DOCSLIB.ORG

Land Use Technical Report August 2010 Land Use Technical Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Land Use Technical Report August 2010 Land Use Technical Report I-70 Mountain Corridor Land Use Technical Report August 2010 Land Use Technical Report This page intentionally left blank. Land Use Technical Report Table of Contents Section 1. Purpose of the Report .............................................................................................. 1 Section 2. Background and Methodology ................................................................................ 1 2.1 Right-of-Way Acquisition and I-70 Highway Expansion into Currently Developed Lands2 2.2 Consistency with Land Use Planning and Zoning............................................................ 2 2.3 Induced Growth: Population and Development ............................................................... 3 2.3.1 Induced Population ................................................................................................4 2.3.2 Induced Development............................................................................................7 Section 3. Description of Alternatives ...................................................................................... 8 3.1 Minimal Action Alternative................................................................................................ 8 3.2 Transit Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 8 3.2.1 Rail with Intermountain Connection .......................................................................9 3.2.2 Advanced Guideway System.................................................................................9 3.2.3 Dual-mode Bus in Guideway .................................................................................9 3.2.4 Diesel Bus in Guideway.........................................................................................9 3.3 Highway Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 9 3.3.1 Six-Lane Highway 55 mph Alternative.................................................................10 3.3.2 Six-Lane Highway 65 mph Alternative.................................................................10 3.3.3 Reversible Lanes Alternative ...............................................................................10 3.4 Combination Alternatives ............................................................................................... 10 3.5 Preferred Alternative—Minimum and Maximum Programs............................................ 11 3.6 No Action Alternative ..................................................................................................... 11 Section 4. Affected Environment............................................................................................. 12 4.1 Federally Managed Lands ............................................................................................. 12 4.1.1 Bureau of Land Management, Colorado River Valley District..............................12 4.1.2 White River National Forest.................................................................................13 4.1.3 Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests ............................................................17 4.1.4 Special Use Permits.............................................................................................18 4.2 Non-Federal Lands ........................................................................................................ 18 4.2.1 Land Use and Planning Policies ..........................................................................18 4.3 Jefferson County Corridor Area ..................................................................................... 20 4.3.1 Population and Growth ........................................................................................22 Section 5. Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 24 5.1 Direct Impacts................................................................................................................ 24 5.1.1 Federal Lands......................................................................................................24 5.1.2 Non-Federal Lands ..............................................................................................27 5.1.3 Compatibility with Land Use Plans.......................................................................28 5.2 Indirect Impacts.............................................................................................................. 31 5.2.1 Induced Population Growth..................................................................................31 5.2.2 Induced Development..........................................................................................33 5.2.3 Indirect Impacts to Federal Lands........................................................................35 5.3 Construction Impacts ..................................................................................................... 35 5.4 Impacts in 2050.............................................................................................................. 35 Section 6. Tier 2 Considerations ............................................................................................. 36 Section 7. Mitigation Strategies............................................................................................... 36 Section 8. References............................................................................................................... 37 I-70 Mountain Corridor PEIS Technical Reports August 2010 Page i Land Use Technical Report Appendices A Land Use Maps B United States Forest Service Land Management Standards and Guidelines C United States Forest Service Special Use Permits D Summary of I-70 Mountain Corridor Land Use Plans List of Charts Chart 1. Summary of United States Forest Lands within Project Footprint by Alternative.............................................................................................................. 25 Chart 2. Summary of Properties within Project Footprint by Alternative............................ 28 List of Figures Figure 1. Ten County Study Area .............................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Forest Management Areas in West Half of the Corridor ....................................... 14 Figure 3. Forest Management Areas in the East Half of Corridor ........................................ 15 List of Tables Table 1. Percent Increase/Decrease from Baseline in Person-Trips...................................... 5 Table 2. Estimated Annual Average Daily Traffic (rounded)................................................... 6 Table 3. Summary of Corridor County Master Plan Topics Related to the Corridor .......... 21 Table 4. Population Projections .............................................................................................. 23 Table 5. United States Forest Service Management Area Prescription Impacts ................ 26 Table 6. Parcel Impacts by Location ....................................................................................... 29 Table 7. Parcel Impacts by Land Use Type ............................................................................ 30 Table 8. Growth and Population Predictions ......................................................................... 32 Table 9. Possible Worst-Case Acreage of Induced Development........................................ 33 Technical Reports I-70 Mountain Corridor PEIS Page ii August 2010 Land Use Technical Report Section 1. Purpose of the Report This I-70 Mountain Corridor PEIS Land Use Technical Report supports the information contained in Chapter 3, Section 7 of the I-70 Mountain Corridor Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). This report describes: Methods used to identify land use and determine potential impacts of alternatives on land uses. Coordination with local, state, and federal agencies. Description of the existing land use in the Corridor Consequences of the Action Alternatives evaluated in the I-70 Mountain Corridor PEIS on land use. Considerations for land use for Tier 2 processes. Proposed mitigation strategies for land use. Section 2. Background and Methodology The study area for this Technical Report comprises the land in the counties immediately adjacent to the I-70 Mountain Corridor (Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek, and Jefferson) for the direct impacts analysis. The indirect impacts analysis study area comprises nine counties surrounding the I-70 Mountain Corridor—Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek, Lake, Park, Gilpin, Pitkin, and Grand. Jefferson County is excluded from the indirect impacts analysis because its growth trends are related primarily to the Denver metropolitan area rather than the I-70 Mountain Corridor, and the Action Alternatives minimally influence Jefferson County’s growth. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (the lead agencies) collected land use management information for federally managed lands in the Corridor, along with planning and zoning documents from Corridor counties and municipalities. Direct consultation with the Corridor counties, municipalities, and other land management agencies was conducted to verify assumptions and obtain accurate land use data. Figure 1 below illustrates the five counties through which the I-70 highway runs, plus the additional five counties included in the indirect
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Floodplain Designations
    1313 Sherman Street, Room 718 Denver, CO 80203 P (303) 866-3441 F (303) 866-4474 TO: Colorado Water Conservation Board Members FROM: Kevin Houck, P.E. CFM Watershed & Flood Protection Section DATE: November 8, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Consent Agenda Item 2. November 20-21, 2019 Board Meeting - Floodplain Designations Background: Consent Agenda Item 3 includes 7 new floodplain studies that are proposed for CWCB action. Staff is requesting Board designation and approval for these items. A brief summary of the study is presented in the attached document. CWCB staff performs technical reviews of floodplain information to assure the Board that the information complies with the requirements of the CWCB’s “Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplains in Colorado,” 2 CCR 408-1. The attached document provides a further discussion of legislative authority and responsibilities delegated to the CWCB. The CWCB’s designation and approvals greatly assist local communities in meeting the statutory requirements of the State and the regulatory requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Additional supporting information for this item is attached. Requested action for Floodplain Resolution 19-703: Staff recommends that the Board: 1) designate and approve the detailed 100-year and 500-year information and 100-year approximate floodplain information contained in said report within Chaffee County, City of Salida, Town of Buena Vista and Town of Poncha Springs, and 2) authorize staff to prepare a floodplain resolution to be signed by the Director and transmitted to Chaffee County, City of Salida, Town of Buena Vista, Town of Poncha Springs, and FEMA. This action is recommended in order to meet statutory requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-0330
    U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-0330 Water and Sediment Study of the Snake River Watershed, Colorado, Oct. 9-12, 2001 By D.L. Fey, S.E. Church, D.M. Unruh, and D.J. Bove This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with North American Stratigraphic Code. Any trade, firm, or product names are for descriptive purposes only and do not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………..1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………2 Purpose and Scope…………………………………………………………………………………2 Previous Investigations…………………………………………………………………………….2 Geology……………………………………………………………………………………………………..2 Intrusive History……………………………………………… ..…………………………………5 Hydrothermal Alteration and Mineralization……………… …..…………………………………5 Sample Collection…………………………………………………………………………………………..5 Streambed Sediment……………………………………………………………………………….5 Core Samples………………………………………………………………………………………6 Surface Water Samples……………………………………………………………………………6 Diel Zinc Concentrations in Surface Water Samples……………………………………………..6 Discharge Measurements………………………………………………………………………….6 Sample Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………………7 Streambed Sediment Total Digestion……………………………………………………………...7 Mercury in Sediment………………………………………………………………………………7 Lead Isotope Analysis……………………………………………………………………………..7 Water Samples…………………………………………………………………………………….7 Quality Assurance and Quality Control…………………………………………………………...8 Results
    [Show full text]
  • Classifications and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin and North Platte River
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. November 12, 2020 Regulation No. 33 - Classifications and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin and North Platte River Effective March 12, 2020 The following provisions are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes with these few exceptions: EPA has taken no action on: • All segment-specific total phosphorus (TP) numeric standards based on the interim value for river/stream segments with a cold water aquatic life classification (0.11 mg/L TP) or a warm water aquatic life classification (0.17 mg/L TP) • All segment-specific TP numeric standards based on the interim value for lake/reservoir segments with a warm water aquatic life classification (0.083 mg/L TP) Code of Colorado Regulations Secretary of State State of Colorado DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Water Quality Control Commission REGULATION NO. 33 - CLASSIFICATIONS AND NUMERIC STANDARDS FOR UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN AND NORTH PLATTE RIVER (PLANNING REGION 12) 5 CCR 1002-33 [Editor’s Notes follow the text of the rules at the end of this CCR Document.] 33.1 AUTHORITY These regulations are promulgated pursuant to section 25-8-101 et seq. C.R.S., as amended, and in particular, 25-8-203 and 25-8-204.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterfowl Status Report 1964
    U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services Historic document – Content may not reflect current scientific research, policies or practices. WATERFOWL STATUS REPORT 1964 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR · FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Special Scientific Report--Wildlife No. 8 6 Created by act of Congress in 1849, the Department of the Interior is responsible for a wide variety of progra,ms concerned with .the management, consenat ion, a.nd wise cle,·elopment of ~\.rnerica~s natural resources. For this reason it is often de­ scribed as a department of natural resources. Through a seore of bureaus and offices the Department is responsible for the nse and management of millions of acres of federally owned lands; adlllinisters mining and mineral leasing on a sizable area of additional lands; irrigates reclaimed lands in the 'Vest ;.manages giant hydroelectric power systems; ad­ ministers grazing and forestry programs on federally owned range and comlllereia l forest lands· protects fish and wildlife resources; pro,·ides for consenation and development of out­ door recreation opportm.1ities on a nationwide scale; conserves hundreds of vital scenic, historic, and park areas; conducts geologic research and suneys; encourages mineral exploration and conducts mineral research; promotes mine safety; conducts saline "·ater research; a.dministers oil import programs; oper­ ates helium plants and the .Alaska Railroad; is responsible for the welfare of many thousands of people in the territories of the Fnitecl States; and exercises trusteeship for the well-being of additional hundreds of thonsitncls of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos, as well as being charged with resource management of mi llions of acre of lndian-om1ed lands.
    [Show full text]
  • Division 5 Water Court- August 2017 Resume
    DIVISION 5 WATER COURT- AUGUST 2017 RESUME 1. PURSUANT TO C.R.S., §37-92-302, AS AMENDED, YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE FOLLOWING PAGES COMPRISE A RESUME OF THE APPLICATIONS AND AMENDED APPLICATIONS FILED WITH THE WATER CLERK FOR WATER DIVISION 5 DURING THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2017. The water right claimed by this application may affect in priority any water right claimed or heretofore adjudicated within this division and owners of affected rights must appear to object and protest within the time provided by statute, or be forever barred. 17CW3157 MESA COUNTY; Application to Make Water Rights Partially Absolute and/or ofor Findings of Reasonable Diligence. Name, address and telephone number of Applicant: Town of Palisade, please direct all correspondence to Applicant’s attorneys: Mary Elizabeth Geiger, Garfield & Hecht, P.C., 901 Grand Ave., Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601, (970) 947-1936, [email protected]. Applicant requests that a portion of the conditional water rights decreed to the Town of Palisade Wastewater Treatment Plant Outfall be made absolute and findings of reasonable diligence as to the remaining amounts/uses: Legal description: A point of diversion located in Sec 3, T 1 S, R 2 E of the Ute Meridian, Mesa County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the North ¼ corner of Sec 3, whence the West 1/16 corner of the North boundary line of Section 3 bears North 90˚00’00” West; thence South 18º23’01” East 2,888.22 feet to a point located on the centerline of the outfall line of the Palisade sewer plant, also described as being 2190 feet from the west section line and 2712 feet from the north section line of Sec 3, T 1 S, R 2 E of the Ute Meridian.
    [Show full text]
  • TMDL 2007.Pdf
    Total Maximum Daily Load Assessment Snake River and Peru Creek Summit County, Colorado Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division September 20, 2007 Public Notice Draft TMDL Summary Waterbody Description / WBID Mainstem of the Snake River, including all tributaries and wetlands from the source to Dillon Reservoir, except for specific listings in Segments 7, 8, and 9, COUCBL06/ Mainstem of Peru Creek, including all tributaries and wetlands from the source to the confluence with the Snake River, except for specific listing in Segment 8, COUCBL07. Pollutants Addressed pH, Dissolved Cadmium, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved Lead, and Dissolved Zinc Relevant Portion of Segment Mainstem of the Snake River, Saints John Creek in Segment (as applicable) 6; mainstem of Peru Creek and all tributaries in Segment 7. UseClassification/Designation Segment 6: Aquatic Life Cold 1, Recreation 1a, Water Supply, Agriculture / Use Protected Segment 7: Aquatic Life Cold 1, Recreation 2/Use Protected Water Quality Targets (for dissolved fraction of metals) Segment 6 Chronic Acute pH 6.5-9.0 6.5-9.0 Cd-D TVS TVS Cu-D TVS TVS Pb-D TVS TVS Zn-D TVS TVS Segment 7 Chronic Acute pH 6.5-9.0 6.5-9.0 Cd-D TVS TVS Cu-D TVS TVS Mn-D TVS TVS Pb-D TVS TVS Zn-D TVS TVS TMDL Goal Attainment of TVS Standards for pH, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc and manganese for COUCBL07. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Snake River watershed is part of the Blue River sub-basin in the Upper Colorado River basin (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • General Geology of the Harold D. Roberts Tunnel, Colorado
    General Geology of the Harold D. Roberts Tunnel, Colorado GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 831-B General Geology of the Harold D. Roberts Tunnel, Colorado By CHARLES S. ROBINSON, LAWRENCE A. WARNER, and ERNEST E. WAHLSTROM ENGINEERING GEOLOGY OF THE HAROLD D. ROBERTS TUNNEL, COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 831-B A review of the geologically complex area of the Front Range transected by the Roberts Tunnel UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1974 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKdvey, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 73-600340 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2.25 (paper cover) Stock Number 2401-02469 CONTENTS Page Page Abstract..................................................................................... Bl Tertiary igneous rocks............................................................ B23 Introduction.............................................................................. 1 Montezuma Quartz Monzonite and associated aplitic Summary of general geology................................................. 2 rock......................................................................... 23 Precambrian rocks................................................................... 3 Quartz monzonite..................................................... 23 Metasedimentary rocks................................................... 3 Aplitic rock...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Record of Decision November 2016 Arapahoe Basin Ski Area Projects
    ARAPAHOE BASIN SKI AREA PROJECTS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RECORD OF DECISION NOVEMBER 2016 USDA Forest Service White River National Forest Dillon Ranger District In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, sex, religious creed, disability, age, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.), should contact the Agency (State or local) where they applied for benefits. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities may contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, (AD-3027) found online at: http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, and at any USDA office, or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) Email: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • DWR Dam Safety Non-Jurisdictional Dam
    DWR Dam Safety Non-Jurisdictional Dam DAMID Dam Name Other Dam Names WDID 400537 WEIR PARK 290148 GALLEGOS POND 400215 DELTA #3 020106 BOWLES #2 0203870 510220 HOMESTEAD HILLS POND HOMESTEAD HILLS HOA DAM 380246 SPAYD POND DAM 290131 REX S DAM 510113 LINKE 5103680 100104 BANNING LEWIS #1 020659 US36 POND OS-A3 670439 WHITE FARMS & SONS SOUTH FARM DAM 670415 Ausmus Pond 370210 LD #1 DAM LD POND 3704095 020238 MAGERS 0203321 110770 Droz Creek Pond #2 570205 Schaefermeyer #2 5703579 Page 1 of 640 10/03/2021 DWR Dam Safety Non-Jurisdictional Dam Physical Status DIV WD County PM Township Range Section Q160 Active 4 40 DELTA S 12.0 S 94.0 W 3 Active 7 29 ARCHULETA N 34.0 N 3.0 W 20 SE Active 4 28 DELTA S 13.0 S 96.0 W 27 Active 1 2 ADAMS S 1.0 S 65.0 W 6 NW Active 5 51 GRAND S 1.0 N 76.0 W 31 SW Active 5 38 GARFIELD S 7.0 S 87.0 W 20 SE Active 7 29 ARCHULETA N 35.0 N 2.0 W 11 SE Active 5 51 GRAND S 1.0 N 76.0 W 18 NW Active 2 10 EL PASO S 13.0 S 65.0 W 27 SE Active 1 2 BROOMFIELD S 1.0 S 69.0 W 34 Active 2 67 BENT S 22.0 S 49.0 W 26 2 67 PROWERS S 22.0 S 46.0 W 7 NE Active 5 37 EAGLE S 4.0 S 84.0 W 19 SE Active 1 2 ADAMS S 1.0 S 66.0 W 20 Active 2 11 CHAFFEE N 48.0 N 8.0 E 6 NE Active 6 57 ROUTT S 7.0 N 87.0 W 6 NE Page 2 of 640 10/03/2021 DWR Dam Safety Non-Jurisdictional Dam Q40 UTM x UTM y Location Accuracy Latdecdeg Longdecdeg NE 305326 4116697 GPS 37.176442 -107.192879 NE 524707.1 4427611.9 GPS 39.998337 -104.710572 NE 418985 4428643 User supplied 40.0041 -105.949161 SW 316652.5 4366267.8 GPS 39.426465 -107.130145 SW 320463 4127793 GPS
    [Show full text]
  • SDS EIS Work Plan
    Prepared for Federal Action Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Army Corps of Denver, Colorado Engineers Project Proponent _______________________ o Denver Water Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report Moffat Collection System Project _______________________ October 4, 2016 Prepared by URS Corporation 6200 South Quebec Street Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1 2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Purpose, Scope, and Authority .................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Relevant Prior Studies, Reports, and Previous Consultation ..................................................... 4 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ...................................................................................... 7 3.1 Reservoirs ................................................................................................................................ 13 3.2 Other Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 17 3.3 River Segments........................................................................................................................ 17 3.3.1 Fraser River ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Assessment
    Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume 3 Appendix J Watershed assessment Introduction This appendix presents information on assessment of watershed conditions from several sources, including: • A watershed condition assessment conducted by the forest for the 2002 Forest Plan (Tables J-1 through J-6); • The 1998 Colorado State monitoring and evaluation list of stream segments with suspected water quality problems that occur on the forest (Table J-7); • The 1998 Colorado State 303(d) list of water-quality-limited stream segments still requiring total maximum daily load (TMDL) assessments (Table J-8); and • A Colorado Geological Survey of abandoned mines on or adjacent to the forest (Table J-9). Watersheds are areas of land that drain rainfall and snowmelt into a common stream, stream network, body of water, or closed basin. The Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2) of the Forest Service has adopted the hydrologic unit code (HUC) system developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). It divides watersheds into a series of progressively smaller nested levels, with the first level being the largest land area relative to higher- numbered levels in that watershed. Each level is identified systematically by a hydrologic unit code number, or HUC. A first level watershed can be divided into a number of second level watersheds, each second level watershed may be further subdivided into third-level watersheds, and so forth. For forest planning purposes, fourth- through sixth- level watersheds are the most appropriate scale of analysis. Fourth-level watersheds are often referred to as sub-basins; fifth-level watersheds are often just called watersheds, and sixth-level watersheds may also be called subwatersheds.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Moose Antler Measurements
    2020 Moose Antler Measurements Left Right Used Sex Method Circ. Circ. Spread Drainage Outfitter Unit 6 F Bow MICHIGAN RIVER N F Bow MICHIGAN RIVER N F MLR SOUTH FORK CANADIAN RIVER N F Rifle MICHIGAN RIVER N F Rifle MEADOW CREEK N F Rifle MICHIGAN RIVER N F Rifle MICHIGAN RIVER N F Rifle COON CREEK N F Rifle NORTH MICHIGAN CREEK RESERVOIR N F Rifle CLEVELAND DITCH N M Bow 6 3/8 6 0/8 41 0/8 NORTH FORK MICHIGAN RIVER N M Bow 6 6/8 6 7/8 40 4/8 PINKHAM CREEK N M Bow 5 5/8 5 5/8 36 5/8 CLEAR CREEK N M MLR 4 7/8 5 0/8 38 5/8 NORTH FORK MICHIGAN RIVER N M MLR 5 2/8 5 4/8 31 7/8 MICHIGAN RIVER N M MLR 5 0/8 5 1/8 41 7/8 ALLEN CREEK N M Rifle 5 4/8 5 2/8 31 6/8 MICHIGAN RIVER N M Rifle MICHIGAN RIVER N M Rifle 6 3/8 6 4/8 41 1/8 MICHIGAN RIVER Y M Rifle 6 5/8 6 2/8 35 2/8 OWL CREEK Y M Rifle 6 1/8 6 1/8 40 7/8 NORTH FORK CANADIAN RIVER N M Rifle 5 6/8 6 4/8 35 0/8 MEADOW CREEK N M Rifle 6 2/8 6 1/8 48 4/8 SALES CREEK N M Rifle 6 2/8 6 2/8 49 6/8 SAND CREEK Y M Rifle 6 3/8 6 2/8 36 4/8 MICHIGAN RIVER N M Rifle 6 3/8 6 2/8 41 0/8 MICHIGAN RIVER Y M Rifle 6 0/8 6 3/8 40 4/8 MICHIGAN RIVER Y YF Rifle SALES CREEK N YF Rifle MEADOW CREEK N Unit 7 M MLR 5 7/8 6 0/8 36 5/8 NORTH FORK GRACE CREEK N Unit 12 M Rifle 5 4/5 6 2/8 39 4/8 BALDY CREEK N 2020 Moose Antler Measurements Left Right Used Sex Method Circ.
    [Show full text]