DOCSLIB.ORG

Watershed Plan for the East Fork of the Dolores River in Dolores County

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Watershed Plan for the East Fork of the Dolores River in Dolores County FINAL Watershed Plan for the East Fork of the Dolores River in Dolores County Prepared for: The Town of Rico August 17, 2006 Prepared by: Grayling Environmental 18050 Rd G Cortez, Colorado 81321 (970) 565-0278 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section No. Page No. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 General 1 1.2 Project Background 2 1.2.1 Section 208 – Clean Water Act 3 1.2.2 Section 319 – Clean Water Act 4 1.3 An Overview of Watershed Planning 4 1.3.1 The Planning Process 4 1.3.2 The Hydrologic Cycle 6 1.3.3 The Water Balance 8 1.3.4 Water Quality Issues 11 1.3.5 Watershed Planning Goals 12 1.4 Town of Rico Planning Goals and Objectives 12 1.5 The Watershed Plan Goals and Objectives 13 1.6 Watershed Description 14 1.7 The Watershed Plan Scope and Organization 16 2.0 REGIONAL OVERVIEW OF THE DOLORES WATERSHED 2.1 Introduction 1 2.2 Geography, Soils and Geology 2 2.2.1 Geography 2 2.2.2 Soils 3 2.2.3 Geology 4 2.3 Hydrology 8 2.3.1 Groundwater 8 2.3.2 Surface Water 10 2.3.3 Hydrology of Silver Creek 12 2.4 Climate 13 2.5 Ecological Setting 14 2.5.1 Terrestrial 15 2.5.2 Aquatic 16 2.5.3 Wetlands 18 2.6 Mining History of the Area 18 2.7 Land Uses and Population Characteristics 20 2.7.1 Recreation Uses 21 2.7.2 Potential Wild and Scenic Designation 22 2.7.3 Agricultural and Mineral Leases 23 ii 2.8 Water Uses, Water Rights, and Water Budget Estimates 25 2.8.1 Water Uses 25 2.8.2 Water Rights 27 2.8.3 Water Budget Estimates 30 2.9 General Water Quality Issues 30 3.0 POPULATION PROJECTIONS 3.1 Introduction 1 3.2 Summary of Previous Data 1 3.3 Land Use and Development Plans 2 4.0 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT 4.1 Introduction 1 4.2 Stream Classifications and Standards 2 4.2.1 Overview of Colorado’s Classifications and Standards System 3 4.2.2 Dolores River Basin Classifications and Standards 6 4.3 Water Quality Data 9 4.3.1 Introduction 9 4.3.2 Historic Evaluations 10 4.3.3 Ongoing Routine Data Collection 21 4.3.4 Ongoing Special Projects 21 4.4 Data Evaluation 21 4.4.1 Introduction 22 4.4.2 Water Quality Discussion 23 4.4.3 Potential Effects to Designated Uses 25 4.4.4 General Trends 28 4.5 Summary of Recommendations 41 5.0 WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES 5.1 Introduction 1 5.2 Point Source Discharge 1 5.3 Facility and Master Planning 2 5.3.1 Town of Rico Municipal Watershed 3 5.3.2 Town of Rico Wastewater Treatment Plant 4 5.4 Point Source Recommendations 5 6.0 NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION 6.1 Introduction 1 6.2 Potential Nonpoint Source Impacts 2 6.2.1 Land Use, Development, and Disturbance 3 6.2.2 Inactive Mines 13 6.2.3 Hydrologic Modifications and In-Basin Changes in Water Use 16 6.3 Groundwater Issues 18 iii 6.4 Nonpoint Source Recommendations 18 6.4.1 General Nonpoint Source Recommendations 19 6.4.2 Monitoring Recommendations 22 6.4.3 Best Management Practice Recommendations 22 6.4.4 Inactive Mine Recommendations 23 7.0 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Introduction 1 7.2 Recommendations by Others 2 7.2.1 Matrix Design Group, 2004 3 7.2.2 Corey Sue Derfus – Aqua-Hab, Inc. 5 7.2.3 Others 5 7.3 Watershed Coordination and Continued Planning 6 7.3.1 Stakeholder Group Development, Meetings and Coordination 7 7.3.2 Integration into Rico Regional Master Plan 10 7.4 Monitoring to Address Data Gaps 15 7.4.1 Comprehensive Project area Monitoring 16 7.4.2 Aquatic Life Monitoring 18 7.4.3 Metals Loading and Synoptic Sampling 20 7.4.4 Sediment Sampling 22 7.5 Aquatic Ecological Risk Assessment and Regulatory Documentation 23 7.5.1 Aquatic Ecological Risk Assessment 23 7.5.2 Regulatory Documentation 25 7.6 Nonpoint Source Control 25 7.6.1 Controlling Stormwater 27 7.6.2 Controlling Mine-related Nonpoint Sources 31 7.7 Point Source Control 35 7.8 Riparian and Wetland Habitat Management 39 8.0 DRAFT FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS AND FUNDING ASSESSMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 Introduction 1 8.2 Cost Analysis and Recommendations 2 8.3 Benefit Analysis 8 8.4 Projected Time-line and Goals 10 9.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND NEXT STEPS 9.1 Summary 1 9.2 Conclusions 1 9.3 Next Steps 2 10.0 REFERENCES iv v Tables EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EX.1 Project Area Information Summary of Sources and Data Gaps. EX.2 Summary of the Watershed Plan Recommendations. SECTION 1.0 1.1 Summary of Project Area Tributary Stream Characteristics. SECTION 2.0 2. 1 Project Area Soils Types and Characteristics (NRCS, no date). 2.2 Historic Annual Peak Flows. (source; Dames & Moore, 1981). 2.3 2002-2005, Monthly Stream Flow Values (cfs) of the Dolores River at the Montelores Bridge USGS Gauging Station. 2.4 Lizard Head Pass Annual and Monthly Precipitation. (source; NRCS, Snotel Data). 2.5 Scotch Creek Annual and Monthly Precipitation. (source; NRCS, Snotel Data). 2.6 Threatened and Endangered Species that could Occur within the Project Area. (sources; C. Derfus, 2001 and C. Wilbur, 1995). 2.7 CDOW Stream Fisheries Survey Results for Locations Above and below Rico. (source; CDOW, 2006). 2.8 2005 Big Game Summary Information. (source; CDOW, 2006). 2.9 Summary of Range Allotments Leased within the Project Area. (source; USFS SJNF, 2006). 2.10 Summary of Mine Permits and their Status within the Project Area. (source; CDMG, 2006). 2.11 Summary of Oil & Gas Permitted Wells Adjacent to the Project Area. (source; COGCC, 2006). 2.12 Colorado County Domestic Water Use Rates. (source; USGS, 2006). 2.13 Colorado County Public Supply Water Use Rates. (source; USGS, 2006). 2.14 Colorado County Irrigation Water Use Rates. (source; USGS, 2006). 2.15 Colorado County Industrial Water Use Rates. (source; USGS, 2006). 2.16 River Miles Supporting and Not Supporting of its Designated Use (source; CDPHE, 2002 and 2004). SECTION 3.0 3.1 Historic Census Information for the Town of Rico and Dolores County by Year (source; CDOLA, 2006). 3.2 Natural Population Increase for the Town of Rico by Year (source; CDOLA, 2006). 3.3 Dolores County Population Variables useful for Water Planning (source; CDOLA, 2006). 3.4 Town of Rico and Dolores County Projected Population Census (source; CDOLA, 2006). 3.5 Number of Business Establishments in the Town of Rico, by Year (source; USCB, 2006). SECTION 4.0 4.1 Agricultural and Domestic Water Supply Water Quality Standards. (source’ CDPHE, 2002). 4.2 Stream Classifications and Water Quality Standards by Project Area Segment. (source; CWQCC, 2002) 3 pgs. 4.3 Table Value Standard Criteria. (source; CWQCC, 2002). vi 4.4 Water Quality Criteria Adjustments to Pertinent Project Area River Segments as per the CWQCC Triennial Hearing Results. (source; CDPHE CWQCC, 2006). 4.5 TMDL Listed Segments Relevant to the Project Area. (source; CDPHE, 2002). 4.6 ARCO Prepared VDUPs/NADs and their Status. (source; Matrix Design Group, 2004). 4.7 Available Zinc Assimilative Capacities and Zinc Contributions – provided by CDPHE (2001) (as cited in: Matrix Design Group, 2004). 4.8 Summary of USGS Sample Information for the Project Area. (sources; USGS, 2006a and 2..6b). 4.9 Geothermal Springs Water Quality in 1995. (source; URS/USEPA, 1996). 4.10 Summary of CGS Abandoned Mine Lands Ranking of Sites within the Project Area. (source; CGS, 1989). 4.11 Analytical Data for Samples Collected from the Horse Creek Sub-basin by CGS. (source; Neubert, 2000). 4.12 Summary of Available Data for locations within Silver Creek. 4.13 Summary of Available Data for Locations within the Dolores River. 4.14 2002 Metals Results as Compared to AWQC using HQ Analysis for the St. Louis Ponds. 4.15 2003 Metals Results as Compared to AWQC using HQ Analysis for the St. Louis Ponds. 4.16 2004 Metals Results as Compared to AWQC using HQ Analysis for the St. Louis Ponds. 4.17 2002 Metals as Compared to AWQC using HQ Analysis for Locations along Silver Creek. 4.18 2003 Metals as Compared to AWQC using HQ Analysis for Locations along Silver Creek. 4.19 2004 Metals as Compared to AWQC using HQ Analysis for Locations along Silver Creek. 4.20 2002 Metals Results as Compared to AWQC using HQ Analysis for Locations along the Dolores River. 4.21 2003 Metals Results as Compared to AWQC using HQ Analysis for Locations along the Dolores River. 4.22 2004 Metals Results as Compared to AWQC using HQ Analysis for Locations along the Dolores River. 4.23 Dolores River, Silver Creek, and St. Louis Ponds Copper- Zinc Indicies (CZI). 4.24 Temporal Change in Load as Observed for 1997, 2002, 2003 and 2004. 4.25 Summary of Flow Loss Observed for the St. Louis Settling Ponds. 4.26 Summary of Zinc Load Loss Observed for the St. Louis Settling Ponds. SECTION 5.0 SECTION 6.0 6.1 Results of Metals Analysis in Soils Collected from the Historic Town of Rico Dump. (source; Walsh, 1995). 6.2 Summary of Lots with Permitted Septic Systems (as per Dolores County Assesor Records, 2006). 6.3 Summary of UST/ASTs within the Project Area. (source; COSTIS, 2006b). 6.4 Summary of Spills within the Project Area for the past 10 Years.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dolores River Restoration Partnership: a Private/Public Collaboration Dolores River Restoration Partnership
    DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP: A PRIVATE/PUBLIC COLLABORATION DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP • TIMELINE OF PARTNERSHIP • VISION AND GOALS OF PARTNERSHIP • WHY HAS THE DRRP BEEN SUCH A SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP? • WHY THIS PARTNERSHIP HAS BEEN IMPORTANT TO THE BLM ORIGINS AND HISTORY OF DRRP • INITIAL RIPARIAN WORK ON SAN MIGUEL RIVER IN EARLY 2000’S – LED BY TNC, PRECURSOR TO THE DRRP. • 2009 – TNC AWARDED CONTRACT TO TAMARISK COALITION TO DEVELOP A STRATEGY FOR THE DOLORES RIVER (DR-RAP) • 2010 - DR-RAP FINALIZED • 2010 - FIRST MOU SIGNED • 2010 – FIRST BLM ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT • 2012 – AGO BLUE RIVERS DESIGNATION • 2015 – TRANSITION PLAN FINALIZED • 2015 – DOLORES RIVER HEALTHY LANDS FOCAL AREA • 2015 – SECOND MOU SIGNED • 2016 – SECOND BLM ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION ACTION PLAN (DR-RAP) 1. IDENTIFIED A VISION: “A THRIVING DOLORES RIVER SYSTEM THAT IS ECOLOGICALLY, SOCIALLY, AND ECONOMICALLY SUSTAINABLE IN A MULTIUSE CONTEXT.” “A DOLORES RIVER WATERSHED DOMINATED BY NATIVE VEGETATION, WHERE THE THREATS FROM TAMARISK AND OTHER ASSOCIATED INVASIVE SPECIES HAVE BEEN MITIGATED AND THE RIPARIAN AREAS OF THE WATERSHED CONTINUE TO BECOME MORE NATURALLY FUNCTIONING, SELF-SUSTAINING, DIVERSE, AND RESILIENT OVER TIME.” DRRP MANAGEMENT GOALS Significantly increase the number of sustainable, healthy riparian plant Ecologic communities while reducing those dominated by tamarisk and other invasive, non-native plant species. Develop a professional, competitive, and efficient work force; improve Social aesthetic enjoyment;
    [Show full text]
  • HOP to IT 5% Pay Increase by Mike Wiggins [email protected]
    INFRASTRUCTURE REBUILD ON TAP, PAGE 2 COUNTY NEARS HIRE OF ROADS BOSS, PAGE 8 5 0 ¢April 8-14, 2021 50¢April THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER OF RIDGWAY, OURAY, AND OURAY COUNTY YEAR 143, NO. 45OURAYNEWS.COM County: Continue masking up Mirroring last year's order, commissioners require facial coverings indoors By Liz Teitz them in public indoor places af- space,” the order instructs, in- wear masks for medical reasons, when distancing isn’t possible. [email protected] ter the state relaxed restrictions cluding any publicly or privately and while masks are required The order went into effect at 6 last week. owned indoor area that is open inside restaurants, they can be p.m. Wednesday. Ouray County commissioners Facial coverings must be worn to the public or a place of em- removed when seated. Masks The decision mirrors the one voted Wednesday to adopt a “when waiting to enter, enter- ployment. Children under 11 are are not required in most out- local mask mandate, requiring ing or within any public indoor exempt, as are those who cannot door spaces, but are encouraged SEE MASK ON PAGE 16 City workers get HOP TO IT 5% pay increase By Mike Wiggins [email protected] Ouray City Administrator Silas Clarke this week gave every city employee a 5 percent pay raise, a move he said was needed to boost sagging morale in workers who haven’t received a salary increase for years. Clarke, who said he discussed the plan with city councilors individually, unveiled it to the public for the first time during Monday’s City Council meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 12B-01. Mountainous Volcanic Region
    108°W 106°W F Ancestral ron t Rang LARIMER Uinta Sand Upl e ift Little Snake River Wash Ba North Platte River MOFFAT s Yampa River in JACKSON Park-Gore Range Axial ROUTT Ba s in Up li h ft rc as A ek e Dougl Cr White River GRAND 40°N Whi EXPLANATION RIO BLANCO 40°N te Ri Neogene Volcanics ver Upli Neogene Sediments ft Paleogene Volcanics Eagle River Blue River Paleocene-Cretaceous Intrusives Piceance Basin Roaring ForkCentral River Colorado TroughEAGLE Cretaceous Seaway Sediment GARFIELD Eagle River Sawatch Range Aquifers SUMMIT Mesozoic Sediment Aquifers Ancestral Rockies Basins Colorado River Precambrian Basement PITKIN Arkansas River East Muddy Creek Mountainous Region MESA LAKE PARK Unc Mountainous Valleys ompa ghre Up Colorado Plateaus Region lif DELTA t Laramide Basin Outlines Laramide Uplift Axis Uncompaghre Uplift G un Taylor River CHAFFEE nison Laramide Basin Axis GUNNISON Upl Ancestral Rockies Uplift Axis Uncompahgre River South Arkansas River ift Ancestral Rockies Basin Axis Paradox Basin FREMONT MONTROSE San Lui CUSTER s OURAY Up San Miguel River li ft 38°N SAN MIGUEL SAGUACHE 38°N Animas River HINSDALE DOLORES SAN JUAN Rio Grande MINERAL ag Dolores River n S West Dolores River ua J RIO GRANDE ALAMOSA e San MONTEZUMA n Dom Jua Archuleta Anticlinorium San Los Pinos River LA PLATA COSTILLA San Juan Piedra River Basin CONEJOS Tusas Uplift COSTILLA ARCHULETA COSTILLA 108°W 106°W 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Geology modified from Tweto (1979); structural features from Hemborg (1996). 0 10 20 30 40 50 Kilometers Figure 12b-01.
    [Show full text]
  • Mura Developer Seeks Continued City Investment
    Like us on Facebook! Visit us online at montrosemirror.com! Please Support our Advertisers! Fresh news for free people! © Issue No. 403 Nov. 16 2020 www.montrosecounty.net COMMISSIONERS AWARD CONTRACTS FOR STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN AT FAIRGROUNDS; DAILY COVID & FLU LAB TEST RESULTS; AIRPORT BAGGAGE SYSTEM By Caitlin Switzer www.voahealthservices.org MONTROSE-The Montrose Board of County Com- missioners (BOCC) held a Zoom format meeting at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 10. All commissioners were present for the session. “Welcome everybody,” BOCC Chair Keith Caddy said, and noted that all information discussed in the meeting would be available on the County’s web site. www.scottsprinting.com Fairgrounds Manager Emily Sanchez led all in the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD There were no comments from the public on non- agenda items. COUNTY MANAGER County Manager Ken Norris had no changes to the On Nov. 10, the Montrose BOCC voted to approve the agenda. purchase and installation of a new baggage belt at CONSENT AGENDA Montrose Regional Airport, above. Photo B. Switzer. www.montrosecolorado.com Commissioners voted unanimously Continued pg 22 MURA DEVELOPER SEEKS CONTINUED CITY INVESTMENT By Gail Marvel MONTROSE-Background: The Montrose Urban www.alpinebank.com Renewal Authority (MURA) was formed in late 2016 by a resolution of the Montrose City Council. Generally speaking, the MURA Board oversees the Colorado Outdoors Urban Renewal Area and ad- ministers the Tax Increment Financing (TIF), the funding mechanism to finance public infrastruc- ture in the MURA. The property, which covers 158 acres along the river corridor between the Mont- www.montrosehospital.com rose County Justice Center on the north and West Main on the South, is being developed by the Dra- goo’s Mayfly Outdoors.
    [Show full text]
  • Gunnison River
    final environmental statement wild and scenic river study september 1979 GUNNISON RIVER COLORADO SPECIAL NOTE This environmental statement was initiated by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources in January, 1976. On January 30, 1978, a reorganization within the U.S. Department of the Interior resulted in BOR being restructured and renamed the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS). On March 27, 1978, study responsibility was transferred from HCRS to the National Park Service. The draft environmental statement was prepared by HCRS and cleared by the U.S. Department of the Interior prior to March 27, 1978. Final revisions and publication of both the draft environmental statement, as well as this document have been the responstbility of the National Park Service. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT GUNNISON WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY Prepared by United States Department of the Interior I National Park Service in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources represented by the Water Conservation Board staff Director National Par!< Service SUMMARY ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Department of the Interior, National Park Service 1. Type of action: ( ) Administrative (X) Legislative 2. Brief description of action: The Gunnison Wild and Scenic River Study recommends inclusion of a 26-mile (41.8-km) segment of the Gunnison River, Colorado, and 12,900 acres (S,200 ha) of adjacent land to be classified as wild in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System under the administration of the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. D. I. This river segment extends from the upstream boundary of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument to approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) below the confluence with the Smith Fork.
    [Show full text]
  • Dolores River Desert Bighorn Sheep Herd (DBS-61) Executive Summary
    Dolores River Desert Bighorn Sheep Herd (DBS-61) Executive Summary GMUs: S-63 (Middle Dolores River) and S-64 (Upper Dolores River) Tier Status: Tier 1 Land Ownership: BLM 45%, Private 29%, USFS 24%, State 2%, 2018 Posthunt Population Estimate: 175 Average Length of Longest Horn (harvested rams): 31 “ Posthunt Population Estimate 300 Dolores River Herd 250 200 150 100 50 0 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Proposed Objective S63 S64 Dolores Herd Figure 1. DBS-61 posthunt population estimate 1987-2019. Background and Issue Summary: The Dolores River Desert Bighorn sheep herd (DBS-61) is located in southwest Colorado and occupies the canyon country of the Dolores River, and its tributaries, downstream of McPhee Reservoir. It consists of Game Management Units (GMUs) S-63 (Middle Dolores River) and S-64 (Upper Dolores River). The majority of the occupied bighorn habitat occurs on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). DBS-61 is a Tier 1 bighorn population and should be given the highest priority for inventory, habitat protection and improvement, disease prevention and research. Although bighorn sheep were likely indigenous, none were present in the past century. The current population was established beginning in 1986 with the release of 25 bighorn from Arizona. There have been a total of four transplants of desert bighorn into the Dolores Canyon. Population sources have been from Arizona (source for two transplants), Nevada, and Utah.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild and Scenic Rivers
    Analysis of the Management Situation Moab BLM Field Office CHAPTER 17 – WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 17.1 RESOURCE OVERVIEW The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (WSRA) established legislation for a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS) to protect and preserve designated rivers throughout the nation in their free- flowing condition and to protect and preserve their immediate environments. The WSRA includes policy for managing designated rivers and created processes for designating additional rivers for the NWSRS. Section 5(d) of the Act directs federal agencies to consider the potential for national wild, scenic, and recreational river areas in all planning for the use and development of water and related land resources. A wild and scenic river (WSR) review is being conducted as part of the current Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Moab Field Office (FO) resource management planning process. The first phase of the WSR review is to inventory all potentially eligible rivers within the planning area to determine which of those rivers are eligible for consideration as part of the NWSRS. To be eligible, rivers must be free-flowing and possess at least one outstandingly remarkable value (ORV). ORVs are evaluated in the context of regional and/or national significance and must be river-related. Each river/segment determined to be eligible is then given a tentative classification based on the current level of human development associated with that river/segment. In the second phase of the WSR review, eligible rivers are taken through the land use planning process of the resource management plan (RMP) to determine their "suitability" for designation as WSRs.
    [Show full text]
  • Gunnison-Dolores River Watershed
    United States Department of Agriculture - Colorado Natural Resources Conservation Service Gunnison-Dolores Rivers The Gunnison- Dolores Rivers Watershed Watershed totals 6,014,600 acres. Resources at work from October 1, 2010 - September 30, 2011 It includes all or por- tions of Delta, Gunni- son, Hinsdale, Mon- trose, Ouray, The Colorado Watershed Approach Saguache, and San Miguel Counties. Instead of the traditional statewide approach in NRCS natural resource addressing priority resource issues like soil erosion, specialists are staffed at the Delta, Gunnison, water quality, grazing lands, wildlife, and animal waste, and Montrose USDA NRCS looks to Colorado’s ten watersheds to identify their Field Service Centers to provide technical particular local resource needs and priorities. assistance to watershed residents. Watershed work groups meet annually to determine which NRCS Vision natural resource concerns are most prevalent in their Productive Lands - Healthy Environment communities. In turn, Colorado NRCS focuses its resources on NRCS Mission Helping People addressing those concerns. Colorado’s local Help the Land conservation districts provide leadership in this effort to foster increased decision making at the local level. www.co.nrcs.usda.gov High Priority Resource Concerns in the Gunnison-Dolores Rivers Watershed • Water Quantity • Water Quality • Rangeland Health • Invasive Species • Erosion Helping People Help the Land Watershed Profile Fiscal Year 2011 Environmental Quality Incentives Program Summary Applications Contracts
    [Show full text]
  • Sand Canyon & Rock Creek Trails
    Sand Canyon & Rock Creek Trails Canyons of the Ancients National Monument © Kim Gerhardt CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT Ernest Vallo, Sr. Canyons of the CANYONS Eagle Clan, Pueblo of Acoma: Ancients National OF THE Monument ANCIENTS MAPS & INFORMATION When we come to and the Anasazi a place like Sand Heritage Center Anasazi Heritage Canyon, we pray Center to the ancestral 27501 Highway 184, Hovenweep people. As Indian Dolores, CO 81323 National Monument Canyons people we believe Tel: (970) 882-5600 of the 491 the spirits are Hours: Ancients still here. National Monument 9–5 Summer Mar.- Oct. We ask them Road G for our strength 10–4 Winter Nov.- Feb. and continued https://www.blm.gov/ 160 Mesa Verde survival, and programs/national- 491 National Park thank them conservation-lands/ colorado/canyons-of-the- for sharing their home place. In the Acoma ancients language I say, “Good morning. I’ve brought A public land administered my friends. If we approached in the wrong way, by the Bureau of Land please excuse our ignorance.” Management. 2 Please Stay on Designated Trails Welcome to the Sand Canyon & Rock Creek Trails 3 anyons of the Ancients National Monument was created to protect cultural and Cnatural resources on a landscape scale. It is part of the Bureau of Land Management’s National Landscape Conservation System and includes almost 171,000 acres of public land. The Sand Canyon and Rock Creek Trails are open for hiking, mountain biking, or horseback riding on designated routes only. Most of the Monument is backcountry. Visitors to Canyons of the Ancients are encouraged to start at the Anasazi Heritage Center near Dolores, Mountain Biking Tips David Sanders Colorado, where they can get current information from local rider Dani Gregory: Park Ranger, Canyons of the Ancients: about the Monument and experience the museum’s • Hikers and bikers are supposed to stop for • All it takes is for exhibits, films, and hands-on discovery area.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado Bike Tour – San Juan Skyway Inn to Inn L
    Colorado Bike Tour San Juan Skyway Inn to Inn Loop Start/End Location: Ridgway, Colorado Touring Style: Fully SAG Supported Inn to Inn Bike Tour Dates: Saturday June 23rd, 2012 to Friday June 29th, 2012 Pre-Trip Meeting Date: Q and A over Coffee Wed. May 30th 2012, Downtown Mill, 8th and P, 7pm Registration Deadline: Friday May 25th, 2012 Price*: $950 – students & members / $875 – non-member *Add $100 for transportation from Lincoln (5 max) Total Tour Days: 7 Days Riding Days: 5 Days Orientation Days: 1 Day Departure Days: 1 Day Total Miles: 233 miles Daily Mileage: 35 – 65 miles Total Elevation Gain/Loss: 15,000 feet Welcome to the Adventure! Congratulations on your decision to join Outdoor Adventures on a bike tour of the historic San Juan Skyway in southwestern Colorado. Now that you have registered, the next step is to prepare yourself and your bicycle for this exciting adventure. Please read over this packet carefully. It should help cyclists of all abilities better prepare for this trip and will hopefully answer many of the questions you may have. Please do not hesitate to contact your trip leaders with any inquiry. They would be excited to chat with you about your upcoming bike tour. Colorado Bike Tour – San Juan Skyway Inn to Inn Loop What could be better than spending a week cycling the valleys and steep mountain passes of beautiful southwestern Colorado? On this fully-supported bike tour, you and your tour mates will complete a 233-mile loop called the San Juan Skyway, traversing some of Colorado’s most scenic and challenging cycling terrain.
    [Show full text]
  • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Chandler Smith, Tour Director * 303-954-6702, [email protected]
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Chandler Smith, Tour Director * 303-954-6702, [email protected] 2008 RIDE THE ROCKIES ROUTE ANNOUNCED DENVER (February 3, 2008) – The Denver Post Ride The Rockies presented by Wells Fargo announced the route today for its 23rd annual Colorado bicycle tour, June 15-21, 2008. Two thousand cyclists will begin their 435-mile trek in Durango, Colorado and finish seven days later in Breckenridge, Colorado. The complete 2008 schedule is: June 14 Durango – Registration June 15 Durango to Cortez 49 miles June 16 Cortez to Telluride 77 miles Lizard Head Pass – 10,222 feet June 17 Telluride to Montrose 65 miles Dallas Divide – 8,970 feet June 18 Montrose to Crested Butte 92 miles Cerro Summit – 7,950 feet Blue Mesa Summit – 9,288 feet June 19 Crested Butte – REST DAY June 20 Crested Butte to Buena Vista 75 miles Cottonwood Pass – 12,126 feet June 21 Buena Vista to Breckenridge 77 miles Trout Creek Pass – 9,346 feet Hoosier Pass – 11,542 feet “We couldn’t be more pleased with the 2008 route,” said Tour Director Chandler Smith. “Cyclists will travel classic terrain from tours past and visit towns rich in Colorado history. This year’s event features breathtaking views of Southwestern Colorado and offers cyclists a well deserved rest day in Crested Butte, a town we are visiting for only the second time.” "Ride The Rockies is a 23-year Colorado tradition and all of us at Wells Fargo are excited to be part of this outstanding event again in 2008,” said Nathan Christian, Wells Fargo’s regional president for Colorado.
    [Show full text]
  • Rico-West Dolores Roads and Trails (Travel Management) Project Final Draft Environmental Impact Statement
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rico-West Dolores Roads and Trails (Travel Management) Project Final Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dolores District, San Juan National Forest, Dolores and Montezuma Counties, Colorado November, 2017 For More Information Contact: Derek Padilla, Dolores District Ranger Dolores District 29211 Hwy. 184 Dolores, CO 81323 970-882-7296 [email protected] FAX: 970-882-6841 1 RWD FEIS In accordance with federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, office, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 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 responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online 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.
    [Show full text]