Windy Gap - Still Controversial

To say things are heating up around Windy Gap Reservoir isn't just a figure of speech. But the controversial pond pausing the flow of the upper Colorado River remains a hot topic as Grand County commissioners take up a 1041 permit application for the proposed Windy Gap Firming Project that would impact the upper reaches of the state's namesake river. Two days of public hearings opening comment on the proposal to expand the Northern Water Conservancy District's transmountain diversion built around the 445-acre-foot reservoir near Granby drew a crowd to Hot Sulphur Springs last week. As has become the norm in the lengthy process, much emphasis was placed on the negative environmental impacts Windy Gap Reservoir already has had on the upper Colorado River and potential ways to fix the problem.

Read more at The Denver Post online. 

Protecting CO Backcountry

Colorado’s backcountry fish and wildlife habitats will enjoy strong protections for the future thanks to a new federal rule that was shaped significantly by anglers and hunters.

The July 2012 release of the final US Forest Service plan for conservation and management of Colorado’s roadless areas was the culmination of a process that spanned the terms of three governors. From the beginning, TU was there, taking part in Governor Owens’ initial roadless task force, periodically meeting with Forest Services officials, and working to secure enhancements right through the final days before the rule was issued.

Why is “roadless” so important to TU? Because roadless areas support prime wildlife habitat that is critical to the survival and recovery of Colorado’s remaining populations of native cutthroat trout. The numbers tell the story about what roadless areas encompass:

• More than 75% of the remaining habitat for Greenback cutthroats
• Nearly 60% of the remaining habitat for Rio Grande cutthroats
• More than 70% of the remaining habitat for Colorado River cutthroats

Native trout and dirt roads are not good partners. Backcountry streams that support native trout are often narrow, not very deep and can experience very low seasonal flows. A single severe thunderstorm can flush so much sediment into a stream that spawning areas are smothered and fish suffocated.

Of course, TU wasn’t alone in its support of a beefed-up backcountry plan. Colorado hunters supported roadless protections because they harbor some of the state’s best big game habitat: More than 50% of elk summer concentration and production areas are in roadless areas, and the 15 most hunted Game Management Units in Colorado all have more than 66,000 acres of roadless lands.

Development of a state-specific Colorado Roadless Rule began during the Bush Administration as an alternative approach to the Clinton administration’s 2001 rule, at a time when the 2001 rule was the subject of multiple lawsuits. Even though the ensuing legal battles ultimately resulted in the affirmation of the Clinton-era rule, Colorado continued to develop its own plan, focusing on local interests and issues. TU participated throughout, always reiterating a simple standard: we would support a Colorado rule only if it was, on balance, as strong as or stronger than the 2001 rule in protecting Colorado’s backcountry.

It was a fruitful strategy. TU’s most notable success was to secure special protection for drainages supporting native cutthroat trout. And while the final rule allows for a range of activities within those drainages, it also requires the Forest Service to ensure that those activities would not result in any long-term declines in cutthroat trout habitat, or in the extent of streams and lakes occupied by the native cutthroat. These protections help ensure that roadless areas continue to serve as an essential and effective refuge for Colorado’s native trout heritage.

The final rule that emerged from the decade-long process contains additional, important protections:

• Establishing an “upper tier” category of roadless lands with protections stronger than those in the 2001 federal rule, including a requirement that oil and gas reserves be accessed through directional drilling, with drill sites sited outside the roadless boundaries. This upper tier includes more than 1.2 million acres of Colorado’s total of 4.2 million roadless acres.
• Closing a loophole in the federal rule that allowed for “linear construction zones” – temporary roads in all but name. Under the new rule, these “LCZs” are greatly restricted.
• Adjusting the federally designated “roadless areas” to reflect more accurate inventories, effectively extending roadless protection to more than 400,000 acres not included under the 2001 rule.

The final Colorado rule does contains some exemptions from the road-building and logging limitations of the 2001 rule, designed to accommodate specific community and economic interests. Most notably, the rule allows for temporary roads and logging to address wildfire risks by conducting fuel treatments in roadless areas adjacent to communities in the so-called “wildland-urban interface.” The Colorado rule also exempts certain areas within the boundaries of existing ski areas, as well as areas overlying some existing coal mining areas within the North Fork of the Gunnison watershed. Another exemption allowing for construction and maintenance of water conveyances with existing water rights was also included.

Colorado TU Executive Director, David Nickum, praised the new rule for its balance between strong protections for key habitats and flexibility when it comes to community protection and economic development. “We recognize the need to deal with issues like fuel reduction around communities,” said Nickum. “But the new rule pairs that flexibility with stronger protections for Colorado’s native trout heritage and its best backcountry lands. It strikes the right balance.”

Trout Unlimited was a central voice in pushing for some of the final changes that helped the Colorado rule meet our standard of being, on balance, as strong as the national rule.

Those changes included strengthened provisions for native trout protection, limitations on the location of water development facilities, and the concept of “upper tier” areas, which were modeled after a state-specific plan created by in Idaho.

There is no question that without the steady and effective involvement of sportsmen throughout the rulemaking process, we would not have achieved the success that we see in the final rule today.

“Colorado’s anglers and hunters understand the connection between healthy fish and game habitat and their ability to fish and hunt successfully on land that belongs to all Americans,” said Chris Wood, President and CEO of Trout Unlimited. “That’s why our volunteer members were engaged in the Colorado rule-making process. This rule, while not perfect, sets the bar pretty high and proves that sportsmen are a force to be reckoned with when it comes to protecting public lands and how they’re managed today, and in the future.”

For more on the importance of backcountry areas, visit Trout Unlimited's report on Colorado roadless areas, Where the Wildlands Are: Colorado

The Hole in the Colorado River

After eight miles, we reach Windy Gap Reservoir where we meet up with Rob Firth, the Colorado River Headwaters Project Coordinator for Trout Unlimited. He informs us that the full-fledged "hole in the river" begins at Windy Gap and ends where Troublesome Creek reinvigorates the river's flow 21 miles downstream. According to Firth, this stretch is "a terribly dewatered section that puts this river in a very perilous state." Read the complete article in the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zachary-podmore/the-hole-in-the-colorado_b_1749889.html

The Roadless Rule and You

The U.S. Forest Service has issued a Record of Decision for the Colorado Roadless Rule, thus concluding a nearly seven year process to determine the management of the 4.2 million acres of Colorado’s roadless backcountry. These lands are especially critical to anglers as they are the headwaters to every major river in the state and home to the majority of our only native trout - the cutthroat. Colorado is one of only two states to participate in a state rulemaking process for the roadless lands within their state boundaries – the other being Idaho. So what does this mean for anglers and conservationists in Colorado?

The main thing it does is clear up the fog lying over natural resource management that occurs in roadless areas.

It is now very clear how management actions in these areas must be conducted. For instance, 1.2 million acres are now managed as “upper tier”, meaning these areas have greater protection and more prohibitions on the type of activities that are allowed. In these upper tier areas any new oil and gas activities must operate without occupying the surface of these lands. Also, any project in these upper tier areas must protect native cutthroat trout and ensure that these populations remain over the long-term. These upper tier areas have greater protections than they were afforded under the 2001 Clinton-era Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

As for the 3 million acres of non - upper tier lands – these areas are generally well-protected but have numerous exceptions tailored to Colorado’s economic drivers and unique management situations such as ski areas, the coal mining areas near Paonia and fire and fuels management in the Wildland Urban Interface or WUI .

Of course, this is an oversimplified account of the vast array of ramifications of such a detailed rule. However, you the reader, would be bored if I went into the excruciating details. Some people love this stuff though and I’m happy to talk with them about how the new rule affects their favorite backcountry fishing hole or their favorite waters far downstream, but still influenced, by the backcountry headwaters. If you find yourself in this category, please contact me. Or, if you want to read the rule for yourself, here’s the link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5378039.pdf

The best thing about all this is that here in Colorado, we still have wild, un-roaded landscapes where you can be one with the stream, your rod, a babbling brook and nothing else. Make sure you exercise this privilege and take a youngster with you – it is priceless and irreplaceable.

For more information, contact Aaron Kindle at akindle@tu.org.

It's Why We Still Like Ike

On July 14th, a stretch of the Fraser River was dedicated as the Eisenhower Reach.

Named after President Dwight D. (I like Ike!) Eisenhower, a frequent visitor to the area and fishermen of the Fraser River, this dedication helps to keep the history of the Fraser alive.

However, the river's future continues to be in jeopardy. Colorado TU's David Nickum summed it up this way - "I would rather see a healthy Fraser Creek than a dead Fraser River."

Read more about the Fraser and TU's ongoing involvement in the Sky High Daily News.

The Governor Can Help

Despite a recent agreement, the Upper Colorado and Fraser are still threatened.

On May 15, Denver Water and Grand and Summit counties ratified the Colorado River Cooperative agreement, touted in the Denver Post as a "framework to avoid conflict." Denver Water will kick-in 25 million for water projects in western Colorado and the signers, including Eagle county, won't oppose DW's expansion of gross reservoir and will have a say in future water projects that affect the west slope.

The following is the text of a letter by Mely Whiting, a staff attorney for Trout Unlimited's Colorado Water Project, that was recently published as a Denver Post e-letter.

Denver Water and Western Slope water stakeholders deserve credit for forging this cooperative agreement, a new, collaborative approach to managing our water that recognizes the value of protecting our natural resources while meeting our water needs.

But let’s remember that the Upper Colorado and Fraser rivers remain on the brink of ecological collapse. Two looming diversion projects — Denver Water’s Moffat Tunnel expansion and Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District’s Windy Gap Firming Project — collectively will take another 15-20 percent of the already depleted flows of the Upper Colorado. The Moffat expansion will leave less than 25 percent of the Fraser River flows.

The cooperative agreement does not address the impacts of those two major projects. The fact is, these rivers will continue to decline unless they receive additional protections, as the state’s own recent studies attest. As long as adequate protections are not provided, opposition to the projects will continue.

Gov. John Hickenlooper should use his influence and the good will generated by this agreement to finish the job of protecting the Upper Colorado.

Mely Whiting, Denver

Help ensure that the Upper Colorado River gets the help - and the water - it deserves. Visit: Defend The Colorado.org/

Where Does Your Water Come From?

Hint: "The faucet" is not the correct answer.

If you live in Denver, Boulder and many other cities on the front range, at least some of your water comes from the upper Colorado River Basin on the other side of the Continental Divide. As you'll recall from 6th grade or thereabouts, that water is supposed to flow to the Pacific Ocean.

But the front range has been pulling water out of the upper Colorado for decades - and now water providers are planning to take even more. The question is - how much can you take before the river starts to die?

Tapped Out: The Upper Colorado on the Brink is a short documentary designed to make people think about the effect our water use in cities has on rivers and economies many miles distant.

Watch: Tapped Out

Sucking the River Dry

"How much water does a river need to stay alive? At what point does the upper Colorado cease to be a functioning river? We may be dangerously close to finding out."

Sucked Dry: Will State Leaders Help Defend the Embattled Colorado River?

By Drew Peternell, Trout Unlimited

If you’ve driven down the hill on I-70 recently, perhaps after an escape to one of Colorado’s West Slope playgrounds, you might have seen a billboard near Golden that warns, “Don’t Suck the Upper Colorado River Dry.”

It’s a blunt wake-up call to state leaders, water utilities, Front Range residents, and all Coloradans who care about the future of our state’s namesake river.

The Colorado River, from its headwaters in Rocky Mountain National Park down through Granby, Kremmling, Glenwood Springs and beyond, has long been a favorite destination for Front Range residents. Generations of Coloradans have fished, hunted, hiked, camped and floated along the waters of the Colorado.

But most Front Range residents don't realize that much of the water they use at home comes directly from the streams and rivers of the upper Colorado River basin. A spider-web network of dams and pumps and pipelines delivers water from the Colorado and other West Slope rivers to showerheads and sprinklers in Denver and surrounding areas.

Already Front Range utilities take about 60 percent of the water that originates in the upper Colorado River basin, draining Grand County to the point that many of its once pristine streams now run dry.

The Fraser River, a Colorado tributary where President Eisenhower spent summers fishing, is among the hardest hit.

The low stream flows take a devastating toll on river health. Studies show dramatic declines in the size and health of trout, and entire classes of aquatic insects have disappeared from the river. Because of low stream flows and high water temperatures, the Colorado and several tributaries are choked with silt and algae.

More Proposed Diversions

And now, Front Range water providers are planning to drain the Colorado and Fraser rivers some more.

Two proposed water-diversion projects -- Denver Water's Moffat Collection System Project and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District's Windy Gap Firming Project -- threaten to push the Colorado and Fraser rivers and their tributaries past the tipping point. Combined, the projects could leave as little as 25 percent of native upper Colorado River water on the West Slope.

A river with one quarter of its natural flow. If present trends continue, the mighty Colorado River could someday be called Colorado Creek -- or the Colorado Trickle.

How much water does a river need to stay alive?  At what point does the upper Colorado cease to be a functioning river? We may be dangerously close to finding out.

The CPW Study

A 2011 report by the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife (CPW) underscores the poor ecological health of the upper Colorado River. Led by respected veteran CPW biologist Barry Nehring, the study documents a river in sharp decline, suffering from multiple maladies caused largely by water diversions to the Front Range (see sidebar).

The CPW study acknowledges that these problems are likely to worsen with additional water withdrawals. It outlines several measures needed to maintain the health of the Colorado River under the lower flow conditions that would result from the projects Denver Water and the Northern Water District are proposing.

The three key measures are: (1) preservation of higher spring flushing flows to help remove sediment that smothers fish and insect habitat; (2) stream reconfiguration to narrow the channel, so that the remaining water flows are deeper, cooler, and faster; and (3) construction of a bypass around Windy Gap Reservoir -- a source of silt, algae, thermal pollution, and the lethal rainbow trout whirling disease.

Current project plans do not include the protections the CPW report identified as necessary to maintain the health of the upper Colorado River under the increased diversions.

Insufficient Protections for the River

In a formal letter issued in February, the EPA listed a host of concerns about the river impacts of the Moffat and Windy Gap project proposals. Citing the CPW study at length, the EPA called for stronger protections than in the fish and wildlife mitigation plans the Colorado Wildlife Commission approved for the projects last summer.

But Governor Hickenlooper and other state officials responsible for protecting Colorado’s natural resources recently have distanced themselves from the CPW report, asserting that the present mitigation packages are sufficient to preserve the river -- notwithstanding the conclusions of state wildlife biologists and the EPA to the contrary.

There is no doubt that the Colorado Wildlife Commission and its staff reviewed the fish and wildlife mitigation plans carefully and secured as much protection for the Colorado and Fraser Rivers they thought they could. But state law -- as interpreted by the Colorado Attorney General’s Office -- limited the Wildlife Commission’s authority to demand broader protections. During the hearings, several wildlife commissioners publicly lamented that they could not do more.

Time for a Way Forward

Hickenlooper is rightfully proud of the so-called “Cooperative Agreement” he helped broker last year between Denver Water and a number of West Slope stakeholders. The agreement places some restrictions on future Denver Water projects that impact the Colorado River, and it requires Denver to increase its conservation efforts.

But let there be no confusion. The agreement does not address the Moffat and Windy Gap project proposals, and it does not fully resolve the problems facing the Colorado River.

Governor Hickenlooper has a golden opportunity to follow-up on his good work on the cooperative agreement. He should bring interested parties to the table to craft a final mitigation plan that fully addresses the impacts of the current water withdrawal proposals.

If state officials are unwilling or unable to join the effort to protect these important resources, they need to step aside and let the federal agencies do their job as they review the projects.

Much to Lose

No one would claim that finding a solution will be easy -- these are tough, complex challenges. But, with cooperation and leadership from the state, the project proponents and other interested parties, it should be possible to craft a way forward that supplies additional water to the Front Range while keeping the Colorado River healthy.

The West Slope rivers that we tap to deliver water to the Front Range are priceless. They are vital to the health of mountain communities, Colorado's $10 billion-a-year outdoor recreation economy, and the high quality of life Coloradans enjoy.

Given all we stand to lose, now is the time to find a solution that preserves the Colorado River as the state treasure that it is.

For more information and to add your voice to those calling for protection of the Colorado River, go to www.defendthecolorado.org.

A River on the Brink

A 2011 study by the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife found that water diversions to the Front Range have caused severe ecological damage to the upper Colorado River. The impacts to the river below Windy Gap Reservoir include:

• A 38 percent decline in aquatic insect life;
• A complete elimination of native sculpin fish -- a key indicator of stream health;
• An almost total loss of the population of giant stoneflies -- once the dominant aquatic food source on the river;
• An “armoring” of the river bottom from sediment and silt, destroying spawning habitat for trout and smothering aquatic insect populations.

The study concludes that additional water withdrawals from the proposed Moffat Collection System and Windy Gap Firming projects will make these problems worse.

Drew Peternell is director of the Colorado Water Project for Trout Unlimited, whose mission is to conserve, protect and restore North America’s coldwater fisheries and their watersheds.

Read this opinion piece by Drew Peternell, director of TU's Colorado Water Project at DenverPost.com.

And go to www.defendthecolorado.org to learn more and join the effort.

River Rally II Rocks Capitol

Hear Case Philip sing "Don't Suck the Uppper Colorado Dry" on YouTube.

A group of more than 70 boisterous Defend the Colorado advocates gathered at the state capitol to hand-deliver a giant post card to governor Hickenlooper's office. Why a giant post card? Because it had to have enough room for the 2,000 people who wanted to sign it and comment. Their message?  'Don't Suck the Upper Colorado River Dry.'

"Can you hear us now?"

Since the rally happened right outside his office window, the governor - or at least his staff - probably heard it loud and clear. A group of about 70 river advocates turned out to hear several speakers, including Drew Peternell, director of TU's Colorado Water Project, who told the crowd that the recreation opportunities many Coloradans take for granted "will no longer exist" on the Upper Colorado if the river is not protected.

Fraser Valley TU Headwaters chapter president Kirk Klancke emotionally recounted how his children had worried about the health of the Upper Colorado and wondered if it would be there for them.

And Field and Stream columnist Kirk Deeter offered an analogy to plans to take two-thirds of the Upper Colorado flows -- would it be acceptable, he asked, if the state decided to take two-thirds of Pikes Peak, another Colorado icon?

Read Deeter's terrific blog post on that theme here.

The governor certainly won't be "the decider" when it comes to water projects on the upper Colorado River, but we believe he should weigh-in and try to influence the final decision. Here's what we think water-project developers need to do:

• Manage the water supply to keep the rivers cool, clear and healthy.
• Ensure healthy flushing flows to prevent river habitat from filling in with silt.
• Monitor the rivers’ health and a commitment to take action if needed to protect them.
• Bypass the Windy Gap dam to reconnect Colorado River and restore river quality.

The Defend the Colorado coalition includes Colorado Trout Unlimited and a range of stakeholders, including conservation and wildlife groups, landowners, and outdoor recreationists. More than 400 western slope businesses have signed a petition asking state leaders to protect the Upper Colorado.

The event received some good media coverage, including a report on Colorado Public Radio and a great column in the Denver Post by outdoor writer Scott Willoughby. http://www.denverpost.com/willoughby/ci_20014054

For more information, go to www.DefendTheColorado.org.

FERC Rejects Million Permit

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has dismissed a hydropower permit application for a proposed 500-mile water pipeline from the Green River to Colorado’s Front Range.

Developer Aaron Million’s idea was to use the water flowing downhill from the top of the Continental Divide to generate power to - at least partially - offset the enormous cost of pumping it up there in the first place. But FERC may have viewed the application by Wyco Power and Water as an attempt to short cut the federal review process for the entire pipeline project. It’s clear that this is a massive water supply project and that hydropower would have played a small part. “We are pleased that the FERC recognized that Aaron’s proposal is premature,” says Drew Peternell, Director of TU’s Colorado Water Project. “In our view, the time will never come when this project is deserving of a permit.” While this doesn’t kill Million’s dream, it highlights how much work is yet to be done, least of which is to determine the pipeline’s precise route. FERC emphasizes that uncertainty in its Order of Dismissal:

Until some certainty regarding the authorization of the pipeline is presented, Wyco will not be able to gather and obtain the information required to prepare a license application for a proposed hydropower project.  Therefore, there is no purpose under the FPA for issuing a permit to Wyco for its proposed hydropower project at this time.  For this reason, Wyco’s preliminary permit application is dismissed as premature.

Read the full Order of Dismissal: http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmw/file_list.asp?accession_num=20120223-30

Read the Denver Post article by Bruce Finley.