Conger Rock Harvesting Area EAa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · · 2011-11-22Rifle, Colorado 81650 970-625-6864 [email protected] ... looking north at access

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service February 2009

For Information Contact: Skye Sieber 0094 County Road 244

Rifle, Colorado 81650 970-625-6864

[email protected]

Environmental Assessment Conger Rock Harvesting Area Aspen-Sopris Ranger District, White River National Forest Gunnison County, Colorado Legal Description: T11S, R88W, Sections 21 and 22, 6th P.M.

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 a 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 to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202)

720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Environmental Assessment Conger Rock Harvesting Area

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................i

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ iii Document Structure ........................................................................................................ v

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................... 1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Need for Action .......................................................................................... 5 Proposed Action .............................................................................................................. 5 Decision Framework ....................................................................................................... 6 Public Involvement ......................................................................................................... 6 Issues ............................................................................................................................... 7

Chapter 2: Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ................................................... 8 Alternatives Considered in Detail ................................................................................... 8 Design Criteria ................................................................................................................ 9 Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................................... 11

Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT and Environmental Consequences ............... 14 Location and General Information ................................................................................ 14 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................... 15 Water Resources ........................................................................................................... 17 Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and IRAs ........................................................... 18 Human Environment ..................................................................................................... 20 Scenic Resources .......................................................................................................... 22 Transportation, Air Quality and Noise.......................................................................... 26 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................... 28 Terrestrial Wildlife........................................................................................................ 30 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 33

Chapter 4: Consulation and Coordination ..................................................................... 35

Chapter 5: References .................................................................................................. 37

ii

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of Effects Analysis Resource ............................................................. 12 Table 2. Air quality standards ........................................................................................... 26

Table 3. Plant species noted in the proposed project area ................................................ 28

Table 4. Federally listed species, Forest Service sensitive species, Forest Plan Species of Viability Concern, and Management Indicator Species potentially occurring in the project area .............................................................................. 31

List of Figures

Figure 1 – General location map of Conger Harvesting Area ............................................ 2 Figure 2 – Detailed map of Conger Harvesting Area ......................................................... 3

Figure 3 – Features of the area surrounding area ................................................................ 4

List of Photographs

Photo 1: Key Observation Point (KOP) #1, looking north toward the project area (white arrow is pointing in the direction of the project area) ............................ 24

Photo 2: Zoom in to the talus slope from KOP #1, looking north across the river (trees in foreground screen most vantage points from the road below). ............ 25

Photo 3: KOP #2, looking north at access road to project area (arrows sow areas where current work will progress to new talus slope) ....................................... 25

Photo 4: Color change in hue within the current private rock harvesting area ................. 26


iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The White River National Forest (WRNF) is evaluating a proposal submitted by the Gallegos Corporation to manually remove rock from a talus slope on National Forest System (NFS) lands near Marble, Colorado. The proposed collection area is 23.33 acres and located in T11S, R88W, Sections 21 and 22 on the Aspen-Sopris Ranger District. Access to the site is from a private road off of Gunnison County Road 3. No new access roads are proposed and rock would be harvested using temporary roads that are re-graded as the process is completed. Annual estimated tonnage removed ranges from 0 to 1,244 tons. Rock harvesting is planned for 1-2 week sessions throughout the summer months and would be ongoing for up to 30 years. The rock harvested from this site would be sold for use in construction projects. The Gallegos Corporation has been manually removing rock for construction purposes from a talus slope located on private property near Marble since 1998. At that time, a Mining Permit for Construction Material Operation was issued by the State of Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS), formerly the Division of Minerals and Geology. Gallegos Corporation has submitted a Minerals Material Permit Application to the Forest Service (FS) in order to continue harvesting rock material on NFS lands located to the north of the current operation. The surface disturbance is limited to the rock harvesting; there are no structures, diversions, settling ponds, waste dumps or staging pads associated with the process. The operation does not require any milling, exploration activities, or tailings disposal. No gravels are present on site. Equipment used would be a fork lift and flat bed truck. Storage of hazardous materials (chemicals, fuels, etc.) will take place off site. No hazardous materials of any kind will be stored on NFS lands. This environmental assessment (EA) includes a site specific analysis of the proposed project’s effects on: geology and soils, water resources, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness areas, inventoried roadless areas, scenic resources, recreation, transportation, air quality, noise, hazardous wastes, biological factors, and cultural resources. Based upon the effects of the proposed action, the responsible official will decide whether or not to allow this activity on NFS lands. If allowed, this activity would be authorized under a mineral materials permit. The proposed action would cause no increase in traffic over what has occurred during the past 10 years of rock harvesting on private land. The rock harvesting would be visible from properties located to the south and southeast for up to approximately 20 weeks between June and October. Rock harvesting would also result in a long term color contrast in the talus slope. The color change from harvesting results in a lighter hue, but blends with the same hues produced by natural erosion in the river sediments below. These changes would be the same as those that have occurred during past operations, as well.

Conger Rock Harvesting Area Environmental Assessment

iv

The analysis found that compared to the no action alternative, there are no substantial direct, indirect or cumulative effects from the proposed action that were not addressed by the design criteria for the rock harvesting. The design criteria are protective measures that will be followed during implementation of the proposed activity. Essentially, the proposed action is a continuation of past operations on the private Conger Area, and the effects from the new activity would be no different from those that have occurred over the last decade. The analysis of environmental resources in this EA strongly suggests that there were no substantial effects from the past rock harvesting activities, nor would future activities pose any threat to the environment.


v

Document Structure The Forest Service (FS) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action. The document is organized into four parts:

• Introduction: This section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the FS informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.

• Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as compared to no action and a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with the proposed action.

• Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action contrasted to the existing condition, which represents the no action alternative as set forth in 36 CFR 220.7.(b)(2)(ii). This analysis is organized by resource area where each section has a description of the affected environment followed by the effects of the proposed action compared with no action.

• Consultation and Coordination: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of this EA.

Additional documentation, including Management Indicator Species (MIS) report and a biological assessment and evaluation (BA/BE), may be found in the project planning record located at the Aspen-Sopris Ranger District Office in Carbondale, Colorado.


1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Background ________________________________

General Description of the Project Area

The project area is located approximately 30 miles south of Glenwood Springs and 1.1 miles west of Marble, Colorado, off of Gunnison County Road 3 in the SE ¼ of Section 21 and SW ¼ of Section 22, Township 11 South, Range 88 West. The project area encompasses 23.33 acres. A general location map of the project area is shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3. The proposed project area is adjacent to an existing 7.84-acre private rock harvesting area, called the Conger Rock Harvesting site, where rock has been harvested by Gallegos Corporation since 1998. The rock in the area is generally classified as a quartz monzonite and forms a steep talus slope that extends uphill throughout the project area. Elevation at the site is approximately 7,900 feet in the lower portion and 8,400 feet at the top. Slopes are steep ranging from approximately 40% to 60% (EAA 1997). The terrain is rugged and not easily traversed. The Crystal River flows southeast in the valley bottom, and is approximately 235 feet southwest of the closest corner of the proposed rock harvesting area and over 160 feet below the project area. There are no springs or streams on the site. A landing strip exists on private land to the south and below the project area, as well as a gravel quarry. The Marble Cemetery is located to the northwest, but not visible from the site. Figure 2 shows the site topography and landmarks. Large Englemann spruce and Douglas-fir trees provide a screen from the project staging area, so that it is difficult to see from the road below. The area contains primarily talus, except for a few patches of trees and vegetation that exist along the sides of the slope.

Management Area Prescriptions

The 2002 Revised White River National Forest (WRNF) Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) gives specific direction on how the FS manages different land areas. These land management areas define where different management activities may be carried out and show where different kinds of public uses occur. Each area is defined by a primary management theme, a management area description and set of elements that guide the activities taking place in it. All lands administered by the WRNF are managed according to these prescriptions. These management areas provide sustainability of the physical, biological and scenic values of general forest and rangelands. Habitat and vegetation are managed to achieve and maintain the desired vegetation. Land management areas are shown in Figure 2.


2

Figure 1 – General location map of Conger Harvesting Area


3

Figure 2 – Detailed map of Conger Harvesting Area


4

Figure 3 – Features of the area surrounding area


5

The project area lies within the 4.4 Recreation Rivers, Designated and Eligible Management Area in accordance with the Forest Plan (pp. 3-47 to 3-48). Though not a designated river, the Crystal River is eligible for inclusion in the national system and, therefore, managed as a wild and scenic river. Recreational rivers are managed to protect and perpetuate eligible and designated recreation river segments (Forest Plan, p. 3-353). According to the Forest Plan, the ”outstandingly remarkable values that will be recognized in managing the Crystal River are scenery, historic, and recreational values” (p. F-9). Therefore, the WRNF desires to emphasize the health and appearance of vegetation communities in these areas. The Forest Plan acknowledges that “evidence of human activities or habitation due to mining, milling, or grazing may be present now and in the future” in the 4.4 Management Area. According to FS Land Status Records and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Master Title Plat Records, the project area in T11S, R88W, Sections 21 and 22 is not located on any lands withdrawn from mineral entry (FS 2008). The project boundary is located just outside of Management Area 5.41 Deer and Elk Winter Range to the north and east and private land to the west and south.

Purpose and Need for Action __________________ The purpose of this project is to provide the Gallegos Corporation with a Minerals Material Permit in order to obtain addition rock material from NFS lands for construction purposes. This action is needed, because operations on the existing Conger Harvesting area are nearly complete. Gallegos Corporation desires to continue its operations onto adjacent forest lands and harvest rock talus material located directly adjacent to existing and ongoing operations at the Conger Rock Harvesting Area. This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the 2002 White River National Forest Plan, and helps move the project area towards desired conditions described in that plan (FS 2002). Specifically, the action meets the following WRNF minerals program objective:

• Encourage and facilitate the orderly exploration, development, and production of mineral resources within NFS lands (Forest Plan, Part 2, Section 4).

The rock material from the talus slopes within the project area is considered a salable mineral for building materials.

Proposed Action ____________________________ The action proposed by the FS to meet the purpose and need, is to permit the Gallegos Corporation to expand its current operations in the private Conger Rock Harvesting Area to adjacent NFS lands.


6

Access to the site is from an existing private two-track dirt road that leads to the current staging area at the Conger Rock Harvesting site. Gallegos Corporation owns the private land and access road in this area. No new construction of access roads would be required. The existing road will be used to access the proposed project. Temporary 10-ft width harvesting roads are created, and simultaneously graded as rock harvesting is completed. The operation does not require any structures, ponds, waste piles, or use of toxic materials. Further details are provided in Chapter 2, Proposed Action. The duration of rock harvesting is approximate 1-2 weeks at a time during the 4-month summer operating season. The Gallegos Corporation plans to harvest rock for 30 years on this schedule. The 30-year projection is based on the amount of reserve rock material on site and annual production rates (approximately 1,200 tons per year). Thirty (30) years reflects an estimated time to manually remove rock by hand versus the use of heavy equipment. Also harvesting rock on adjacent private land during the past 10 years has shown that this operation is based solely on supply and demand; production can be zero on lean years.

Decision Framework ________________________ For this project, the responsible official is the Aspen-Sopris District Ranger. Given the purpose and need, the responsible official reviews the EA in order to make the following decisions:

• Should the FS allow Gallegos Corporation to expand their current operation on to NFS Lands and issue a Minerals Materials Permit?

• If so, how much material should be removed on an annual basis?

• When should these operations take place and for how long?

• What design criteria if any, is necessary? This EA discloses the environmental effects of the proposed action as compared to no action. It is not a decision document. A subsequent Decision Notice, signed by the District Ranger, will document the decision and rationale for selection of the preferred alternative.

Public Involvement __________________________ The proposal was listed in the WRNF’s Schedule of Proposed Actions beginning in September 2008. The proposal was sent to 25 individuals, Tribal Officials, and other agencies for scoping on September 18, 2008. Public notices requesting comments were also posted in the Aspen Daily Times, Glenwood Springs Post Independent, and Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. Eight phone calls and six letters were received in response to this early public notice. The interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address from these comments.


7

Issues _____________________________________ The FS separates NEPA issues into two groups: key and non-key issues. Key issues are defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-key issues are identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…” A list of non-key issues and rationale for this classification may be found at the Aspen-Sopris Ranger District in the project record. As for key issues, the FS identified five topics raised during scoping. These include:

• Scenic Resources: The proposed action could impact scenery in the area.

• Noise: The proposed action could produce noise to nearby residences and wildlife.

• Vegetation and Wildlife: The proposed action could affect vegetation and wildlife in the area (by fragmentation).

• Transportation: The proposed action could increase traffic in the area.

• Air: The proposed action could produce dust in the area.

The above issues helped the agency identify appropriate Design Criteria (see Chapter 2) that the Gallegos Corporation needs to follow during project implementation. These issues also focus the discussion of environmental consequences in Chapter 3. The Design Criteria specific to this project are considered sufficient measures to reduce or avoid potential impacts on the above resources. As stated in 36 CFR 220.7(b)(2)(i) “when there are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources (NEPA, section 102(2)(e)), the EA need only analyze the proposed action and proceed without consideration of additional alternatives.” One comment suggested moving the location of the rock collection area to the south-southwest. However, this would have increased the visibility and proximity from the road below and, therefore, was an alternative not analyzed in detail.


8

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Conger Rock Harvesting project. The project area is shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Alternatives Considered in Detail ______________ No Action

The effects of the no action alternative are analyzed in this EA as required by CEQ regulations. Under no action, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No mineral materials permit would be issued and no rock harvesting would take place. Consideration of the no action alternative is documented in Chapter 3 by contrasting the impacts of the proposed action with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented (36 CFR 220.7(b)(2)(ii)).

Proposed Action The proposed action would manually remove surface rock from a talus slope located near Marble, Colorado (Figure 1). The project area is 23.33 acres and located on NFS lands in T11S, R88W, Sections 21 and 22, in Gunnison County. Access to the site is from a private road off of Gunnison County Road 3. Gallegos Corporation has been harvesting rock material from a 7.84-acre private property adjacent to the proposed project area since 1998. No new access roads are proposed, and rock would be harvested using temporary roads that are re-graded as the harvesting process is completed. The rock material is gathered by hand and stacked on pallets that are sided with wire mesh. A flat-bed truck with a capacity to carry eight pallets is then used to transport the material to the Gallegos Company material yard after enough pallets are available to warrant a truck trip. This occurs at an average of two times per week during 1-2 week sessions. Total weekly truck trips can range from one to a maximum of ten during the operating season (June to October). The maximum trips (10 trips), usually takes place in the first and final weeks of operation when equipment and material is transported to and from the site. Initially, mineral material would be harvested from a 5.86 acre area (Figure 1). The current harvesting operation on private land operation would move to the north-northwest and west into the expanded harvesting area (Figure 1) as initial operations are completed. The total volume proposed for harvest from the 23.3 acres is estimated to be 37,639 cubic yards, based on an approximate 1-foot depth of material. Annual estimated tonnage removed ranges from 0 to 1,244 tons. The size of the material harvested ranges from 3-5 inch “rubble,” 6-10 inch “drywall” and large boulders (> 3 tons) used for landscaping purposes. Operations are planned for 1-2 weeks sessions throughout the summer months and would be ongoing for up to 30 years. The rock harvested from this site would be sold for use in construction projects


9

The surface disturbance is limited to the rock harvesting; there are no structures, diversions, settling ponds, waste dumps or staging pads associated with the process. The operation does not require any milling, exploration activities, or tailings disposal. No gravels are present on site. Generally, at least five feet of talus remains on the slopes after harvesting is complete. The excavation may reach soil or leave less than five feet of talus. These two scenarios are addressed in the design criteria. Equipment used would be a fork lift (Bobcat) and flatbed truck. The equipment only moves pallets to staging areas. Manual rock harvesting activities consume most of the operation duration and are not readily seen or heard. Reclamation activities involve a dozer and backhoe, but occur only 1 to 2 weeks of the year. All fueling and services of equipment is done off site and, therefore, there is little risk for spills and no use of toxic substances.

Design Criteria ______________________________ Design Criteria are protective measures included as upfront features of the proposed action and help address key issues brought up during scoping. These design features were derived from the mining plan of operations submitted by the Gallegos Corporation; applicable State and Federal law, regulation, and policy; or were identified by the FS as additional actions needed to avoid or minimize environmental effects on specific resources. The effects analysis in Chapter 3 is based on the assumption that design criteria are followed as described during project implementation. Issues that were raised during scoping, regarding scenery, noise, biological factors, transportation, and air, have been addressed by the measures in the Design Criteria. Therefore, no additional mitigation is required beyond these measures. The Design Criteria are organized by resource category.

Air Quality 1. The following measures will be taken to minimize emissions or discharges of air

contaminants from operations:

• No burning of cleared materials and rubbish.

• Harvest roads will be watered to minimize dust as needed.

Noise Noise will be minimized by compliance with applicable state and county laws and regulations regarding the prevention, control and abatement of harmful noise levels.

Geology 1. The slope is not over steepened to create a potentially unstable slope. Reclaimed

slopes will be 2:1. 2. A mining and reclamation permit for Construction Material Mining Operations will

be maintained with the State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS) and the Gunnison County Conditional Use Permit.


10

Historic and Archaeological Resources and Paleontology

1. All employees of Gallegos Corporation, contractors, subcontractors or other parties associated with the project will be instructed that, upon discovering evidence of possible prehistoric, historic or archaeological objects, work will cease immediately at that location and the Site Superintendent will be notified, giving the location and nature of the findings. The FS will be notified immediately. Care will be exercised so as not to disturb or damage artifacts or fossils uncovered during excavation operations.

2. Equipment operators will be informed that the removal, injury, defacement or alteration of any object of archaeological or historic interest is a federal crime and may be punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.

3. During project implementation, in the unlikely event of an inadvertent encounter of Native American remains or grave objects, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) requires that all activities must cease in their discovery area, that a reasonable effort be made to protect the items found or unearthed, and that immediate notification be made to the agency Authorized Officers as well as the appropriate Native American group(s) (IV C.2). Notice of such a discovery may be followed by a 30-day delay (NAGPRA Section 3(d)). Further actions may also require compliance under provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act.

Soils

1. A Stormwater Discharge Permit has been obtained and will be maintained from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Water Quality Control Division.

2. Sediment and erosion controls (silt fence) will be installed prior to rock harvesting on NFS lands. The sediment and erosion controls will be maintained and repaired during the course of rock harvesting.

3. Contemporaneous reclamation will be performed as harvesting is completed in a specific area. Reclamation usually occurs in the fall and includes regrading temporary harvesting roads when they are no longer needed.

Biodiversity and Wildlife 1. Individual conifer trees (>3 inches dbh) and tree islands (>20 feet diameter) will be

avoided. All standing trees and snags will be left in place for cavity nesting birds and wildlife cover. No tree clearing will be allowed for rock collection or temporary road construction without authorization from the FS.

2. Timing restrictions for elk calving are in effect from May 15 to June 20. No disturbance to the area is allowed during this timeframe.

Reclamation

1. Post-harvesting slopes and temporary harvesting roads will be re-graded to a 2:1 slope.


11

2. In the unlikely event that surface rock is harvested to a depth that uncovers soil, rock will be replaced to cover bare soil.

3. Bonding will be consistent with the State permit based on discussions between the FS and Gallegos Corporation.

Weed Management

1. Gallegos Corporation will control weeds in accordance with the WRNF Invasive Plant Species Management EA (FS 2007)

2. Preventative actions will include the cleaning of vehicles and equipment prior to bringing them into the project area.

3. Treatments will be developed using integrated weed management principles for each species and situation. Treatments may include hand pulling and herbicide application.

4. Monitoring of noxious weeds will be conducted during harvesting operations to detect new infestations, evaluate prevention and/or treatment success, and identify the need for re-treatment.

Scenic Resources

1. To limit visual impacts, the rock harvesting operation will be located so they are visually screened (by topography and trees), as much possible, from County Road 3. Currently, large trees (greater than 12 inches diameter serve as a screen for the operation from the road and houses below along the Crystal River.

2. Gallegos Corporation will limit visual impacts by harvesting rocks behind ridges or existing vegetation whenever possible.

3. The FS has identified two key observation points (KOP) to monitor visual changes. Gallegos Corporation will take photographs of the project area from these points at the beginning and end of each field season to record site conditions and changes.

Sanitary Facilities Portable toilets will be provided for workers at the site. These will be located on private land and maintained and removed by Gallegos Corporation as appropriate.

Hazardous Materials No hazardous materials of any kind will be stored on NFS lands. Fuel for equipment will be transported to the site in a tank mounted to the bed of a pickup truck. These trucks will be onsite during daytime operations only.

Comparison of Alternatives ___________________ This section compares the effects of implementing the proposed action versus no action. Information in Table 1 summarizes the findings of the effects analysis, which is detailed in Chapter 3.


12

Table 1. Summary of Effects Analysis

Resource Proposed Action No Action

Geology and Soils

Direct effects include a slight change in topography from stabilizing slope during reclamation. The amount of talus would be reduced by approximately 37,639 cubic yards. The effects would add to those from other rock harvesting activities in the area. Effects to geology and soils would be no different than those from current rock gathering activities.

No Effects

Water Resources

Indirect effects include the possibility that sediment from the rock harvesting activities would enter the Crystal River. Little soil presently exists on the talus slope that would create a sediment runoff, and the use of silt fences and erosion control should minimize an effects. Effects to water resources would be no different than those from current rock gathering activities.

No Effects

Wilderness Areas

Noise and dust would not likely be detectable on the adjacent wilderness above the current noise levels from the residential area and traffic on existing County Road 3. There is no access to the Wilderness from the project area. Effects to wilderness areas would be no different than those from current rock gathering activities.

No Effects

Wild and Scenic Rivers

The project area can be seen from the Crystal River in some locations, as it has been since 1998. The area has historically been mined, and such operations are common in the area. Effects to the Crystal River would be no different than those from current rock gathering activities.

No Effects

Inventoried Roadless Areas

(IRA)

Direct effects include noise and dust that may be detectable on the edge of the adjacent IRA, however there is no direct access to the IRA from the site. Effects from other rock operations, and tourist and residential traffic would add to any effects from the rock harvesting operations. Effects to IRAs would be no different than those from current rock gathering activities.

No Effects

Scenic Resources

The project area is visible from portions of a residential area to the south. There would be a long-term color change in the rock talus, however; the colors are the similar to those of other naturally eroded features in the area such as river alluvium. Scenic effects from tourism and residental activities would add to those from the rock harvesting activities. Effects to scenic resources would be no different than those from current rock gathering activities.

No Effects

Transportation There would be 2 weekly truck trips from the site to Glenwood Springs. These effects would be no different than the traffic level from current operations.

No Effects

Air Quality Dust may be produced in dry summer months. Effects would be mitigated by dust abatement measures in Design Criteria. Effects to air quality would be no different than those from current rock gathering activities.

No Effects

Noise

The overall effects from noise would be seasonal and barely audible over the sounds of the Crystal River and nearby waterfalls. This effect would be the same as the noise generated since 1998 from the same activities on private land.

No Effects


13

Table 1. Summary of Effects Analysis

Resource Proposed Action No Action

Vegetation

There would be minimal effects to vegetation since no trees or snags will be removed. The rock harvesting activites could spread noxious and invasive weed species. However, the Design Critera requires a weed management plan to prevent this from happening. Effects to vegetation would be no different than those from current rock gathering activities.

No Effects

Wildlife, Fish, and Plants

There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to sensitive species, species of viability concern, or federally listed species. The project would not affect trends in MIS or their habitat. There would be no long-term effects, such as the potential displacement of wildlife, resulting from rock harvesting activities for the next 30 years. The project area provides limited vegetation to support wildlife, and life requisites for many species are absent. Rock gathering activites would not preclude species that have potential habitat in the project area from foraging, reproduction, or rearing young

No Effects

Cultural Resources

There would be no effect on Cultural Resources. The Design Criteria sets forth protective measures in the event that historic or archeologic resources are uncovered. Effects to cultural resources would be no different than those from current rock gathering activities.

No Effects

Recreation

Recreation in the area would not be hindered by the rock harvesting activities. The terrain at the site is steep and rugged and not conducive to most recreational activities. Effects to recreation would be no different than those from current rock gathering activities, and in general is expected to increase in the Crystal Valley area.

No Effects

Socioeconomics

Effects to socioeconomics would be no different than those from current rock gathering activities. The project employs less than 5 laborers. Property values have generally increased in the past decade, and the continuation or rock gathering would not effect these values any more than it has in the past. Tourism and recreation in the general area expected to increase as well as development activities on private property adjacent to the forest.

No Effects

Wastes, Hazardous and

Solids

There would be no effects from Hazardous Wastes. No hazardous wastes are generated by the activity, nor are there such wastes stored on the rock harvesting site.

No Effects


14

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section summarizes the physical, biological, and social resources of the affected project area and the potential effects to those resources from proposed rock harvesting activities. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in Chapter 2. The direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the proposed rock gathering on issue-related resources are compared to the no action alternative throughout. Under the no action alternative, the FS would not issue the minerals material permit to the Gallegos Corporation, and there would be no effects to any resources. No action is a required alternative in NEPA analysis.

Location and General Information The project area is located approximately 30 miles south of Glenwood Springs and 1.1 miles west of Marble, Colorado, off of Gunnison County Road 3 in the SE ¼ of the SE ½ of Section 21, Township 11 South, Range 88 West. The project area encompasses 23.33 acres. A general location map of the project area is provided in Figure 1, and detail of the area in Figures 2 and 3. Access to the area is generally from Interstate 70, exiting at Glenwood Springs (Exit 116), and southeast State Highway 82 to Carbondale. The road to the site continues south on Highway 133 to Gunnison County Road 3 leading southwest toward Marble. Access to the site is screened by tall trees, and not readily visible from the County Road 3. The site is located just past Island Lake, but before the landings strip that exists on the north side of the Crystal River. The access is a dirt two-track road that traverses north from County Road 3, past a single family residence, and serpentines to the existing private land known as the Conger Harvesting Area. The proposed rock harvesting area lies north-northwest above the existing Conger area. It is within the WRNF boundary, on a steep, southwest facing side slope of the Crystal River canyon. The side slope consists of talus and very little vegetation. The area is located in the jagged peaks of the Elk Mountains of Western Colorado, where lands are primarily managed by the WRNF. Elevations in the area range from 7,900 feet ASL to over 12,000 feet ASL. The proposed rock harvesting area ranges from 7,900 feet ASL in the lower portion and 8,400 feet ASL at the top. Private lands exist along the Crystal River, below and to the south and east of the site. There are about two dozen single family homes or trailers in a residential area across County Road 3 and on the south side of the Crystal River. The town of Marble is located 1.1 miles to the southeast and is well known for its marble quarry (the Yule Quarry). The area has been historically mined since the early 1800s (Nelson 2006).


15

The project area (Marble area) receives 28 inches of rain per year. Snowfall averages 169 inches. The number of days with any measurable precipitation is 92. Temperatures range from 76º F to 8º F (Sperling 2008).

Geology and Soils

Existing Environment

The area is located in the Elk Mountains of Western Colorado where bedrock geology is complex and the Crystal River winds its way through the steep slopes of the glacial valley. Talus slopes are a common feature in the area; similar areas exist along Highway 82 to Carbondale, especially in the area of Avalanche Creek.

General Geology

The geology of the project area consists of an igneous structure, known as the Raspberry Creek Phacolith, which intruded the underlying bedrock of Cretaceous age strata (Colorado Geologic Survey [CGS] 1972). The surface deposits of talus were formed from erosion, and Pleistocene glaciations. Geologic mapping (USGS 1984) describes the unit in the project area as Middle Tertiary intrusive rocks of the Oligocene age in the form of dikes, sills and irregular bodies. Surrounding these are alluvial deposits of gravel, sand, silt and clay of the Holocene age. Also, terrace and pediment gravels are found in small areas of alluvial fans, talus and landslide deposits. Nearby Cretaceous sedimentary deposits are the Mesa Verde and Mancos formations; however, these deposits are located outside of the project area, resulting in no paleontological resource possibilities.

Geologic Hazards

The geomorphic evolution of the area has been affected by rock type and structure, by the Pleistocene glaciation, and finally by intensive fluvial (river/stream) action and mass wasting (gravity moving rocks downslope). These processes have modified the area and continue to be closely related to the geologic hazard conditions in the area (CGS 1972). Active debris flow depositional areas can be seen on the road from Carbondale to Marble, especially in the area of Carbonate and Slate Creeks (CGS 2007). Although the site is not located near the historic mud flows and avalanches of the nearby Slate and Carbonate Creek areas, it is classified as being within a Geologic Hazard (landslide/earthflow) area (CGS 1972; 2007).

Minerals

The talus in the area has been harvested by Gallegos Corporation since 1998. The proposed rock harvesting area on FS lands is a continuation of this effort. The talus has


16

been identified as mostly granodiorite and quartz monzonite (similar to granite) and the majority of the rocks are angular, ranging from 6 to 24 inches (EAA 1997). The FS manages minerals and geology according to Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2800 (FMS 1990). This policy is in accordance with the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 228 Minerals, Subpart C – Disposal of Mineral Materials. The FS considers the talus as a salable mineral (FSM 2800, ch. 2850). The policy of the FS is to “make mineral materials on National Forest lands available to the public and to local, State and Federal Government agencies where reasonable protection of, or mitigation of effects on, other resources is assured and where removal is not prohibited” (36 CFR Part 228.43). The Colorado DRMS (formerly the Division of Minerals and Geology) issued a permit for Gallegos Corporation to harvest materials on the private Conger area in 1998 (State of Colorado 1998). Currently an expanded permit is pending, and requires completion of this EA and authorization to remove rocks by the FS. Minerals have been historically mined in the vicinity of the project, including marble and coal. The area is not open to oil and gas leasing according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission website (COGCC 2008). Two coal mines, the Rapid Creek and Genter Mines, are located in Section 20, approximately 1.5 to 2 miles to the west. These mines are not active according to the Colorado Division of Mining Reclamation and Safety. There are no known abandoned land mines near the project area.

Soils

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey (NRCS 2009) identified soils in the project area as map unit 395D – the Scout Family rock outcrop and cryoborolis complex. The surficial deposits are primarily the talus material proposed for collection where weathering has removed most soils from the surface. Cryoborolis has moderate runoff and moderately rapid permeability. These soils sustain the scattered patches of vegetation in the area. Soils taxa are described in the Forest Plan (FS 2002) for the area as Cryochrepts and Cryoboralfs, and are associated with the steep glacial slopes and coniferous forests in the area. This is consistent with the NRCS.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

The proposed rock harvesting operation would remove approximately 1,200 tons of talus per year. The proposed rock harvesting would not remove the entire talus slope, and operations generally leave at least five feet of rock after building materials are hand-picked. The talus is a surface deposit and no underground operations are involved. The proposed harvesting of rock material would change the topography slightly and provide more stability to the potentially unstable steep slopes (scarps). The Design Criteria includes protective measures to prevent sliding using storm water management and slope grading. The post-harvesting slopes will be 2:1, which is far less steep than the existing 1¼- ½:1 slope.


17

A geologic hazards study was conducted in 1997 and concluded that potential hazards were minor given the simplicity of the operations (EAA 1997). No explosives would be used and, therefore, there is little likelihood of a landslide being triggered from harvesting operations. The residential property that exists near the area, in the northeast corner of Section 28 (Figure 3), is too far from the proposed work to be at risk. Furthermore, the road that traverses the slope near the project area has remained unchanged for at least 35 years (EAA 1997) providing evidence of slope stability. The “microclimate” of the area may also be important in the slope stability of the area (EAA 1997). Because the slope is south facing, it has a warmer and drier surface with less snow accumulation and shorter snow retention, resulting in increased slope stability in similar areas (Soule 1976). Because of the presence of the talus and, therefore, lack of surface soils, there would be little effect to soils from the rock harvesting activities. The potential for any sediment to enter the Crystal River from the project area above is even further reduced by using silt fencing, as recommended in the Design Criteria. Another rock operation, the Raymond Pit (DRMS 2008), located in Section 27 just to the east of the proposed rock harvesting area, would contribute similar effects to geology and soils in the general area. Salable minerals, such as the talus involved in the proposed rock harvesting area, is plentiful in the WRNF. The public demand for building stone from the WRNF will continue to be high in the future (FS 2002, page 3-75). The FS decision to grant the mineral material permit to the Gallegos Corporation would add to the trend to supply FS materials to other companies. It is expected that the forest will have to re-evaluate the salable minerals program in the future (FS 2002, p. 3-76). However, this should not affect the proposed rock harvesting area at this point in time.

Water Resources


The project is located 1,056 feet (.2 miles) north of the Crystal River. The Crystal River is a 6th level hydrologic unit code (HUC), a tributary to the Roaring Fork River, and is part of the greater Roaring Fork watershed. There are no drainages, streams, or other water features within the proposed rock harvesting area. The Crystal River water influence zone (WIZ) is the riparian buffer that includes its floodplain, riparian vegetation, inner gorge, unstable areas or highly erodible soils. The minimum width of the buffer on each side of a stream is the greatest of 100 feet, or the mean height of mature dominant late-seral vegetation (FSH 2509.25, zero code). The project area is approximately 160 feet above the WIZ or floodplain of the Crystal River and contains no riparian vegetation or wetlands.


18

Water Quality

There are no known water quality issues in the project area. The State-designated beneficial use of the Crystal River below the project area is for “Aquatic Life Cold 1, Recreation 1a, Water Supply and Agriculture” (CDHPE 2008). The Crystal River is not on the State of Colorado 303(d) list, meaning that it has never been identified as having any water quality problems and that it meets is beneficial use classification above. The closest water quality monitoring station with a long term data set is near Redstone (HUC 14010004), although a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) station is located near Marble as well (USGS 1988 and 2008).


Compared to no action, the proposed harvesting could have indirect effects to water resources. Erosion and mass wasting from the proposed rock harvesting area could transport sediment into the Crystal River. However, current operations have been controlled with storm water measures, and future operations would be subject to the same measures. The Design Criteria ensures that little to no sediment would reach the Crystal River from the project area. No hazardous material is present in the area or used in the harvesting operations, except fuel associated with powering the fork lift and flatbed truck. Following the project design criteria and proper vehicle maintenance would prevent any vehicle fluids from leaking to groundwater or the river below. Cumulative effects include another existing rock operation in the area, to the east, in Section 27 (the Raymond Pit) that has the potential to add to potential sedimentation from the rock harvesting activities. Potential sediment not captured by silt fencing in the Conger Harvest area could add to that from another existing rock operation to the east (Section 27) – the Raymond Pit. The cumulative impact of the small quantity and low likelihood of sedimentation is not substantial.

Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and IRAs


Wilderness

The Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness lies 1.1 miles north of the proposed rock harvesting site. There is no access to the wilderness directly from the site. This wilderness was designated by the 1964 Wilderness Act and is the fourth largest wilderness area in Colorado. It is rated as a Class I area and has a monitoring strategy for ambient air quality, visibility, and lake chemistry analysis (FS 2002). The Raggeds


19

Wilderness lies approximately 0.25 miles to the south of the proposed rock harvesting site.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

The Crystal River is located approximately 235 feet south of the site. The Crystal River segment is this area is classified as an eligible recreation river. In a recreation segment, visitors may find an altered environment; they are likely to encounter more people than one would expect in a “wild” or “scenic” river segment” (Forest Plan, p. 3-47). Though not a designated river, the Crystal River is eligible for inclusion in the national system and, therefore, managed as a wild and scenic river. Recreational rivers are managed to protect and perpetuate eligible and designated recreation river segments (Forest Plan, FS 2002).

Inventoried Roadless Areas

The Gallo Hill Roadless Area (FS 2002) lies 395 feet (0.08 miles) directly to the north, adjacent to the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Area. There is no direct access from the site to the inventoried roadless area (IRA); the closest access is an unnamed private four-wheel drive road to the west of the site (Figure 2).


Compared to the no action alternative, environmental effects include the possibility that sediment from the rock harvesting activities would enter the Crystal River. Little soil presently exists on the talus slope that would create a sediment runoff. The potential for any sediment to enter the Crystal River from the project area above is even further reduced by following the soils Design Criteria. Rock harvesting activities might produce dust in the dry summer months. However, the Design Criteria provides measures for dust abatement in the event that winds might carry dust outside the boundary of the project area. The overall impact would be minimal and no different than the current operation. The proposed rock harvesting would have no effect on the adjacent roadless area and is outside of its boundary. The Gallo Hill Roadless Area was rated “not capable” and “not available” during the 2001 wilderness inventory (FS 2002, Page C-11). This means that the area does not have the basic characteristics that define a wilderness designation; however, the FS still manages it as a roadless area. The proposed rock harvesting operations would not encounter this IRA, or the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness, because there is no access from the site. The cumulative impact from the proposed Rock Harvesting would be minor, but could add to traffic and noise generated from tourism, the residential areas, and the other existing rock operation on the Crystal River or the Gallo Hill IRA.


20

Human Environment


The project area lies within 1.1 miles northwest of the town of Marble. Marble was incorporated in 1899 and remains a statutory town within the State of Colorado as of 2008. Marble has historically been a mining town and is the location of the historic Yule Marble quarry. Marble has become a summer tourist destination since the late 20th century.

Socioeconomics

As of the 2000 census, the population of Marble was 45 households with 105 people. The population density was 282.2 people per square mile (Wikipedia 2008). Gunnison County reports race percentages to be 99% White/Non-Hispanic, 1% Hispanic and 1% other (Gunnison County 2009). Marble is located in Gunnison County, where the economic base is tourism, skiing, education, mining and ranching. According to the 2000 census, the median family income in Gunnison County was $36,916, and the median family income for the town of Marble was $46,100. Both were less than the median family income for the City and County of Denver ($48,195), for the State of Colorado ($55,883), and for the United States ($50,046). The rock harvesting operation would employee five laborers who commute daily from Gypsum, Colorado. The rock harvested is transported to the Gallegos sales operations which are located in Glenwood Springs and Gypsum. Since 2007, Marble’s population growth has been 4.76 percent (Sperling 2008). The median home cost in Marble is $669.700 (nearly 3 times the national average) and has appreciated 11.4 percent in 2007 (Sperling 2008). Gunnison County (2009) reports a median house/condo value of $257,300 in 2005, which generally indicates that real estate values are increasing. Private property in the upper Crystal River watershed is a popular location for landowners to construct second residences used seasonally. The scenic value of the valley makes future development of these private lands very likely.

Recreation

Recreation is prevalent in the WRNF and the Crystal River below the proposed site is classified as a Recreational river. As mentioned earlier, scenic integrity values are high on the NFS lands that border the proposed rock harvesting area. The NFS lands in the Marble valley provide opportunities for four-wheel driving, camping, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, mountaineering, mountain biking, and snowmobiling. NFS roads 314 and 315 east of Marble provide popular four-wheel drive, mountain bike and hiking access to the upper end of the valley and adjacent wilderness areas. Additionally, hiking trails, including Trails 1964, 1965 and 1971 to the


21

north and Trails 1968, 1969 and 2083 to the south, provide foot and horseback access to the wilderness areas. There are no public roads or trails leading to or within the project area, and no recreational facilities on the site. The terrain is steep and rocky, and probably not appealing to the average hiker, although there may be some incidental hiking associated with nearby areas mentioned above. It is also possible that hunters might visit the area, although less likely considering the rough terrain. The closest campground to the proposed rock harvesting area is Bogan Flats, located approximately 2.5 miles to the northwest on County Road 3. The Town of Marble, a historic location, is attractive to recreationists and located approximately 1.1 miles from the proposed site. Also, lakes in the area and the Crystal River provide fishing opportunities. Water features and their distance from the site (Figure 3) include Island Lake (225 feet), Beaver Lake (1.9 miles), and Lilly Lake (1.8 miles). Other features include the Marble Cemetery (1,200 feet), and a private landing strip (620 feet). With the exception of the landing strip, the project area is not readily visible from these features. The recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) provides a way for the WRNF to manage recreation on NFS lands. It is a planning tool and integrates existing and alternative public uses with existing and alternative natural resource management programs/actions. The ROS for the Management Area 4.4 is classified as a roaded natural area (FS 2002).


Compared to the no action alternative, the proposed rock harvesting area would not alter the recreation values or the management prescription of MA 4.4 Recreation Rivers, Designated and Eligible. The talus area is difficult to traverse, and is not suitable for hiking, biking or other activities. The Crystal River is 235 feet below the site and rock harvesting would not limit or impair any recreational use or access to the river or its general area. Furthermore, the ROS of “roaded natural area” would be maintained. The effects on recreation would relate to the sound and periodic dust in the late summer generated by the rock harvesting operations. Because these operations have been ongoing for over ten years, residents of the area would experience no change. Visitors to the area might be able to hear sounds from the road below if they were walking or biking. No noise or dust would affect the Bogan Flats campground, 235 feet away, due to the steep topography and the sound of the Crystal River flowing. Winter recreation would not be affected since the rock harvesting would occur in the summer months. Overall, the proposed rock harvesting would add to scenic, air and noise effects from tourism and residential activity and the other existing rock operation previously mentioned.


22

There would be no effect on the area’s economic base; the operations have been on-going since 1998 and, therefore, would result in no change. Effects on socioeconomics are minor. No low-income or minority populations would be “adversely or disproportionately affected by the alternatives” (EO 12898). Generally, property values in the area have increased over the past decade during the while current rock gathering has been on-going. It is unlikely that the continuation of this effort would affect future property values.

Scenic Resources


Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI) levels are high to very high along the Crystal River corridor in the project area (FS 2002). This description of landscape character indicates the degree of intactness and wholeness, and serves as a benchmark for monitoring changes associated with activities. Deviations in an area having a high ESI may be present. Any deviations must “repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape characteristics so they are not evident” (FS 2002). Scenic attractiveness is the primary indicator of scenic beauty of an FS landscape (FS 2002). The Crystal River Corridor is recognized by the FS as a Class A area. In Class A areas, landforms, vegetation patterns, water characteristics, and cultural features combine to provide unusual, unique, or outstanding scenic quality. The landscape character of the WRNF is described in Appendix P of the Forest Plan (FS 2002). The project area lies within the Elk Mountains ecological subsection. The project area is a talus slope, which is a common feature to the Elk Mountains, formed by the weathering of large igneous intrusions (see Geology), where altitude, elevation and climate cause rock to break apart and form steep side slopes, sometimes called “scree” or talus. Patches of vegetation are visible throughout the area. Currently, large trees (greater than 12 inches diameter serve as a screen for the operation from the road and houses below along the Crystal River. According to the Forest Plan (FS 2002), the private lands in the area are intermingled with forest lands, and existing developments on private land do not detract from the picturesque qualities of the river corridor. The NFS manages scenery according to the Agriculture Handbook 701 (FS 1995).


It is difficult to see the proposed harvesting area from Gunnison County Road 3, below. The slope is steep and the project staging area is screened by trees. Pedestrians walking along the road would be able to see portions of the talus and the access to the area, but again, the staging area is well hidden by the existing vegetation.


23

Two KOPs were established during a site visit in the summer of 2008 (WWE 2008). The KOPs are located along Milton Way, the road that winds through the residential area to the south of the Crystal River. Access to the area is from County Road 3 and across a bridge where the road turns east. The proposed rock harvesting area is not visible along the majority of the road, due to vegetation and topography. The observation points are approximately 0.25 miles from the southern boundary of the site (Photographs 1-4). Alteration by human activities is evident in the general area. From the vantage points across the river, one residence is visible below the existing Conger Harvest Area. The road that winds up the talus slopes is also visible. The talus in the current harvesting area is a darker hue1 than the reclaimed areas. On the Munsell color chart (Munsell 1976), the hue increases 1-2 levels from the darker greys and pink and reddish greys to a lighter grey and pinkish grey. However, the color contrast would be long-term, as the area weathers by natural processes in the future. The chroma2

1 Hue is the shade, tint or dye of color. 2 Chroma color is the measurement of how pure a hue is in relationship to gray.

of the colors would not change, and the lighter color of the harvesting area is similar to that of the river alluvium along the Crystal River, and other erosional features in the area. Photographs 1 though 4 illustrate the existing landscape features and colors. The topography of the current harvesting area does not appear to be different in the reclaimed areas as that of the proposed project area, but for the evident steeper slopes with elevation. The observer would be able to see harvesting progress along the hillside. This activity has been ongoing for over ten years and is not planned to increase during the proposed rock harvesting on NFS lands. Therefore, there would be no more visual disturbance from the proposed action than there has been in the past decade. The Design Criteria provides measures to mitigate scenic effects. Gallegos Corporation will limit visual impacts by harvesting rocks behind ridges or existing vegetation whenever possible. Rock harvesting operation will be located so they are visually screened (by topography and trees), as much possible, from County Road 3. Implementing these measures will minimize effects to scenery resources in the area and keep the scenic integrity levels high. The overall cumulative effect from the rock harvesting would be minimal to scenic resources when added to the effects from the surrounding recreational, residential and other rock gathering activities.


24

Photo 1: Key Observation Point (KOP) #1, looking north toward the project area (white arrow is pointing in the direction of the project area)


25

Photo 2: Zoom in to the talus slope from KOP #1, looking north across the river (trees in foreground screen most vantage points from the road below). Photo 3: KOP #2, looking north at access road to project area (arrows show areas where current work will progress to new talus slope)


26

Photo 4: Color change in hue within the current private rock harvesting area

Transportation, Air Quality and Noise


Transportation along the access to the proposed rock harvesting site (Highway 82 to Marble) is generally related to tourism and the residential areas that lie to the south and east of the site. Highway 82 is a two lane highway that winds its way to County Road 3, and to the Town of Marble. The project lies in close proximity to the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Area. The Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Area is a Congressionally Designated Class I air quality area. As required under the Clean Air Act, the FS is responsible for protecting the air quality related values. Air quality monitoring in the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness indicates no adverse regional impacts to air quality and exceptional visibility ratings (FS 2002, 3-555). Relevant National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as they pertain to the proposed project are those promulgated for particulate matter (Table 2)

Table 2. Air quality standards Pollutant Averaging Time Standard (µg/m3)

Particulate Matter less than 10 microns (PM10) 24 hours 150

Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5)

24 hours 351

Annual 152


27


The proposed rock harvesting activities have been ongoing for the past ten years and include transporting stone to the Gallegos Corporation yard in Glenwood Springs. Traffic would not increase during the extended activities onto the NFS lands. There would be an average of 2 truck trips per week, ranging from 1 to 10 trips over the course of the seasonal operation. More trips are generally made during the fall months when operations are winding down for the winter. Effects to air quality and noise from the proposed rock harvesting include dust emissions and sounds from the movement of the bobcat and loader and the bi-weekly truck trips. Because there is very little soil and the air is moist from the nearby river, dust generation is minimal. However, some dust may be generated in the dry summer months. Dust generation would not affect visibility to any great extent, but could travel by gusty winds, when present. Rock harvesting activities might produce dust in the dry summer months. However, the Design Criteria provides measures for dust abatement in the event that winds might carry dust outside the boundary of the project area. This would ensure the air quality standards met. The proposed rock harvesting would generate minimal noise from the periodic movement of the bobcat and the bi-weekly truck trips and reclamation activities. Noise from rock harvesting could affect residential areas and wildlife. However, this would be limited to the operation season (June to October), and also to the operation of equipment versus the manual rock harvesting activities. In general there would be limited adverse effects from noise. Colorado has a Noise Statute (CDPHE 2002) that regulates sound levels in Statute 25-12-103 – Maximum Permissible Noise Levels. Noise is measured in decibels (dB) and adjusted to the way an average person hears sounds (called “A-weighed levels” (dBA)). The most conservative of these levels is for residential zones where 55 dBA is allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 50 dBA allowed for 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The noise generated from rock gathering activities would doubtfully exceed these standards. For comparative purposes, 60 dB is a restaurant at lunch time; and 90 dB is the sound of a truck passing on the street. Therefore, the noise generated from the rock gathering equipment would be minor compared to the existing highway noise on County Road 3. During the spring and most of the summer, the operations can barely be heard over the annual runoff sounds from drainages that empty on the south side of the Crystal River (site visit notes, June 2008).Furthermore, noise is reduced by the nature of the topography and is often performed behind “benches” and the existing tree screen also is a factor in limiting noise. Overall, the cumulative effects to transportation, air quality and noise from the project are minor when added to other ongoing activities in the neighboring residential areas and the other rock harvesting site.


28

Vegetation


Primary vegetation associated with the proposed rock harvesting site is mixed ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forest, with understory species including juniper, montane shrubs and sparse grass and forbs. Spatial arrangement of the vegetation is in scattered “islands” on less steep portions of the rock scree slope which is to be harvested. Vegetation nearby the project analysis area includes more heavily forested areas of Douglas-fir and aspen, along with slopes of sagebrush, grass/forbs and montane shrubs. Some species noted on the site are listed in Table 3.

Table 3. Plant species noted in the proposed project area Species Scientific

Name Species Common

Name Species Scientific

Name Species Common

Name Achillea millefolium western yarrow Juniperus communis common juniper Achnatherum hymenoides Indian ricegrass Juniperus sp. juniper Amalanchier sp. serviceberry Mahonia repens creeping barberry

Aquilegia coerulea Colorado blue columbine Phleum pratense timothy

Aristida purpurea purple three-awn Picea pungens blue spruce Artemesia cana silver sage Pinus ponderosa ponderosa pine Artemesia tridentata big sagebrush Populus tremuloides quaking aspen Bromus anomalus nodding brome Prunus virginiana chokecherry

Carex sp. sedge Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir

Cercocarpus montanus mountain mahogany Quercus gambelii Gambel oak Erigeron speciosus aspen fleabane Ribes sp. gooseberry Festuca arizonica Arizona fescue Rosa woodsii Woods' rose

Cover types associated with this project include:

Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir: Some of the wildlife species associated with the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir cover type include: flammulated owl, northern goshawk, golden-mantled ground squirrel, pygmy nuthatch, mule deer and elk.

Wetland and riparian areas: This project is located within the Crystal River 6th Level Watershed. The Crystal River is approximately 0.4 mile south of the project area and is the closest wetland or riparian area that has the potential of being affected by this project.

The Conger Rock Harvesting Area lies within the Upper Crystal River Sheep and Goat Grazing Allotment. This allotment is active, but the project area is not being grazed at this time. No immediate plans to graze in the project area are planned.


29

Threatened and Sensitive Plant Species: Only one threatened plant species, Penland alpine fen mustard, as well as one candidate species proposed for listing, DeBeque phacelia, are found on the WRNF. Both of these species are found in relatively unique habitats outside the project area, and neither is known to occur in the Sopris Ranger District. Twenty plant species are listed as sensitive by the WRNF. All are found in specialized and limited habitats such as wetlands, fens, alpine tundra or on specific geological formations. No potential habitat for any of these species occurs in the proposed project area. Sensitive plant species are addressed in greater detail in the Biological Evaluation for this project.

Research Natural Areas (RNA) Potential: The Forest Service’s RNA program was designed to identify and protect the best examples of natural ecosystems for scientific study and to maintain biological diversity. These areas are also often designed to protect important elements of biodiversity such as Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) species. Areas selected as RNAs are typically the most pristine areas representing a wide range of variability within important ecosystems (FS 2002). Four criteria are used to evaluate areas for consideration as RNA (Andrews 1993). The Conger Rock Harvesting Area is not in a designated RNA nor does it exhibit qualities that suggest it would be suitable for designation as an RNA. Biodiversity is relatively low at the site due to the lack of riparian or wetland areas and the large portion of the site which is covered with rock scree. Although the ponderosa pine cover type is rare in the WRNF, it is in no way unique or imperiled in the region.

Noxious Weeds: At least 89,000 acres of the WRNF are infested with noxious weeds, and many land managers consider this to be the greatest threat to the ecological integrity of our natural landscapes (FS 2002). Noxious weeds are spread by a variety of means, including humans, livestock, wildlife, vehicles and equipment, as well by natural forces such as wind and water. Areas of ground disturbance and greater human activity provide suitable areas for noxious species to establish and proliferate. Noxious weed infestations may seriously degrade habitat by displacing native foraging species, making some areas less suitable and reducing overall habitat effectiveness. Private land south of the proposed project area has experienced a wide range of disturbance over a long period of time, creating an excellent environment for the establishment of invasive weed species. One WRNF priority invasive weed species, oxeye daisy, was observed along the private access road to the current rock harvesting area on private property. Additionally, several other undesirable invasive species which are not on the WRNF priority list were observed in disturbed areas along the access road and in the harvesting area, including bull thistle, Canada thistle, common mullein and downy brome (cheatgrass). Musk thistle, houndstongue, and downy brome were also observed on WRNF land near the northwest corner of the proposed project area.


30


Compared to the no action alternative, proposed rock harvesting activities will have relatively low impact on vegetation communities in the vicinity. There would be no impact to sensitive plants. Temporary road construction will be minimal, as access to the proposed harvest area currently exists through the use of two roads in the harvesting area on private property to the south. The use of heavy equipment will be primarily to move pallets of harvested rock and to load the pallets on trucks for removal. All vegetated areas will be avoided and no trees or snags will be removed. The spread of noxious and invasive weed species is the primary potential impact to the vegetation community in the rock harvesting area. Ground disturbance and the movement of vehicles and other equipment in and out of the harvest area could create a point of entry for noxious weeds on the WRNF. However, the WRNF Invasive Plant Species Management EA (FS 2007) outlines a strategy to control or reduce the spread of these undesirable species on the forest. This plan is included in the Design Criteria, and implementation will minimize the potential impact of noxious weed introduction on native vegetation in the vicinity. Roads and trails provide additional corridors for the introduction and spread of invasive species. Recreational use in the upper Crystal River valley is very popular and is expected to increase under the current forest management plan. Development activities on private property adjacent to the forest, future livestock grazing and recreational use of livestock on the forest also increase the likelihood of introduction and spread of undesirable species. The proposed rock harvesting has the potential to contribute cumulatively to other activities affecting habitat in the valley. However, by following the guidelines set forth in the Design Criteria, these impacts should be minimized or eliminated.

Terrestrial Wildlife


The project area is on a moderately steep slope with a southeast aspect, at an elevation range of 7,800 to 8,200 feet. The majority of the habitat in the area is rock scree, with tree islands of mixed ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. Slopes to the north and west include scattered stands of aspen and mountain shrub, as well as more contiguous blocks of mixed ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. The primary ground cover that would be directly affected by this hard rock gathering project is rock scree. There would be no tree or snag removal associated with the project and understory brush, shrub, and ground cover will be retained.

Terrestrial Threatened, Sensitive and Management Indicator Species: Management indicator species (MIS), federally listed, Forest Service sensitive species, and Species of Viability Concern that occur or have the potential to occur in the rock harvest area are listed in Table 4.


31

Table 4. Federally listed species, Forest Service sensitive species, Forest Plan Species of Viability Concern, and Management Indicator Species

potentially occurring in the project area Species Scientific Name Species Common Name Status Lynx canadensis Canada lynx Federally Threatened Martes americana American marten Sensitive Accipiter gentilis northern goshawk Sensitive Otus flammeolus flammulated owl Sensitive Contopus cooperii olive-sided flycatcher Sensitive

Sitta pygmaea pygmy nuthatch Species of Viability

Concern Cervus elaphus Rocky Mountain elk MIS

Appendix EE of the Forest Plan lists 28 species of plants, birds, mammals, fish and amphibians as Species of Viability Concern (FS 2002). Based on habitat preferences of the listed species, it is likely that only two terrestrial Species of Viability Concern may be present in the project area. Canada lynx is a federally threatened species and is addressed in detail in the Biological Assessment for this project. Pygmy nuthatch is a species closely associated with mature ponderosa pine forests and is addressed in the Biological Evaluation and Management Indicator Species Evaluation for this project. The WRNF has approximately 300 acres of ponderosa pine forest, or less than 0.1% of the forest (FS 2002). This limited habitat availability is the primary reason for listing of the Pygmy nuthatch.


For this analysis, direct and indirect effects are considered to be the effects of the ground disturbing activities that are involved with harvesting of rock scree. This will involve approximately 23.33 acres over the anticipated 30 year life of the project, although some portions of the site are forested and not suitable for harvest. The harvesting is expected to occur periodically during the months of June through October. No trees or snags will be removed for the project, and the understory of montane shrubs, juniper and grass/forbs in tree islands will be retained throughout the project area. Therefore, disturbance activities have little potential to affect nesting passerine birds. Nesting raptor species in forested areas within and adjacent to the project area would not likely be disturbed, since no evidence of nesting has been observed in the vicinity of the project. Small mammals are the most likely species to be affected by the rock harvest activities since these species are known to use crevices and spaces under rocks for cover, burrows, and when foraging. However, wildlife would not be eliminated throughout the project area due to the small scale and limited annual time period of the proposed action. Small mammals, which may serve as prey for sensitive species would remain. The project is also located within elk summer range as mapped by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW 2008a) and important elk calving areas are included in summer range mapped by the CDOW. During a site visit of the proposed project area, a single cow and newborn calf were located within the boundaries. A Forest Plan standard allows


32

timing stipulations to be placed on human activities in these critical areas to limit the potential for human disturbance between May 15 and June 20. The PDC (see Chapter 2) includes timing stipulations because the project area has been determined to be an important calving area by CDOW. No long-term displacement of wildlife is expected over the life of the project, due to the absence of impacts to wildlife under the proposed action. Removal of ground cover vegetation will be minimized, and ground cover of rock scree will remain in harvested areas when slope reclamation is complete. Wildlife displacement or disturbance is not expected as a result of human activity. Federally Listed and Sensitive Species, and Species of Viability Concern: A biological assessment addressing the potential effects to federally listed species was completed for this project. A biological evaluation addressing the potential impacts to Region 2 Forest Service sensitive species and WRNF Forest Plan Species of Viability Concern was completed for this project. The Canada lynx has potential to occur within the project area. The project would have no effects on any federally listed species. Five species have the potential to occur within the project area (Table 4); however, there would be no impacts to these species. Appropriate design criteria have been incorporated into the proposed action to meet Forest Plan objectives, standards and guidelines for these species. Management Indicator Species (MIS): A Management Indicator Species Evaluation was prepared for this project. Rocky Mountain elk is the only MIS that occurs in the project area (Table 4). Based on the extremely limited direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to habitat or populations, there would be no meaningful effects to any MIS at the Forest level from the proposed action. Effects to MIS under the proposed action are discountable at the Forest-wide level. No element of the proposed action creates any negative trends that would affect achieving Forest Plan MIS objectives or create viability concerns for any MIS.


The project area is in the Crystal River above Placita Composite 6th Level HUC, within the Roaring Fork Watershed. The project is located on a steep, dry slope approximately 0.2 mile north of the river. No streams, ponds, wetlands, riparian areas or Corps of Engineers regulated waterways are located in the project area. The Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) is listed as a sensitive species in the WRNF. Two populations occur outside the project area, in the Yule Creek and Lost Creek Trail drainages (Young et al. 1996). The Lost Creek Trail population is considered a conservation population by the CRCT Conservation Team, a collaborative group of state and federal land and wildlife management agencies (CRCT Conservation Team 2006). The Roaring Fork Watershed is part of the Upper Colorado River Basin, which supports four species of fish federally listed as threatened: Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, razorback sucker and bonytail. The nearest designated critical habitat for these species is


33

in the Colorado River near Rifle, CO, approximately 70 river miles downstream of the Conger Rock Harvesting Area (Federal Register 1994).


The project would have no effects to federally listed fishes nor contribute to downstream water depletions. The project would have no impacts to Forest Service sensitive fishes or MIS fishes. No element of the proposed action creates any negative trends that would affect achieving Forest Plan MIS objectives or create viability concerns for any MIS fishes.

Cultural Resources


The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) mandates that Federal Agencies take into account the affects of Federal undertakings to any cultural resource that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Cultural resources include sites, areas, buildings, structures, districts, and objects which possess scientific, historic, and/or social values of a cultural group or groups as specified by 26 CFR 296.3. The Town of Marble, which is just over a mile from the rock harvesting area, has several buildings, along with the famous Yule Quarry that are listed in the NRHP. Other historical features within a mile radius of the site include the Marble Cemetery and grave sites. The White River National Forest was historically frequented by Paleo-Indians over 10,000 years ago, who left signs of their passage throughout the region (FS 2002). More recently, during the past few hundred years, the region was inhabited by the Ute Indians. The Ute tribe traveled through the region hunting and established an elaborate network of foot rails in the WRNF. Later, in the 1800s, the area was occupied by thousands of people who came in search of gold and silver. In the late 1800s, the Yule Marble had become known as some of the finest in the nation and graces famous monuments and buildings such as the Lincoln Memorial and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Washington, D.C. The files of the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) Compass database and the WRNF records were consulted prior to an onsite investigation. A review of State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) records indicated that no previous recorded sites were identified. A cultural resource inventory of the proposed rock harvesting area was completed in September 2008 by a White River National Forest archeologist in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1979, as amended. A Limited Results survey report was provided to the State Historic Preservation Officer for informational purposes in November 2008. The survey resulted in an isolated find of a broken medicine bottle. The State defines a site as five or more artifacts or a feature, structure or trail, or any combination of these elements meeting OAHP criteria in a discrete location that is believed to represent the locus of patterned


34

human activity. An Isolated Find is defined as four or fewer artifacts without evidence of or potential for additional cultural materials or features in the immediate vicinity. No previously recorded sites have been identified within the project boundary. The survey determined that the proposed rock harvesting would result in “no historic properties affected”. The site has limited or no potential for historical and archaeological resources. Fossils are also unlikely since the rock talus is metamorphic, and there are no nearby sedimentary layers.


Compared to the no action alternative, the proposed rock gathering activities may still encounter cultural resources. Other isolated finds could be discovered as rock harvesting progresses. As described in the Design Criteria, Gallegos Corporation will contact the FS immediately upon a discovery of any historic, archeological, or paleontological objects. Cultural resources are not anticipated to be affected in the area. The rock harvesting operations would have no adverse effects, either independently or cumulatively, to any historic properties in the Marble area.


35

CHAPTER 4: CONSULATION AND COORDINATION The FS consulted the following individuals, federal, state and local agencies, tribes and non-FS persons during the development of this environmental assessment:

Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team/Specialists District Ranger, Irene Davidson IDT Leader, NEPA Coordinator, Skye Sieber Minerals Specialist, Olivia Garcia Forest Scenery and Visual Specialist, Donna Graham Wildlife and Botany Specialist, Phil Nyland Recreation Specialist, Martha Moran Heritage Resource Specialist, Andrea Brogan Roads/Engineering Specialist, Bruce Moss Fisheries/Hydrology Specialist, Mark Lacy Lands Specialist, Jim Kirschvink

Third Party Contractors Mike Klish, Principal, WestWater Engineering Mary Nichols, Environmental Specialist, WestWater Engineering Terry Meyers, Biologist, WestWater Engineering Cathy Ventling, GIS Specialist, WestWater Engineering Aaron Thompson, GIS Specialist, WestWater Engineering

Federal, State and Local Agencies US Army Corps of Engineers Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety Colorado Division of Wildlife Gunnison County Commissioners Gunnison County Planning Department Town of Marble

Tribes Southern Ute Indian Tribe Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation


36

Others August Leiford Darien Trust Bill Balaz, Balaz and Associates Crystal Valley Caucus Crystal Valley EPA Frank Gutierrez, Gallegos Corporation Glen Gallegos, Gallegos Corporation Jeffery Hollenbaugh Out West Guides Outward Bound West River Dance Ranch, LLC Robert Raymond Scott Forsythe Wahlbrink Family Trust Wilderness Workshop William Lozier


37

CHAPTER 5: REFERENCES Andrews, Tom. 1993. Criteria for Research Natural Area Selection. United States

Department of Agriculture, U.S Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, 6p.

CDOW. 2008a. Maps and spatial data. http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/mapindex.asp. State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Ft. Collins.

CDOW. 2008b. 2008 Big Game Objectives. http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/0DC38157-DCB8-455A-A4EE-731F30824BFD/0/2008OBJECTIVESweb.pdf . Fort Collins, CO. 9p.

CDPHE. 2002. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Colorado Noise Statute. 25-12-106. 2002. Denver, Colorado.

CDPHE. 2008. Website: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/regulations/wqccregs. Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment, Denver, Colorado.

CGS. 1972. (Colorado Geologic Survey). Engineering Geologic Factors, Marble Area, Colorado, 44pp, 3 maps. Rogers and Rold, Denver, Colorado.

CGS. 2007. (Colorado Geologic Survey). 1st North American Landslide Conference. Vail Colorado, June 2007. David C. Noe and Jeffrey A. Coe. Special Publication 56.

CRCT Conservation Team. 2006. Conservation agreement for Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus) in the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, 10p.

DRMS. 2008. Colorado Division of Mining and Safety website, December: http://mining.state.co.us/. Denver.

COGCC. 2008. Colorado Oil and Gas Commission Website: http://cogcc.state.co.us/. A Division of the Colorado Natural Resources, Denver.

EAA. 1997. Geologic Evaluation for Gallegos Corporation. Letter report from Joe Hersey, CEI to Paul Hernandez, Gallegos Corporation, Gunnison, Colorado, November 19, Environmental Assessment Association.

Federal Register. 1994. Determination of Critical Habitat for Colorado River Endangered Fishes: Razorback Sucker, Colorado Squawfish, Humpback Chub, and Bonytail Chub. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 59:54, March 21, 13374-13400.

FS. 1990. Forest Service Manual 2800. Minerals and Geology. Chapter 2850 – Mineral Materials. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service.

FS. 1995. U.S Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Landscape Aesthetics, a Handbook for Scenery Management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture, Handbook 701.

http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/mapindex.asp�

http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/0DC38157-DCB8-455A-A4EE-731F30824BFD/0/2008OBJECTIVESweb.pdf�

http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/0DC38157-DCB8-455A-A4EE-731F30824BFD/0/2008OBJECTIVESweb.pdf�

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/regulations/wqccregs�

http://mining.state.co.us/�

http://cogcc.state.co.us/�


38

FS. 2002. Land and Resource Management Plan – 2002 Revision for the White River National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

FS. 2007. White River National Forest Invasive Plant Specie Management Environmental Assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, White Rive National Forest. 94p.

FS. 2008. Personal communication between Skye Sieber, Olivia Garcia and Wyman Bontranger, White River National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Rifle, Colorado.

Gunnison County. 2009. Gunnison County Assessor and GIS Map and Demographics; http://gis.gunnisoncounty.org/stable/mainpage.asp

Munsell. 1976. Munsell book of color. Macbeth, a Division of Kollmorgen Corp., Baltimore, Maryland.

Nelson. 2006. Marble and Redstone – A Quick History. Third Edition. Glenwood Springs, Colorado.

NRCS, 2009. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U. S. Department of Agriculture Website. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/

Soule, J.M. 1976. Geologic Hazards of Crested Butte-Gunnison, Colorado, Colorado Geological Survey, Series 5, 34p. Denver.

Sperling. 2008. Socioeconomic website: http://www.bestplaces.net/city/Marble-Colorado.aspx.

State of Colorado. 1998. Division of Minerals and Geology Department of Natural Resources. Conger Harvesting Area, M-98-022, Permit Issuance-Construction material Operation, Denver.

USGS. 1984. Geologic Map and Cross Sections of the Carbondale 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, West-Central Colorado. MapC-97-A. Ellis and Freeman. U.S. Geological Survey, Golden, Colorado.

USGS. 1988. U. S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4076, by J.R. Slack, and others, Region 14, Denver, Colorado.

USGS. 2008. 2008 National Water System Web Interface. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/co/nwis/inventory. U. S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.

Wikipedia. 2008. Demographics of Marble Colorado. Web Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marble,_Colorado.

WWE. 2008. Site Visit Field Notes. July 2008. Memorandum from Mary Nichols, WestWater Engineering, Inc., to Skye Sieber, U.S. Forest Service, Grand Junction, Colorado.

Young, Michael K., R. Nick Schmal, Thomas W. Kohley, and Victoria G. Leonard. 1996. Conservation status of Colorado River cutthroat trout. General Technical Report RM-GTR-282. Fort Collins, CO: United States Department of Agriculture, U.S Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 32p.

http://gis.gunnisoncounty.org/stable/mainpage.asp�

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/�

http://www.bestplaces.net/city/Marble-Colorado.aspx�

http://www.bestplaces.net/city/Marble-Colorado.aspx�

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/co/nwis/inventory�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marble,_Colorado�

Conger Rock Harvesting Area EAa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · · 2011-11-22Rifle, Colorado 81650 970-625-6864 [email protected] ... looking north at access

Documents