My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
24 (3)
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
24 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:37:34 PM
Creation date
8/21/2008 3:32:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
5/21/2008
Description
ISF Section - Injury with Mitigation - Case No. 5-07CW210; Application of Vail Associates, Inc. and the U.S. Forest Service
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
NOTE: water imports that increase the size or duration of high <br />flows have damaged stream through major bank erosion,. This <br />measure prevents such severe damage„ <br />e. Conduct snow rr2anagerner~t, ir2cludir~g sr2ow~naking and snow- <br />far~~rning, ire such a mariner that pr°ever~ts slope, failur°es ar~d gully <br />erosion on the Izillslopes ar~d pr~ever~.~s adverse ir~zpacts, suc12 as <br />bar21~ erosion and excessive sedirr~en~, in receiving streams,. <br />• Managen~ent Measure 1 ~ : Stabilize and maintain roads and other <br />disturbed sites during and after corastzuction to control erosion. <br />o Build erosion resistance into project design to reduce costly <br />maintenance and restoration (Clean Water Act Sections 402 (p) <br />and 404).. Mitigate concurrently with construction.. Obtain <br />stor~nwater (402) and 404 permits as required. <br />vII. EFFECTS (~~' A.LTERt~IATIVES <br />No alternatives are analyzed in this document, other than the proposed action and the "no <br />action," because the proposed action would be categorically excluded from analysis. The scope <br />of the analysis for direct and indirect effects focuses on Two Elk Creek and cumulative effects <br />are addressed for the Eagle River downstream. <br />Exis~rng Cond~t~ons <br />within the project area, CRCT habitat is present in Two Elk Creek and the Eagle River, however <br />no reproducing viable populations exist in either stream. Although CRCT have been sampled in <br />both streams, it is likely those individuals are present as a result of stocking Two Elk} or <br />emigration from other tributaries ~e.g. Cross Creek}. Colorado River cutthroat trout have been <br />almost completely extirpated from the entire Uppez Eagle watershed Holland-Sears and Hirscl~ <br />2005}. Both Two Elk Creek and the Eagle River are within the historic range of CRCT, but with <br />the introduction ofnon-native salmonids and habitat degradation Eagle Mine impacts} it is <br />unlikely a viable population of CRCT could persist in either stream. Additional mine clean-up <br />activities that are being pursued by local water interests may result in increased water quality in <br />the Eagle River in the future however. <br />Nevertheless, as directed by the Rocky Mountain Region watershed Conservation Practices <br />Handbook ~wCP handbook, FSH 2509..25 zero code}, an analysis is completed below to <br />determine the health of aquatic habitats and ensure compliance of National Forest land <br />management with applicable environmental regulations ~e.g,,, Clean water Act}. Data from Two <br />Elk Creek was compared to data from similar "reference" streams. The Eagle River is already <br />known to be in a degraded condition, and generally supports limited brown trout populations, so <br />no additional reference analysis is incl~aded here. For more information related to the health of <br />the Eagle River, the reader is referred to woodling et al. X2005},Holland-Sears and Hirsch <br />12005}, and the Eagle River Inventory and Assessment ~CSU 2005}„ For comparative purposes, <br />streams that are determined to beleast-impaired b,y humara activities are used as reference <br />streams to represent the natural biological potential of streams of interest ~FSH 2509.25 zero <br />code}. Data compared between reference and project area streams generally would include fish <br />andlor macroinvertebr~ates, as well as substrate, pool habitat, and other physical channel <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.