|
|
|
Crested Butte to Gunnison Corridor - Adopted October 7, 2005
Environment
|
Purpose
This element of the Plan addresses the issues and policy approaches developed by the Environmental Issues Focus Group. The element is divided into two sections: existing data regarding environmental resources in the study area and goals and objectives established by the group. General Policy Statement
The Environmental Issues Focus Group began their deliberations with an analysis of pertinent portions of the Community Survey (see results in Appendix A) to extract a general community sentiment regarding environmental issues and policies regarding the environment. The text that was the product of these discussions is as follows:
Gunnison County Comprehensive Plan
Environmental Focus Group Preamble
The Gunnison County Master Plan is formulated to guide decisions on land use planning in Gunnison County. For it to be legitimate, it must reflect the preferences and desires of the county citizens.
|
|
|
|
The opinions of the citizens of Gunnison County were clearly expressed in the GENERAL COMMUNITY PROFILE SURVEY, commissioned by the Gunnison County Commissioners. This was a scientific survey that reflected the responses of over 1,800 residents. Given the diversity of opinions and perspectives exemplified by the citizens of the county, this document provides the most complete and accurate reflection of the community’s values.
- The survey places high value on scenery (and vistas and viewsheds), clean air, water quality, open space, recreation, rural lifestyle, and being a quality place to raise children.
- The survey identifies affordable housing, economic diversity, environment/open space, trails and recreation, wildlife, impact on agriculture, adjacent land uses, water and sewer, and environmental constraints as being important.
- The survey indicates that population growth (especially in the East River Valley) is too much and too fast. In addition, the most common perception is that Gunnison County has changed for the worse.
- The survey demonstrates the importance of providing environmental amenities such as access to public lands, open space, trails, parks, landscaping, and fishing access as development occurs.
- The survey identifies public transportation, road improvements, geological constraints, distance from urban areas, and transportation impacts as having intermediate importance.
- The survey places less value on cultural activities and the business climate.
- The survey identifies ski area expansion as having low importance.
- The survey reflected that the majority of respondents felt that they were economically secure. They placed less importance on economic opportunity but recognized the need for economic diversity.
- The survey identified agriculture as of lesser value, but it also indicated that impacts of development on agriculture are a major concern.
Existing Environmental Data
County staff has compiled a vast amount of environmental and development constraint data to assist the Group in understanding the physical, geologic and environmental attributes within the Study Area. The data sets are based on the best available information from a variety of sources, including local, state, federal and county generated sources. The information has been compiled within the County’s GIS system and can be used in the current review process as well as by the development community when designing specific projects.
Wildlife Habitat
Gunnison County has an abundant supply of high quality wildlife habitat that is sensitive to future development patterns. The County utilized the Colorado Division of Wildlife Resource Inventory System (WRIS) to develop a series of maps that are expanded on in the following sections. Care should be taken in interpreting this data. For a more detailed understanding of how the data was compiled and should be interpreted, documents are available from the Colorado Division of Wildlife and Gunnison County Long Range Planning that describe the methodology in detail. The information portrayed on these maps should not replace field studies necessary for more localized planning efforts. Habitat data are typically gathered at a scale of 1:24000 or 1:50000; discrepancies may become apparent at smaller scales. The areas portrayed here are graphic representations of phenomena that are difficult to reduce to two dimensions. For example, animal distributions are fluid and animal populations and their habitats are dynamic. Based on consultation with Division of Wildlife staff, the most sensitive habitat within the study area is shown on Figure III-1 (2.7 MB) and Figure III-2.
Elk Habitat
|
Elk Winter Concentration Area
This dataset represents the winter range of elk where densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during the average five winters out of ten from the first heavy snowfall to spring green-up, or during a site specific period of winter as defined for each Data Analysis Unit (DAU). Specific areas within the Study Area under this designation include the area north of Blue Mesa Reservoir and several pockets in the vicinity of the Almont area.
|
|
Elk Production Area
This data represents that part of the overall range of elk occupied by the females from May 15 to June 15 for calving. Only known areas are mapped and this does not include all production areas for the Data Analysis Unit Areas within the Study Area within this designation include isolated areas in the Ohio Creek, Cement Creek and upper East River drainages. Portions of Crested Butte Mountain are also included.
|
|
Elk Summer Concentration Area
This dataset represents those areas where elk concentrate from mid-June through mid-August. These areas are defined by high quality forage, security, and lack of disturbance to meet the high-energy demands of lactation, calf rearing, antler growth, and general preparation for the rigors of fall and winter. Areas within this designation include Kebler Pass and Upper Cement and Ohio Creek.
|
Mule Deer Habitat
|
Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area
This dataset represents the part of the densities are at least 200% higher that the surrounding winter range densities during the period used to define winter range. These areas are concentrated in the valley floor primarily north of State Highway 50.
|
Bighorn Sheet Habitat
|
Bighorn Sheep Winter Concentration Area
This dataset represents the part of the densities are at least 200% higher that the surrounding winter range densities during the period used to define winter range. Areas included within this designation include the lower reaches of Taylor Canyon.
|
|
Bighorn Sheep Production Area
This dataset depicts production areas (lambing) for Bighorn sheep. Areas included within these designations several areas in the upper Taylor Creek drainage.
|
|
Bighorn Sheep Summer Range
Summer range is defined as that portion of the overall range where 90% of the individuals are located between spring green-up and the first heavy snowfall. Summer range is not exclusive of winter range; in some areas winter and summer ranges overlap. Nearly the entire Taylor River drainage from Almont to Taylor Reservoir is included within this designation.
|
Sage-grouse Habitat
|
Gunnison Sage-grouse Brood Area
Brood areas are defined as areas supporting Sage Grouse broods. This generally includes wet areas such as meadows, springs, ponds and streams which all function as important brood rearing sites. These are mapped as a 200-meter (.124 mile) buffer zone around the edges of such wet sites. As shown on Figure III-1 (2.7 MB) and Figure III-2, these areas are dispersed throughout the Gunnison River bottomlands.
|
|
Gunnison Sage-grouse Production Area
Production areas are defined as areas that include the majority of important Gunnison County Sage Grouse nesting habitat. These are mapped as a two-mile buffer zone around an active lek. As shown on Figure III-2, these areas are distributed throughout the valley floor.
|
|
Gunnison Sage-grouse Severe Winter Range
Severe winter range is defined as that part of the winter range where 90% of the individuals are located when annual snow pack is at its maximum and/or temperatures are at a minimum in the two worst winters out of ten. The winters of 1983-1984, or 1996-1997 are good examples. Areas included within this designation are in the lower Tomichi and Gunnison River bottomlands.
|
Mountain Goat Habitat
|
Mountain Goat Summer Range
This dataset depicts summer range for Mountain Goat. Summer range is defined as that part of the home range where 90% of the individuals are located during the summer. The range may overlap winter range in some instances. Summer range will include what has traditionally been known as April and fall transitional ranges. Areas included within this designation include isolated drainages south of Marble.
|
|
Mountain Goat Winter Range
Winter range is that part of the overall range of elk where 90% of the individuals are located during the average five winters out of ten from the first snowfall to spring green –up. Again, due to wide dispersal of the species, the only area is located southwest of the Town of Marble.
|
Riparian Areas
Riparian zones have received increased attention in recent years, particularly in the southwestern United States. Because of the management implications of defining a riparian zone, landowners and resource managers are increasingly calling for a precise description of these unique ecosystems. However, such a precise description is not easily found, largely because the scientific community is still struggling to develop a universally accepted definition. A precise definition will not be provided here; rather, what follows is a general description of riparian areas and a few guidelines for determining whether a particular area should be labeled "riparian".
Most definitions of riparian areas describe them simply as the transitional zones between aquatic and terrestrial (or upland) environments. Therefore, riparian areas occur as a belt along the banks of rivers, streams, and lakes. Riparian areas occurring along the banks of moving water (i.e., streams or rivers) are often called lotic systems whereas those occurring along the banks of stationary water (i.e., lakes, ponds, or pools) are called lentic systems. As a transitional zone between aquatic and upland environments, riparian systems often exhibit characteristics of both; but they are not as dry as upland environments and they are not quite as wet as aquatic or wetland systems.
The Colorado Division of Wildlife is the only data source available to assign areas of riparian vegetation for the County, and the data is depicted on Figure III-3 (2.5 MB). As is apparent, only isolated areas have been designated on the map, and the County will continue to update this map as additional information becomes available.
Slope Constraints
Generalized slope constraints are shown on Figure III-4. The slope is in percent, which is a simple rise over run calculation that was produced within the GIS system using a digital elevation model. The current LUR only regulates development on slopes of 30% or more. A survey conducted by the American Planning Association concluded that 80% of jurisdictions in the United States require that development on lands above 15% trigger some form of heightened review process.
Geologic Constraints
Geologic constraints are shown on Figure III-5. The data was provided by the Colorado Geologic Survey, and was produced at a scale of 1:24000 and include the following hazard designations:
|
Debris Fan
A debris or alluvial fan formed by successive episodes or deposition of mud and debris; |
|
High Water Table Area
An area where ground water is at or near the surface much of the year. These areas, shown only in places adjacent to major drainages, are evidenced by riparian vegetation and stream bank physiography. Numerous areas too small to be shown at this map scale are found contiguous to smaller drainages or associated with ancient and modern landslides and earthflows. |
|
Landslide-Earth flow Area
An area with demonstrated active natural movement of landslides and/or earthflows. Evidence for modern slope movements include distinctive physiography and disrupted vegetation or structures; |
|
Mudflow
An area subject to rapid mud and debris movement after mobilization by heavy rainfall or snow runoff; |
|
Mudflow/Debris Fan
A source of mud and debris, usually in the upper reaches of a drainage basin or its contiguous sideslopes; |
|
Physiographic Floodplain
An area that shows historical shifting of the riverbed, which indicates frequent likelihood for flooding; |
|
Potentially Unstable Slope
Slopes with most attributes of an unstable slope, but where past or present slope failure is not apparent or certain. Such areas have undergone slope movement in the recent geologic past; |
|
Rockfall Area
Areas subject to rapid, intermittent, nearly unpredictable rolling, sliding, bounding, or free falling of large masses of rock, debris or individual rock blocks. Such areas are most commonly adjacent to unvegetated, barren, steep and/or fractured and jointed bedrock cliffs; and |
|
Unstable Slopes
Slopes with landslide-earthflow characteristics, but where modern movement is not apparent or uncertain. |
The presence of the hazards does not imply that development is not possible, but that additional geologic and engineering analysis is necessary to determine site -specific conditions.
Wildfire Hazards
In 2002, County staff and the Colorado State Forest Service began a cooperative effort to map wildfire hazards using the most sophisticated modeling methodology currently available. The project was funded with a grant from the state of Colorado, with County staff providing an in-kind match and GIS resources.
The model was based on utilizing on-the-ground fieldwork, aerial and satellite photography. The components, or inputs of the model are as follows: Ladder Fuels, Forest Density, Insects and Disease, Slope, Aspect and Fuel Hazard. The results of the model output are shown on Figure III-6. Areas of Extreme Hazard can be found in Taylor Canyon, Ohio Creek and Kebler Pass. Areas of High Hazard radiate out from these same areas. Again the mapping is not meant to preclude development in these areas, but suggest additional mitigation measures or reduced densities to address public health, safety and welfare.
Viewshed Protection
As part of the work of the Focus Group, a viewshed model was run using the GIS software to map prominent viewsheds from State Highway 50 and State Highway 135. The model is based on a 30-meter grid, and calculates line of site at 100-foot intervals along the highway corridors. The results of the model run are shown on Figure III-7 (2.4 MB). The viewshed analysis graphically depicts the extreme visibility of the valley floors along both highway corridors. Again, the purpose of the map was not to preclude development in the areas mapped but may suggest specific corridors and areas for refined regulations if the Planning Commission finds such approaches are warranted.
High Water Table
Areas of high water table have been extracted from the Geologic Hazards Map and are shown on Figure III-8 (2.5 MB). Areas include the lower reaches of the Gunnison River north and south of Gunnison, Ohio Creek, and isolated pockets around Crested Butte and the East River drainage.
Goals & Objectives
A single goal and a series of objectives are summarized below. Specific implementation measures are included within Appendix C.
Mission Statement
Gunnison County recognizes that the environment is the fundamental basis for a vital and sustainable economy. A healthy environment is absolutely necessary for the physical and mental well being of our residents and visitors. Finally, the Gunnison County community recognizes that our environment has intrinsic value, and the County should develop in a way that maintains a healthy ecosystem.
Objectives
|
Ecological Resources
- Gunnison County should ensure that sufficient quantities of high-quality habitat exist to support viable populations of existing species.
- The County should protect its unique biological features, including but not limited to the Gunnison Sage Grouse, Lynx, the Mount Emmons Iron Fen and the Sundew plant (Drosera rotundifolia), as well as other resources identified by expert sources such as the Colorado Natural Heritage Programs Survey of the Gunnison Wetlands.
- Future development patterns should be designed to minimize fragmentation of habitat.
- In the context of changing climatic conditions, the County should manage open space and development patterns to provide sufficient flexibility for future generations to maintain healthy ecosystems.
- The County shall adopt a strategy to maintain the environmental value of existing ranches.
|
|
Decrease Use of Non-Renewable Fuels
- Future development patterns shall encourage transportation systems that minimize environmental and human health degradation.
- The County shall develop a set of building guidelines to encourage the conservation of energy and natural resources.
|
|
Air Quality
- The County will strive to maintain or improve air quality, both indoor and outdoor, reducing any and all negative health impacts.
|
|
Water Quality and Quantity
- The sustainability of water quality, riparian areas, floodplains and wetlands will be enhanced rather than degraded.
- There shall be no loss of natural wetlands as the human population grows. The quality and quantity of wetlands will be protected from damage and destruction.
- To promote natural river and stream flows, Gunnison County should allow natural changes in river and stream channels to occur with minimal human intervention.
- New development should have sufficient water resources to support the project’s projected demand.
- Gunnison County shall maintain in stream flows sufficient to support a healthy ecosystem and keep Gunnison County water in Gunnison County.
- There should be sufficient water to sustain agriculture operations. Additionally, further development of the county should be limited to what can be supported by water availability during periods of unusual droughts over a 100-year time frame.
|
|
Visual Resources
- Gunnison County should protect its natural viewsheds. The county shall adopt policies that minimize fragmentation and degradation of scenic views.
- Minimize and reduce light pollution of the night sky so that the greatest number of stars may be seen by the naked eye and through telescopes.
- Gunnison County should maintain the scenic value of existing ranches and promote agriculture sustainability.
- Native wildflowers should be maintained in their natural habitat.
|
|
Recreation and Trails
- Recreation will be managed to minimize impacts to the environment.
- Gunnison County should maintain or create access to public lands and amenities such as trails, open space and parks.
|
|
Noise/Recycling
- The County will make every effort to control excess noise and vibration to protect the health, welfare and quality of life.
- The County shall continue to reduce waste by actively promoting recycling and reuse.
|
|
Natural Hazards
- Manage development patterns to minimize the potential damage from geologic hazards, reduce wildfire hazards, and reduce avalanche hazards to humans and structures.
|
|
Cultural Resources
- Historic (i.e. pioneer) and ancient (indigenous) sites will be protected.
- Archeological research will be encouraged by the County.
|
|
Human Resources
- Promote a healthy living and working environment in Gunnison County.
- Gunnison County should encourage and support scientific research that will provide information needed to manage the Gunnison Basin ecosystem in the future.
- Our environment supports many recreational activities. Recreation will be managed to minimize impacts to the environment.
- Maintain or create access to public lands and amenities such as trails, open space and parks.
|
|
|
|
Office Staff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Office Hours
|
|
|
Monday - Friday (except for holidays)
8:00 am - noon & 1:00 - 5:00
* Prior arrangements can be made for services during the lunch hour.
|
|
Contact Information
|
Geographic Infromation Services
200 E. Virginia Avenue
Suite #158
Gunnison, CO 81230
|
Phone: (970) 641-7620
(Voicemail is available 24 hours per day)
Fax: (970) 641-3061 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
