White River National Forest
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Moose Management Plan DAU
MOOSE MANAGEMENT PLAN DATA ANALYSIS UNIT M-5 Grand Mesa and Crystal River Valley Photo courtesy of Phil & Carol Nesius Prepared by Stephanie Duckett Colorado Division of Wildlife 711 Independent Ave. Grand Junction, CO 81505 M-5 DATA ANALYSIS UNIT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GMUs: 41, 42, 43, 411, 421, 52, and 521 (Grand Mesa and Crystal River Valley) Land Ownership: 35% private; 65% public Post-hunt population: Previous objective: NA 2008 estimate: 125 Recommended: pending Composition Objective: Previous objective: NA 2008 estimate: 60 bulls: 100 cows Recommended: pending Background: The M-5 moose herd was established with translocated Shiras moose from Utah and Colorado in 2005 – 2007. The herd has exhibited strong reproduction and has pioneered into suitable habitat in the DAU. At this time, it is anticipated that there are approximately 125 moose in the DAU. The herd already provides significant watchable wildlife opportunities throughout the Grand Mesa and Crystal River Valley areas and it is anticipated that it will provide hunting opportunities in the near future. Significant Issues: Several significant issues were identified during the DAU planning process in M-5. The majority of people who provided input indicated strong interest in both hunting and watchable wildlife opportunities. There was less, but still significant, concern about both competition with livestock for forage and the possibility of habitat degradation, primarily in willow and riparian zones. The majority of stakeholders favored increasing the population significantly while staying below carrying capacity. There was strong support for providing a balance of opportunity and trophy antlered hunting in this DAU, and most respondents indicated a desire for quality animals. -
Crystal River and Wast Sopris Creek Report Section 7
7. References Bredehoeft, J.D. 2006. On Modeling Philosophies. Ground Water, Vol. 44 (4), pp. 496-499. Bryant, B. and P.L. Martin. 1988. The Geologic Story of the Aspen Region -Mines, Glaciers and Rocks. Bulletin 1603. U.S. Geological Survey. CDNR. 2008. Guide to Colorado Water Rights, Well Permits, and Administration. Colorado Dept. of Natural Resources, Office of State Engineer. (http://www.water.state.co.us/pubs/wellpermitguide.pdf ). Daly, C. and G.L. Johnson. 1999. PRISM Spatial Climate Layers; PRISM Guide Book. PRISM Group, Oregon State University. Devlin, J.F., and M. Sophocleous. 2005. The Persistence of the Water Budget Myth and its Relationship to Sustainability. Hydrogeology Journal, Vol. 13(4), pp. 549-554. ESRI. 2002. Getting Started with ArcGISTM . ESRI, Redlands, California. Freethey, G.W., and G.E. Gordy. 1991. Geohydrology of Mesozoic Rocks in the Upper Colorado River Basin in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, Excluding the San Juan Basin. Professional Paper 1411-C. U.S. Geological Survey. Geldon, A.L. 2003a. Geology of Paleozoic Rocks in the Upper Colorado River Basin in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, Excluding the San Juan Basin. Professional Paper 1411-A. U.S. Geological Survey. Geldon, A.L. 2003b. Hydrologic Properties and Ground-Water Flow Systems of the Paleozoic Rocks in the Upper Colorado River Basin in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, Excluding the San Juan Basin. Professional Paper 1411-B. U.S. Geological Survey. Harlan, R., K.E. Kolm, and E.D. Gutentag. 1989. Water Well Design and Construction. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. -
Snowmass Ski Trail Enhancements and High Alpine Lift Replacement Environmental Assessment
SNOWMASS SKI AREA SNOWMASS SKI TRAIL ENHANCEMENTS AND HIGH ALPINE LIFT REPLACEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DECEMBER 2014 USDA Forest Service White River National Forest Aspen-Sopris Ranger District The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. SNOWMASS SKI AREA SNOWMASS SKI TRAIL ENHANCEMENTS AND HIGH ALPINE LIFT REPLACEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Proposed Action: Responsible Official: Further Information: Snowmass Ski Area Scott Fitzwilliams Scott Kaden, Project Leader Forest Supervisor Aspen-Sopris Ranger District White River National Forest 620 Main Street Location: Glenwood Springs, CO Carbondale, CO 81623 White River National Forest [email protected] Pitkin County, Colorado (970) 963-2266 x3127 Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Aspen-Sopris Ranger District White River National Forest Pitkin County, Colorado Abstract: This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to analyze a proposal for Snowmass Ski Area (Snowmass) to replace and realign the High Alpine lift, install snowmaking on Green Cabin and Trestle trails, perform six glading projects across 84 acres of terrain, and develop two new ski trails designed to improve skier circulation across the ski area. -
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. -
Geologic and Hydrologic Factors Governing Impacts of Development on the Crystal River Near Marble, Gunnison County, Colorado
GEOLOGIC AND HYDROLOGIC FACTORS GOVERNING IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE CRYSTAL RIVER NEAR MARBLE, GUNNISON COUNTY, COLORADO Wright Water Engineers, Inc. May 1996 GEOLOGIC AND HYDROLOGIC FACTORS GOVERNING IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE CRYSTAL RIVER NEAR MARBLE, COLORADO GUNNISON COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared For: Gunnison County, Colorado Prepared By: John W. Rold and Kenneth R. Wright Wright Water Engineers, Inc. 2490 W. 26th Avenue, Suite 100A Denver, Colorado 80211 May 1996 Job No. 951-110.000 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Goals of the Study ........................................................................................... 2 1.2 Scope of Work ................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Development History ....................................................................................... 3 2.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING................................................................................................ 7 2.1 Geologic History .............................................................................................. 8 3.0 GEOLOGIC CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT ................................................ 10 3.1 Mudflows and Debris Flows........................................................................... 10 3.1.1 Carbonate Creek Mudflow (Appendix A, Figure 4, Location 2b) . 11 3.1.2 Slate Creek Mudflow (Appendix A, Figure 4, Location -
Floodplain Information Report: Crystal River
I I I FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION REPORT I CRYSTAL RlVEI TOWN OF MARBLE VICINITY I GUNN I SON COUNTY COLORAOO I I r v y J I I Jty I I I I I Prpj arpd for Prl par j hy I Ikparlml lll of ICON EIlilll prillJlle Nal url Rt SOllH S 100 S kroll Strl pI I Colorado W tN ui II ltX Consryat ion Board CI ulpllllial Colorado 0112 I I n ShPrmall Slrl I t R xKI1 nl m 1 221 0802 IlJpllu r Color do 8020 I J C QiN ENGINEERING INC I August 200 I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I 1 0 INTRODUCTION L1 Purpose of Study I 1 2 Authority and Acknowledgements I I 1 3 Coordination I 1 4 Previous Studies 3 I 2 0 AREA STUDIED 21 Scope of Study 3 2 2 Community Description 3 I 23 Watershed Description 4 24 Flooding History 5 I 3 0 ENGINEERING METHODS 31 Hydrologic Analyses 7 3 2 Hydraulic Analysis 7 I 4 0 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 41 Floodplain Boundaries 8 I 4 2 Floodways 8 5 0 LOCATION OF DATA 9 I 6 0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES 10 TABLES I Table I Crystal River Vicinity Climatology Data 4 Table 2 Historic Floods Crystal River 5 I Table 3 Summary ofDischarges for the Crystal River 7 FIGURES I Figures 1 2 Photos 1945 Flood Event Marble Colorado 6 Figure 3 Floodway Schematic 9 I PLATES Plate I Vicinity Map 2 Plates 2 3 Floodway Data Tables I Plate 4 Plate Index Map Plates 5 12 Flood Hazard Area Maps Plates 13 22 Flood Profiles I Plate 23 Typical Cross Sections I Cover Photo Snowshoe Ranch Bridge over the Crystal River Brian LeDoux September 2003 I I I 1 0 INTRODUCTION 1 1 Purpose of Study I This Floodplain Information Report provides new and revised information on -
Spanish Peaks Wilderness
Mt. Bierstadt Field Trip Trip date: 6/17/2006 Ralph Swain, USFS R2 Wilderness Program Manager Observations: 1). The parking lot was nearly full (approximately 35 + vehicles) at 8:00 am on a Saturday morning. I observed better-than-average compliance with the dog on leash regulation. Perhaps this was due to my Forest Service truck being at the entrance to the parking lot and the two green Forest Service trucks (Dan and Tom) in the lot! 2). District Ranger Dan Lovato informed us of the District’s intent to only allow 40 vehicles in the lower parking lot. Additional vehicles will have to drive to the upper parking lot. This was new information for me and I’m currently checking in with Steve Priest of the South Platte Ranger District to learn more about the parking situation at Mt. Bierstadt. 3). I observed users of all types and abilities hiking the 14er. Some runners, 14 parties with dogs (of which 10 were in compliance with the dog-leash regulation), and a new- born baby being carried to the top by mom and dad (that’s a first for me)! Management Issues: 1). Capacity issue: I counted 107 people on the hike, including our group of 14 people. The main issue for Mt. Bierstadt, being a 14er hike in a congressionally designated wilderness, is a social issue of how many people are appropriate? Thinking back to Dr. Cordell’s opening Forum discuss on demographic trends and the growth coming to the west, including front-range Denver, the use on Mt. -
How to Travel to Aspen Highlands by Bus to Catch the Maroon Bells Shuttle
HOW TO TRAVEL TO ASPEN HIGHLANDS BY BUS TO CATCH THE MAROON BELLS SHUTTLE BEFORE YOUR TRIP Make a Maroon Bells Shuttle reservation in advance at www.aspenchamber.org/maroon-bells Make sure you have your shuttle reservation when you arrive. Save it to your phone or print it and bring it with you. DIRECTIONS FOR TRAVELING TO ASPEN HIGHLANDS... FROM ASPEN Downtown Aspen/Rubey Park Transit Center TO Aspen Highlands The FREE CM Castle/Maroon bus provides service from Downtown Aspen to Maroon Creek Road serving Aspen Highlands. CM-Castle/Maroon buses depart Rubey Park Transit Center at :00, :20 & :40 past each hour. And departs Castle Ridge at :07, :27 & :47 past each hour. Plan for a 15-20 minute trip to arrive at Aspen Highlands. FROM SNOWMASS VILLAGE Snowmass Mall/Base Village/ Brush Creek Road TO Aspen Highlands From Snowmass Village take any FREE SM-Brush Creek Park & Ride bus. Buses depart Snowmass Village Mall at :00, :15, :30 and :45 after the hour. Once at the Brush Creek Park & Ride, transfer to any BRT ASPEN or L ASPEN bus. Once you are aboard a BRT ASPEN or L ASPEN bus, follow the steps listed below for transferring at the ROUNDABOUT or 8TH STREET bus stops. Plan for a 30-40 minute trip to arrive at Aspen Highlands. FROM DOWN VALLEY Glenwood Springs/Carbondale/El Jebel/Basalt TO Aspen Highlands From any bus stop down valley catch a L ASPEN or BRT ASPEN bus. PLAN YOUR TRIP One transfer to a Castle/Maroon bus is required to get to Aspen Highlands. -
Crystal River Restoration Riparian Restoration Plan & Ecological Integrity Assessment Garfield County, Colorado
CRYSTAL RIVER RESTORATION RIPARIAN RESTORATION PLAN & ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO CRYSTAL RIVER RESTORATION| RIVERFRONT PARK GARFIELD COUNTY. COLORADO AUGUST 2018 Prepared for: The Town of Carbondale Prepared by: DHM Design Corp. and River Restoration 311 Main Street, Suite 102, Carbondale, Colorado 81623 November 2018 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Methods ..............................................................................................................................................................2 2.1 Site Survey ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Channel Stability Assessment ................................................................................................................................................................. 2 2.3 Ecological Integrity Assessment for Colorado Wetlands ............................................................................................................... 2 2.3.1 Existing Conditions Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.3.2 Post-Restoration Assessment ................................................................................................................................................................. -
Profiles of Colorado Roadless Areas
PROFILES OF COLORADO ROADLESS AREAS Prepared by the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region July 23, 2008 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST ......................................................................................................10 Bard Creek (23,000 acres) .......................................................................................................................................10 Byers Peak (10,200 acres)........................................................................................................................................12 Cache la Poudre Adjacent Area (3,200 acres)..........................................................................................................13 Cherokee Park (7,600 acres) ....................................................................................................................................14 Comanche Peak Adjacent Areas A - H (45,200 acres).............................................................................................15 Copper Mountain (13,500 acres) .............................................................................................................................19 Crosier Mountain (7,200 acres) ...............................................................................................................................20 Gold Run (6,600 acres) ............................................................................................................................................21 -
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 . -
Colorado 1 (! 1 27 Y S.P
# # # # # # # # # ######## # # ## # # # ## # # # # # 1 2 3 4 5 # 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ) " 8 Muddy !a Ik ") 24 6 ") (!KÂ ) )¬ (! LARAMIE" KIMBALL GARDEN 1 ") I¸ 6 Medicine Bow !` Lodg Centennial 4 ep National Federal ole (! 9 Lake McConaughy CARBON Forest I§ Kimball 9 CHEYENNE 11 C 12 1 Potter CURT GOWDY reek Bushnell (! 11 ") 15 ") ") Riverside (! LARAMIE ! ") Ik ( ") (! ) " Colorado 1 8 (! 1 27 Y S.P. ") Pine !a 2 Ij Cree Medicine Bow 2 KÂ 6 .R. 3 12 2 7 9 ) Flaming Gorge R ") " National 34 .P. (! Burns Bluffs k U ") 10 5 National SWEETWATER Encampment (! 7 KEITH 40 Forest (! Red Buttes (! 4 Egbert ") 8 Sidney 10 Lodgepole Recreation Area 796 (! DEUEL ") ) " ") 2 ! 6 ") 3 ( Albany ") 9 2 A (! 6 9 ) River 27 6 Ik !a " 1 2 3 6 3 CHEYENNE ") Brule K ") on ") G 4 10 Big Springs Jct. 9 lli ") ) Ik " ") 3 Chappell 2 14 (! (! 17 4 ") Vermi S Woods Landing ") !a N (! Ik ) ! 8 15 8 " ") ) ( " !a # ALBANY 3 3 ^! 5 7 2 3 ") ( Big Springs ") ") (! 4 3 (! 11 6 2 ek ") 6 WYOMING MI Dixon Medicine Bow 4 Carpenter Barton ") (! (! 6 RA I« 10 ) Baggs Tie Siding " Cre Savery (! ! (! National ") ( 6 O 7 9 B (! 4 Forest 8 9 5 4 5 Flaming UTAH 2 5 15 9 A Dutch John Mountain ") Y I¸11 Gorge (! 4 NEBRASKA (! (! Powder K Res. ^ Home tonwo 2 ^ NE t o o ! C d ! ell h Little En (! WYOMING 3 W p ! 7 as S Tala Sh (! W Slater cam ^ ") Ovid 4 ! ! mant Snake River pm ^ ^ 3 ! es Cr (! ! ! ^ Li ! Gr Mi en ^ ^ ^ ttle eek 8 ! ^JULESBURG een Creek k Powder Wash ddle t ! Hereford (! ! 8 e NORTHGATE 4 ( Peetz ! ! Willo ork K R Virginia Jumbo Lake Sedgwick ! ! # T( ") Cre F ing (! 1 ek Y 7 RA ^ Cre CANYON ek Lara (! Dale B I§ w Big Creek o k F e 2 9 8 Cre 9 Cr x DAGGETT o Fo m Lakes e 7 C T(R B r NATURE TRAIL ") A ee u So k i e e lde d 7 r lomon e k a I« 1 0 Cr mil h k k r 17 t r r 293 PERKINS River Creek u e 9 River Pawnee v 1 e o e ") Carr ree r Rockport Stuc Poud 49 7 r® Dry S Ri C National 22 SENTINAL La HAMILTON RESERVOIR/ (! (! k 6 NE e A Gr e Halligan Res.