache Ridge ! g g Dotsero g Plowed Route: g ! e e e e ! ]" r r ! 774 r Route maintained for winter r Eagle ! ! D 60 D D 2 D !C wheeled motor vehicle access 70 i i Eagle Ranger i i s 4390000 s Burnt Tree Ridge 4390000 s s t t ¥¦ Edwards t t r r District Office r r i i c c i i c c t 39°37'30"N t t Route shown in Open Motorized area t for informational purposes only 23 6 +$ +$25 ¤£ ! ! ! Designated Routes in Restricted Areas: Avon ]" Routes open to over-snow motorized Red Hill 307 n +$ 39°37'30"N vehicles where over-snow travel is yo an restricted to designated routes C d (100 feet either side) oo nw le !C G Motorized Prohibited Areas: Storm King Mountain 25A Holy Cross ]"!C Area where no motorized +$ Ranger District over-snow use is permitted 2 137 0 8A +$ 6 Spruce Ridge +$ Bellyache Mountain Office Horse Mountain Restricted Areas - Motorized RouteNs eOwnly C: astle Gobbler Knob North Hardscrabble Mountain Area where motorized over-snow ! 10A Minturn er Distr +$ 102 use is permitted only on designated ng ict +$ motorized routes.
    [Show full text]
  • North Fork of the Gunnison River Watershed Plan Update
    NORTH FORK OF THE GUNNISON RIVER WATERSHED PLAN UPDATE NORTH FORK RIVER IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION (NFRIA) June 30, 2010 North Fork of the Gunnison downstream of Somerset. Photograph by Mike Maxwell WWW.NFRIA.ORG North Fork River Watershed Plan 2010 Update ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This watershed plan updates the North Fork Watershed Restoration Action Strategy completed by the North Fork River Improvement Association (NFRIA) in November, 2000. It was supported by a Severance Tax Grant used by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) to augment the Colorado Healthy Rivers Fund. Chris Sturm acted as project coordinator for CWCB. David Stiller, Executive Director, was the project coordinator for NFRIA. Sarah Sauter, as a consultant to NFRIA, was this document’s primary author. Others contributed materially to the success and completion of this update. Grady Harper and Sean Barna, OSM/VISTAs working for NFRIA, coordinated and planned public meetings where NFRIA received important public input. Our thanks go also to the following individuals who rendered valuable advice to NFRIA and commented on draft versions of this plan: Barbara Galloway, ERO Resources Corporation Bonie Pate, Water Quality Control Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Chris Sturm, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Colorado Department of Natural Resources Dan Kowalski, Division of Wildlife, Colorado Department of Natural Resources David Kanzer, Colorado River Water Conservation District Jeff Crane, Colorado Watershed Assembly John G. Elliott, U.S. Geological Survey Peter Kearl, United Companies Rebecca Anthony, Water Quality Control Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Additionally, we wish to thank the NFRIA directors, members and supporters who provided the organization and North Fork community with the necessary energy and encouragement to engage in this planning process.
    [Show full text]