Laserfiche WebLink
in increased metals concentrations as well ~i,e., loss of dilution}. However, some US EPA- <br />funded miti ation measures have been undertaken in the past year to clean up add~t~onal sources <br />g <br />of zinc loadin at the Eagle Nline~ Regardless, the ~-acne foot of~water loss from. the Eagle River <br />g <br />as a result of the roundwater~ pumping and storage would likely not be measurable, relative to <br />g <br />the average water field of the Upper Eagle River watez~slaed which was estimated to be 91,990 <br />b y <br />acre-feet) ear 1990-2003; data sumrnarized in Holland-Sears and Hirsch 2005}. <br />y ~ <br />Additional Forest management activities permitted for the area include sheep grazing, and <br />recreation„ .A national recreation trail runs along the entire length of Two Elk Creek. <br />~]eterm~nat~on of Effect and Rationale <br />The authorization of~the snowmaking well and ~-acne of new snowmaking near Two Elk Creek <br />would not result in a measurable change in CRCT habitat in either Two Elk Creek or~ the Eagle <br />~ver. The Ea le River water uality is not sufficient to support a population of CRCT at this <br />Rx g q <br />time and non-natives ecies in both streams contributed to the loss of reproducing populations. <br />p <br />Re ardless reductions in stream flow can reduce over-wintering habitat for CRCT. Therefore, <br />g <br />the authorization of the roposed Vail Summer Construction Projects, including lift replacement <br />p <br />and snowmakin well installation and operation, MAY ADVERSELY IMPACT <br />g <br />~ND~VIDUALS BUT WOULD NOT LZR.ELY RESULT IN A LOSS OF V~AB~L~TY 1N THE <br />ANNZNG AREA NOR CAUSE A TREND TOWARD FEDERAL LASTING, for Colorado <br />PL <br />River cutthroat trout ~Qncorhynchus clarki,~leuriticus}~. <br />II. RESPONSIBILITY FOR. A REVISED BIDLGGICAL EVALUATION <br />'~I <br />This Biolo ical Evaluation was repared based an presently available information. ~f the action <br />g p <br />is modified in a manner that causes effects not considered, or if new information becomes <br />available that reveals that the action may impact endangered, threatened, proposed, or sensitive <br />s ecies that in a manner ar~ to an extent not previously considered, a new or revised Biological <br />p <br />Evaluation would be requir~ed~~ <br />~~. CoNTACTs <br />Robert weaver, Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Boulder, CO. <br />~. LITERATURE CITED <br />Colorado Riven Cutthroat Trout Task Force. 2001, Conservation agreement and strategy for <br />Colorado River cutthroat trout ~Qncorl~ynchus clarki pleuriticus} in the States of <br />Colorado, Utah, and ~wyoming. Colorado Division of wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado. <br />87 pages. <br />Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Coordination Team.. 2006. Conservation strategy for Colorado <br />River cutthroat trout ~Ojzco~~hynchus clarki pleuriticus} in the States of Colorado, Utah, <br />14 <br />