Current Snowpack Above Average

After a slow start to the snowy weather, the mountains are experiencing a pattern of snow storm after snow storm. This recent storm has even left snow resorts closing because of too much snow. As a result, the state's snowpack is well above the average levels of where it typically is for middle January. The Colorado River Basin is currently 146-percent (137-percent in the headwaters) and the South Platte watershed is at 146-percent. The southwest corner of the state- the Gunnison, Animas, and San Juan watershed is around 160-percent. While the Yampa and White river is around 133-percent. The Arkansas and Rio Grande basins are hovering around 150-percent.

But what does this mean for our rivers?

If the snow melts too rapidly, it could cause severe flooding in places of the state and, something that Colorado rarely sees, our reservoirs may be filled up too soon from too much water, according to an article by 9news. "Our goal is to be at 100-percent full for our reservoirs, once runoff season is over,” Travis Thompson, spokesperson for Denver Water said. “So, we're always adjusting levels to try and make sure that happens. Sometimes if you  do see too much, we may have to do some releases earlier in the year to try, whether it's preventing too much water at that time."

However, if we have a cooler spring and the snow is able to melt at a slower rate, it could mean great things for our rivers and fish as the dissolved oxygen increases and in return, increasing the quality of our aquatic ecosystems.

The total amount of snowpack is essential to Colorado’s freshwater ecosystems because it serves as frozen water storage. Trout species, as well as the bug life and standing stock in every ecosystem, require watersheds to be at normal levels in order to flourish. Dissolved oxygen (DO) is fundamental to aquatic life. With higher levels of snowpack, there is more capability for dissolved oxygen in water due to higher water levels and colder temperatures. Cold water can hold more DO than warm water. Higher DO levels are achieved when water levels and flow rates are high and where the water is aerated in the rapids.

Most species of trout requires 5-6 times more DO when water temperatures reach 75 degrees compared to when they are at 41 degrees. “Species that cannot tolerate low levels of DO – mayfly nymphs, stonefly nymphs, and beetle larvae – will be replaced by a few kinds of pollution-tolerant organisms, such as worms and fly larvae. Nuisance algae and anaerobic organisms (that live without oxygen) may also become abundant in waters with low levels of DO,” according to Brian Oram with the Water Research Center. Fish reproduction can also be hampered if there is not sufficient snowpack because eggs and fish in immature stages require much higher DO content in water.

The current levels of snowpack could be great for our rivers and trout this summer, but that would require a slower runoff to avoid possible floods in the case of a fast melting period.

For more information about how snowpack affects Colorado's rivers, check out the article Snowpack and Our Rivers by Danielle Adams.

An Increase in Fishing License Fees? .... If so, Why?

By Jon P. Weimer, Colorado TU Director-At-Large, Communications Committee This article was originally published in the 2017 Winter Edition of High Country Angler

Let us know your thoughts about the potential fishing increase with this short survey!

In the summer of 2016, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) conducted a series of 18 public meetings across the State, entitled Funding the Future.  CPW anticipates budget shortfalls, and the meetings were conducted to get feedback from hunters and anglers on how best to stop the financial hemorrhaging and perhaps even enhance its coffers.  Increasing hunting and fishing license fees for State residents has been proffered by the Agency as one possible option.

For more information from Colorado Parks and Wildlife, visit:

History of License Revenue

CPW Financial Sustainability

Funding the Future

Background

In 2011, the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation merged with the Division of Wildlife.  Ostensibly, the merger would allow the new Agency—CPW—to capture some efficiencies through sharing resources, such as accounting and marketing, and position it to connect with the general public as a single organization.  A prevalent rumor at the time was that the merger was enacted to bail out the Parks Division using Wildlife funds.  This view, apparently, was a misconception.  There are very specific Federal and State laws that require that Wildlife funds---which include hunting and fishing license fees-- be spent only for Wildlife purposes, while Park funds were to be spent only for Park purposes.  It is important to note that although these two Divisions merged, each retains its own budget.  It is also important to note the irony that Parks currently is in relatively good shape financially.  It is Wildlife that is hurting financially, and providing the impetus for CPW to plead for more revenue.

Current Status

CPW has a user-pay, user-benefit funding mode; it does not receive General Fund revenue (i.e., taxpayer money).  So, fish and wildlife conservation programs, as well as management of recreational lands, are primarily funded by hunters, anglers and park visitors, through sales of hunting and fishing licenses, habitat stamps, and park passes.  More specifically, about 62 percent of the revenue generated by CPW comes from hunting and fishing license fees.  Federal excise taxes levied on hunting and fishing equipment comprise 16 percent of the budget, and grants from Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) make up 12 percent of the revenue.  Those Federal excise taxes are collected from makers of outdoor equipment which are returned to the State based on license numbers and geographic size.  Any proposed increase in license fees must be approved through the Colorado legislature before they are finalized by the governor’s signature.

Presently, resident fishing licenses for adults (age 16 to 64) cost $26.  A $10 habitat stamp is also required from adults (18 to 64 years).  Licenses for seniors (age 65 and over) are provided free, although they must pay a $1 charge, $.25 of which goes for a search and rescue fee, and $.75 of which reflects a  Public Education Advisory Council (CPEAC) fee.

Reasons for Budget Deficits

CPW’s Wildlife Management Division claims that, in recent years, it has faced substantial budget shortfalls which have resulted in the elimination of over 50 positions and $40 million from Wildlife budgets.  Without increasing revenues, CPW states that Wildlife Management will have to cut additional staff and core services, which could include reductions to wildlife and property management, biological research, access for hunting and fishing, as well as the closure of some reservoirs and fish hatcheries.  CPW avers that, basically, for the past decade, its incoming revenue has been relatively stagnant while faced with increased costs, a larger mission, and more complex issues to manage.

CPW is the largest owner of dams in Colorado and oversees 19 hatcheries in the State, where it raises 90 million fish annually for stocking rivers and lakes, and with limited funds it says it is falling behind on dam and hatchery maintenance.  As examples of rising costs since 2005 – the last time resident fishing license fees were increased – CPW points to some specific examples:  leasing water for hatcheries has increased 344 percent; fish food has risen 92 percent; and the cost of a fisheries work boat has increased 24 percent.  CPW personnel indicate that there have been some major investments out of their control such as information technology and new Statewide accounting systems.  They also point to new wildlife challenges with which they’ve had to contend such as whirling disease and invasion of aquatic nuisance species that have imposed unexpected costs. Then, of course, costs such as those associated with personnel, health care, and utilities have consistently increased during this time span as well.

Possible Solutions for Reducing Budget Deficit

Resident  License Fee Increase:  During the course of CPW’s Funding for Wildlife series of public meetings, the Agency discussed, and received from participants, a number of proposed solutions to remedy the budget deficit but invariably, possible license fee increases loomed large.  At these meetings, CPW personnel attempted to explain the Agency’s budget situation, detailing what it had done recently to address shortfalls in revenue, and providing a forecast of how CPW might address its programs.  CPW indicated that in order to maintain the current wildlife programs and restore or add a slate of new programs requested by stakeholders would, essentially, require doubling the price of most State hunting and fishing licenses.  This calculation, as might be expected, received emphasis from the media and stakeholders, although CPW insisted that the Agency had NOT proposed such an increase. However, even CPW Director, Bob Broscheid, admitted that a license increase must be considered.

Regarding fishing licenses, the price increment in resident fishing licenses that has been bandied about most often at these meetings was a hike for adults from $26 to $50, almost a 100 percent increase.  If such an increase was approved, CPW discussed whether or not it should be implemented in one year or, perhaps, in stages over a 4 to 5 year time span.  Whatever price increase instituted, if any, should have a sound rationale if it’s going to receive legislative approval.  CPW might look at the price increases that other states have adopted, or possibly the price increase could be based on some econometric modeling derived from results obtained in a “willingness to pay” survey.  In addition to holding 18 public meetings this past summer, CPW send post cards to 3,000 randomly chosen resident license holders (half hunters, half anglers) to ask if they supported increasing license prices.  CPW also gathered input from an online public comment form on its website regarding people’s willingness to pay more for a fishing/hunting license.

In economics, there’s a concept called price elasticity.  Price elasticity has many facets to it but, basically, it refers to determining what percent-increase in the price of a product or service will lead to optimal revenue, recognizing that as prices increase the numbers of customers willing to buy a product decreases.  Very simply, one is looking for that price “sweet spot” that will lead to the most revenue.  If your price falls below that sweet spot, you won’t obtain as much revenue as possible; however, if you overshoot that sweet spot, you could actually lose revenue because a large number of your previous customers decline to buy your product.  Retail outlets have the luxury and flexibility to continually change prices, looking for that sweet spot.  Government agencies don’t have that luxury---they make a decision that they have to live with for a while.

The $26 to $50 price hike in resident fishing license fees that has been discussed may be tolerable to a certain segment of the angling population, but not to another that may feel that such an increment is too steep a hike, and a number of anglers may simply stop purchasing a license. Obviously, it’s a complex and important decision that CPW has to make, requiring a great deal of deliberation.  CPW has also discussed at these public meetings the idea that, in order to avoid further price hikes that are perceived as too steep, the Agency may attempt to secure legislative approval to tie resident angling license fees to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), a price structure that would basically mirror that for out-of-State angling/hunting licenses which are indexed to the CPI, usually resulting in small annual increases to keep up with inflation.

In addition to possibly raising the resident fishing license fees for adults, CPW is also considering levying a license fee for seniors who, as mentioned earlier in this article, are currently charged $1.  Seniors account for approximately 20 percent of the State’s annual license purchases.  In 2015, CPW issued 85,510 senior fishing licenses.  None of these senior licenses count toward the license numbers that determine Colorado’s share of Federal excise taxes; reinstating a senior fishing license fee would thus increase Colorado’s Federal funds as well as generating dollars directly from sales.  Further, it costs about $1.5 million annually just to print the licenses – making the status quo a net financial loss.  Thus, the Agency sees an opportunity to further enhance revenue by requiring seniors to buy fishing licenses, although no specific price structure has been discussed in any detail for this demographic group.

CPW considers an increase in both hunting and fishing licenses to be a feasible means of offsetting, at least in part, its financial difficulties.  CPW claims that if the current fee structure remains, and no other fund-raising and/or cost cutting measures are instituted, the Agency will need approximately $15-20 million additional each year to maintain current operations, and up to $36 million to implement additional programs that hunters and anglers have indicated are important to wildlife management and conservation in the State – such as expanded access or restoring “Fishing is Fun” grants to historic levels.  As mentioned earlier, after public comments are received and analyzed, the Agency must approach the legislature to ask for a bill approving any resident license fee increase.  Undoubtedly, CPW hopes to get a vote of confidence from the hunting and angling public that would help persuade legislators.

Other Possible Solutions:  In addition to, or in lieu of, raising resident license fees, the Agency has sought to broaden its sources of funding, looking for opportunities to bring in new revenue.  For example, in the series of public meetings sponsored by CPW, participants suggested that there is a much larger pool of public land users that exist beyond hunters and anglers that might be able to help fund CPW.  Why, they ask, are hunters and anglers being asked to pay more while others who use public land, such as hikers, birdwatchers, and photographers are exempt?

It was also suggested at these public meetings that the general public can purchase a Habitat Stamp and/or contribute money via the Non-Game and Endangered Wildlife Fund income box checkoff on their Colorado tax form to raise money for wildlife conservation—but that these venues may not be generally known and could use a massive publicity push.

Further questions were raised at these meetings about whether CPW in general, or Wildlife Management in particular, could initiate additional cost-cutting measures.  CPW, as you might expect, indicates that it has already initiated a number of efficiencies to offset declines in revenue, along with implementing significant reductions in program and operation expenses.  More cuts in funding, according to CPW, would lead to further reduction to popular and important “Fishing is Fun”, Wetland, Boating and Habitat Protection grants, the Aquatic Nuisance Species Program and, as mentioned earlier, a reduction in capital improvement projects such as repairing hatchery runways and maintenance of CPW-owned dams.

A possible ray of hope for additional funding is the proposed “Recovering America’s Wildlife Act” (H.R. 5650), which would direct approximately $1.3 billion in federal revenue from energy and mineral development toward wildlife conservation efforts across the nation.  If this legislation were to pass at the Federal level, it should bring significant additional revenue for meeting Colorado’s fish and wildlife needs.  At the time this writing, no Congressional action had been taken on this proposed legislation.

In short: CPW states that the basic problem is that revenue is essentially fixed at 2005 levels, while operating costs have continued to rise, so that budget cuts and program elimination are the only tools available to balance the budget.  Colorado’s natural resources, according to CPW, are experiencing the pressure of population growth and increasingly fragmented habitat.  A key factor in maintaining financial sustainability in the long run, they argue, will be the ability to increase license fees and continue to adjust them on a regular basis to offset inflation – a step they believe will be needed if Colorado is to remain a premiere destination for outdoor activities.

Colorado River restoration project secures $8 million grant

NRCS award a huge boost for ambitious project to restore threatened river

(Kremmling)—The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) today announced $7.75 million in funding for an ambitious slate of projects to address the impacts on the Colorado River of trans-mountain diversions of water from the West Slope to the Front Range.  Fisheries conservation group Trout Unlimited is the lead partner on the grant application.

The Colorado River Headwaters Project received $7,758,830 from the NRCS’s Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) to improve irrigation systems and reverse the decline in water quality and fish habitat in the headwaters of the Colorado River.

Led by an array of partners representing conservation interests, agriculture, local government, water providers, state agencies, and landowners, the Headwaters Project will create a bypass channel to reconnect the Colorado River at Windy Gap Reservoir, make channel and habitat improvements downstream of the bypass near Kremmling, Colorado, and improve irrigation systems as well as soil and water quality.

When fully implemented, the Headwaters Project will directly benefit more than 30 miles of the Colorado River and 4,500 acres of irrigated lands that provide sage grouse habitat and make available up to 11,000 acre-feet of water to improve the river during low-flow conditions.

“This is a huge win for the Colorado River,” said Drew Peternell, director of Trout Unlimited’s Colorado Water Project. “We’re seeing an exciting and ambitious conservation vision for the upper Colorado become reality. With this funding, we’ll be able to put the ecosystem pieces of the upper Colorado River back together and restore the river and its trout fishery to health.”

“The Colorado River Headwaters Project is a great example of how municipal water providers, ranchers, conservation organizations and others can work together to restore an important reach the Colorado River for both the environment and agricultural operations with benefits downstream,” said Matt Rice, director of American River’s Colorado River Basin Program. “A collaboration like this would have been unheard of 10 years ago. It’s a win for everyone in Colorado.”

At present, transmountain diversions divert over 60 percent of the upper Colorado River’s native flows across the Continental Divide for use in the Front Range and northern Colorado. The resulting low flows in the river have seriously undermined the operations of irrigation systems and the health of the Colorado River in the project area. Low flows make it difficult for irrigators to divert water, especially during drought, and also raise water temperatures and hamper the river’s ability to transport sediment, leading to sediment buildup on the riverbed that degrades aquatic habitat.

Local ranchers wanted to address these irrigation problems as well as river health, said Paul Bruchez, a Kremmling-area rancher who organized his neighboring landowners into the Irrigators of Land in Vicinity of Kremmling (ILVK) group, a key project partner. The project will install several innovative instream structures designed to provide adequate water levels for irrigation while also improving critical fish habitat. This will be the first project in the country to demonstrate these stream engineering practices on a significant scale.

“This news is life-changing for the headwaters of the Colorado River and those who rely on it,” said Bruchez. “Years ago, water stakeholders in this region were at battle. Now, it is a collaboration that will create resiliency and sustainability for the health of the river and its agricultural producers. Healthy ranches need healthy rivers, and the RCPP funding will help sustain both.”

The Windy Gap Reservoir bypass and the Kremmling area river improvements address several pieces of the puzzle in a long-term, regional effort to restore the upper Colorado River. Other pieces include agreements that TU helped negotiate with Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water District that contained significant river protections as well as an innovative, long-term monitoring and adaptive management process (called “Learning by Doing”) that requires stakeholders to work together to ensure the future health of the river. That progress and collaboration is all the more remarkable coming after years of conflict between West Slope interests and conservation groups concerned about the health of the river, and Front Range water providers seeking to divert more water across the Divide.

“What’s happening on the upper Colorado shows that water users can work together to ensure river health while meeting diverse uses,” said TU’s Peternell. “This project is a model of what cooperation and collaboration can achieve in meeting our water challenges in Colorado and the Colorado River Basin.”

Other Headwaters Project partners who will provide assistance include the ILVK, Northern Water Conservation District, Denver Water, Colorado River Conservation District, Middle Park Soil Conservation District, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Grand County, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

Trout Unlimited is the nation’s largest coldwater conservation organization, with 147,000 members dedicated to conserving, protecting, and restoring North America’s trout and salmon fisheries and their watersheds. Colorado Trout Unlimited has more than 10,000 grassroots members across the state.

American Rivers protects wild rivers, restores damaged rivers, and conserves clean water for people and nature.

Proposed Dam in Maroon Bells Wilderness

By Ken Neubecker, Regional Vice President, Colorado Trout Unlimited The City of Aspen is planning to build a pair of dams in some of Colorado’s most iconic mountain landscapes and streams. One is slated for Maroon Creek, just below the Maroon Bells, and the other on Castle Creek not far below the old town of Ashcroft. These dams would inundate significant portions of these free-flowing streams along with portions of the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness. Why is this coming up now? Because the City must go to Water Court every six years and demonstrate that they are working to build these dams.

This is not a good thing. Aspen has no need for these dams and reservoirs, no need to wreck these streams or the landscapes they inhabit. Colorado TU, along with partners at American Rivers, Western Resource Advocates and Wilderness Workshop are planning to object to these dams in Water Court.

Back in the 1960’s planners thought that Aspen’s population (1,101 in 1960) would reach 30,000 by the end of the century and that additional water supplies would be necessary. Aspen’s population didn’t grow much. In 2000 it was up to 5,914 and by 2010 had added less than a thousand more. Looking forward, the City’s population isn’t expected to grow much more over the next 60 years either, yet Aspen continues to hang on to the notion that they might, someday, need these destructive dams and reservoirs.

But they don’t, and the City itself claims they’ll probably never build them. Aspen currently holds a substantial portfolio of senior water rights on both streams. According to a study the City itself commissioned these existing rights can accommodate all projected water needs for the rest of this century even in the face of extreme climate change (City of Aspen Water Supply Availability Study, 2016 Update, June 2016).

So why is the City pursuing their conditional rights for dams they admit they will never probably build? Prudence is the excuse, but not a good reason. What the City is saying in court contradicts what they are saying in public. In court, they must say that they “can and will” build the dams. In public they say they probably won’t, but want to preserve the option. Preserving an option, to maybe, or then again maybe not, build the dams may sound prudent but it is not acceptable in Water Court. They either will, or they won’t. There is no “maybe”. Aspen can’t have it both ways.

Aspen’s primary argument is that they may need these additional water sources due to potential impacts from climate change. Climate change is a legitimate concern for water supply, but these dams will not help. Most models show that runoff and river flows will diminish throughout the Colorado River Basin, from Aspen downstream to the delta.

Aspen doesn’t exist in isolation from the rest of Colorado or the larger Colorado River basin. A 2012 study by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) suggests that “the mean natural flow (of the Colorado River) … is projected to decrease by approximately 9%” by 2060. That means an additional 3.2 million acre-foot deficit in what is already a seriously depleted system (an acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons, or about what two normal families will use in a year). The BOR report also anticipates an “increase in drought frequency and duration”. Lake Powell is currently only half full, and Lake Mead even less (38%). Water shortage in the Colorado Basin is likely to be with us for a long time.

Colorado signed a compact with all the other Colorado River basin states in 1922. This compact requires that a certain amount of water be left in the river for the lower basin. If we do find ourselves amid a major water shortage the demands from the lower basin states will drain any reservoir with such junior rights as Aspen’s (1971). And there are numerous pre-1922 rights downstream that will also demand any water that might be stored behind these dams.

The dams would become empty monuments to the past, straddling diminished streams in what used to be vital and dynamic ecosystems.

Aspen does not need these dams and reservoirs. If they are truly prudent, and progressive, they never will. The people of Aspen would be much better served if the City dropped these outdated dams and develops real solutions that ensure both a reliable water supply and the important ecosystems of Castle and Maroon Creeks. Intact and fully functioning stream ecosystems are a much better hedge against climate change than a pair of outdated and useless dams.

CTU and its partners are willing and able to work with Aspen to develop realistic and modern 21st century solutions for future water needs. Aspen, of all places, can and should take a leadership role and not just keep kicking the can of outdated ideas down the road. We need to work with these streams, not against them.

Trout in the Classroom

Colorado Trout Unlimited has been a proud partner of a Trout in the Classroom program, in which middle or high school level classrooms raise trout from the egg to the fry life stages. At the end of the year-long course, the classroom releases the trout into a local lake or stream- connecting the students back to their local environment. During the year each teacher tailors the program to fit their curricular needs.  Therefore, each program is unique. TIC has interdisciplinary applications in science, social studies, mathematics, language arts, fine arts, and physical education.

The program helps students learn hands on about water quality, biology, population studies, and environmental issues. "I really like having the tank in my classroom because it’s a new lesson every day," said Mike Sanchez, TIC teacher at Academy High School in the Maptleton School District. "There’s water chemistry, population dynamics, evolution, ecology, fish anatomy, etc. You can always come up with something to talk about and the kids are genuinely interested."

In 1997, TIC was started in New York through the efforts of the late Joan Stoliar, volunteers from Trout Unlimited and the Theodore Gordon Flyfishers. Since its inception, TIC in NY has grown from four classrooms to more than 200. This rapid growth is a testament to the program’s adaptability, effectiveness, and ability to interest students of all ages and backgrounds.

In Colorado, there are currently six active tanks involved with the TIC program. These classrooms are located all over Colorado. CTU helps these classrooms by assisting in obtaining trout eggs, coordinating supplies, and helping with the required disease testing prior to the release.

The trout fry are released into a local river, stream, or lake. This allows the kids to be connected and engage with their local environment and ecosystems. Some of the sites teach kids about fishing and how it relates to conservation and the fish they raised. "We also spend a few days enjoying some fishing at local ponds and the stocked Lake Lehow in Littleton," said Sanchez. "Kids appreciate the biology and learning how to fish, it’s a great week."

Sites are typically teamed up with a local chapter that will also help with some of the funding and supplying the classroom with the necessary equipment. This allows the chapter to connect with youth in the community and helps connect kids to their local ecosystems. "Trout in the Classroom helps our chapter engage local middle school students by connecting them to the habitats and ecosystems in their own backyard," said Ben Bloodworth, President of the Grand Valley Anglers. "The program allows students to learn hands-on about challenges facing trout populations and water quality unique to the western slope.”

Parents have also gotten into the fun through TIC. "While the program is targeted at the kids, the teachers involved have noted that many of the parents have been excited about the tanks as well, not only keeping up with the egg/fry progress through their children, but visiting the tanks during parent-teacher conferences, involving the whole family in the educational process," said Bloodworth.

If you or someone you know may be interested in developing a Trout in the Classroom site at your school, please contact Jeff Florence, for more information!

Trout's Fly Fishing- 5 Ways to Catch More Tailwater Trout

By: Kyle Wilkinson, Trout's Fly Fishing Marketing and Brand Manager Whether we like it or not- Winter is here. That pretty much gives us two choices- quit fishing, or keep fishing. I’m always of the opinion to ‘keep fishing’. One of the best parts about living in Colorado- and particularly on the Front Range- is the abundance of Tailwater fisheries that lie within an easy drive of our homes. That said, I still believe many anglers aren’t catching as many fish as they should be. If you’ve ever found yourself struggling with your success on winter tailwaters, give these 5 tips a try next time you decide to bundle up and get the boots wet in the months to come:

1. Use Yarn- many of you reading this may have heard this recommendation before, but it bears repeating. I feel that strongly about it. Simply put, yarn indicators are WAY more sensitive than plastic bobber-style indicators. Fish this time of year can be pretty lethargic (compared to summer) and typically won’t eat your flies with much aggression. Oftentimes your yarn won’t even dunk underwater but rather just ‘pause’ or ‘lean over’ when a fish strikes. If you’ve never used yarn indicators before, be prepared to be amazed with the sensitivity you’ll get. Side note- tips for yarn success- carry several and liberally apply some fly floatant before starting the day. Be prepared to dry off your indicator every couple hours and reapply. If you decide that your indicator is too waterlogged after a few hours, simply swap it out for a fresh one. While I realize these do require a little more maintenance than a thingamabobber, the fact that it leads to more fish in the net throughout the day is always worth it to me.

2. Putty and Split Shot- if you’re not using both split shot AND putty, you’re really missing out. Flows are at their lowest levels of the year and being able to dial in the weight on your nymph rigs is paramount to success. Any of the commercially made tungsten putties will work great so don’t get too caught up on which ‘brand’ to buy. Here’s how I put both split shot and putty to use for me this time of year. To start, select the size of split shot that will get you by in the shallowest water you’ll be fishing. Anytime you come to deeper water, simply pull out a little putty and apply it directly on top of the split shot, rolling it into a nice round ball. Voila. That’s it! Throughout the day you can add and remove putty as necessary to make sure you’re always getting your flies right down into the fishes faces. When you decide you need to take off a little (or all) of the putty you added, simply peel it off and place back in the original container. You can use and reuse tungsten putty for months on end before running out. The best part of using tungsten putty is that it avoids having to constantly pinch and remove split shot throughout the day. This will help protect your light tippets and is also just a whole heck of a lot faster way to make weight adjustments!

3. Never make a cast standing in the water that you could have made standing on dry ground. This is another HUGE one for me, but is a mistake I see anglers make time and time again. Whenever you approach a likely looking area, always make it a point to fish it while keeping your wading boots on dry ground. Avoiding splashing around, crunching rocks, and in general- disturbing the water with your steps- is always going to leave the fish feeling much more at ease and in turn- more eager to eat your flies (this rule should actually be applied year round).

4. Tighten up your flies- If you don’t fish your flies spaced closely together during winter, I’m confident you’re missing out on a few fish throughout the day. I always like to say that a wintertime tailwater trout lives in a shoebox. (i.e. if you put a trout in a shoebox, it doesn’t have much room to move side to side). If I’m not getting my flies in this ‘shoebox’ zone, my confidence in getting an eat goes down drastically. My rule for spacing my flies during winter is to make a fist, and then extend my thumb and pink in opposite directions. This is the spacing you should be using- approximately 10” or so. If you’ve never fished your flies this close together, consider yourself warned- it’s probably going to seem a little weird at first. One thing I can promise you though is that you’re going to need your net more throughout the day if you give it a try!

5. Watch the bubbles- we’ve already talked about indicators and weight, and I firmly believe that one of the biggest reasons people don’t catch as many fish as they should is that they’re simply not getting down to them. Next time your nymphing make sure to keep an eye on the bubbles on the surface. What are they doing? Are they moving the same speed as your indicator? If so, this is a dead giveaway you’re not getting down to the fish. Most fish this time of year are sitting very close to the bottom. The water on the bottom of the river is moving slower than the water on the surface. If you’re indicator is floating the same speed as the bubbles on the surface, this means that you’re not getting down to the fish. Simple as that. The goal is to always have your indicator floating SLOWER than the bubbles on the surface. This can quickly be achieved by adding a little more depth and/or weight to your rig. If you’ve never paid attention to this before I think you’ll be amazed at how much of a difference it makes and how quickly you are now able to dial in your rig, ultimately achieving a perfect drift to the fish!

Trouts Fly Fishing is a full service fly shop located in the heart of Denver, CO between Downtown and Cherry Creek North. A second location was established in Frisco, CO located right on Main St. In addition to selling fly fishing goods, Trouts also offers a wide selection of fly fishing classes, guided trips and destination travel options. Some of their trips include both float fishing and wade fishing on the Blue River, Colorado River, Williams Fork River, Eagle River, Roaring Fork River, Frying Pan and Arkansas River. Trouts has been proudly serving the angling community for over 15 years.

2016 CTU Success Stories

2016 was a big year for Colorado TU, the last 11 months have seen challenges present themselves from protecting our headwaters from acid mine drainage, to making sure our public lands remain in public hands, to ensuring the state's quality of water and natural habitat. While these challenges threatened our rivers and streams, the work by TU and it's chapters, made sure these threats remained just that and our watersheds remained protected. CTU also embarked on programs that would help sustain conservation and fishing for years to come. We engaged the next generation of river stewards through our Youth Camp, introduced a new group of kids to conversation through fly fishing, reintroduced native greenback cutthroat trout to their home watersheds along the front range, and made on-the-ground improvements to our state's fisheries through our chapter's volunteer efforts.

There were many great success stories over the last year that will be covered in the 2016 Year in Review coming out early 2017. The few stories listed below are highlights of the last year for CTU and just a glimpse into the great work done by the TU staff, our chapters, volunteers, and partners! Stay tuned for the 2016 Year in Review for more articles covering all of the great work done in Colorado!

Roan Plateau

Throughout the past decade, Colorado TU has also been involved in advocacy and litigation to help protect the Roan in the face of proposed oil and gas development. The legal battle culminated in productive settlement talks that produced the new Roan plan that BLM approved in November.  For the next 20 years, the most sensitive watersheds atop the Roan will remain unleased, while responsible development will be allowed on other areas on and around the Plateau that are closer to existing oil and gas infrastructure. Continued improvements in directional drilling technology over those years could make it possible, by the time BLM next updates the Roan plan, to extend development to natural gas reserves below the Roan without needing to sacrifice the valuable habitat on its surface. This agreement is a great example of how balance can be achieved when all parties sit down and try to listen honestly and respectfully to each other to craft a solution.

Thompson Divide

Concurrent with the Roan decision, The BLM also issued a decision canceling 25 contentious oil and gas leases within the Thompson Divide (the leaseholders to be repaid from government funds), while maintaining 40 other leases in surrounding lands – mostly closer to existing development areas. As with the Roan, the decision reflects a responsible balance between protecting our most valuable fish and wildlife habitats and enabling responsible energy development to move forward on public lands. Unlike the Roan, this decision does not yet reflect a larger consensus among conservationists and industry, nor does it provide longer-term protection for the Thompson Divide. The decision was a necessary victory in protecting the Thompson Divide from the imminent threat of oil and gas drilling, and TU remains committed to working with the BLM, Forest Service, ranchers, local governments, and the oil and gas industry to achieve a long-term solution that includes permanent protection of the Thompson Divide as part of a larger, responsible plan for energy development in the region.

Stream Standards

Trout Unlimited and a coalition of agencies, concerned citizens, and conservation and sportsmen groups rallied to defend Colorado’s water quality standards for temperature in coldwater streams. The Colorado Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) proposed changes in standards that would have raised standards for water temperature to levels that could prove fatal to trout in spring and fall seasons and year-round in mid-elevation “transition” waters. The proposal was based on flawed science and failed to adequately protect coldwater fisheries and to address the varied factors that influence temperature regimes in natural streams. Thanks to the efforts of TU and our coalition partners, the Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) rejected the proposed changes, keeping in place the protective temperature standards that currently apply to coldwater streams.  It was an impressive team – including Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the Colorado Wildlife Federation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Western Resource Advocates, and others. The proposed changes would have weakened water temperature standards for around 1/3 of Colorado’s trout streams, based solely on their elevation, allowing the fish’ stress levels to increase and ultimately cause problems for feeding, growth and movement.  According to the EPA, the proposed standards for lower elevation coldwater streams could have actually proved lethal to trout exposed to them over seven days.

Greenback Recovery

Colorado TU teamed up with Colorado Parks and Wildlife to reintroduce Greenback Cutthroat trout into their native watersheds all along the Front Range. Efforts this past year including spawning Zimmerman Lake, receiving grants to help improve the Mt. Shavano fish hatchery that raises Greenbacks, and expanded Greenback efforts to educating the public on why all native trout reintroduction is vital to our ecosystems. CTU has also worked with Parks and Wildlife on preliminary plans for a fish barrier on Rock Creek that will eventually hold Greenbacks. CTU volunteers worked with CPW on the beginning stages of the project by stocking fish in a section of the stream.

Lessons from the Roan

By David Nickum For more than a decade, the battle over Colorado’s Roan Plateau—a beautiful green oasis surrounded by oil and gas development—raged in meetings and in courtrooms. At issue: Would the “drill, baby, drill” approach to public lands carry the day and the path of unrestrained energy development run over one of Colorado’s most valuable wildlife areas? Or would “lock it up” advocates preclude all development of the Roan’s major natural gas reserves?

Luckily, this story has a happy ending—and a lesson for Colorado and other states in the West struggling with how to balance the need for energy development with conservation of public lands and irreplaceable natural resources.

The Bureau of Land Management recently issued its final plan for the Roan Plateau, closing the most valuable habitat on top of the plateau to oil and gas leases. The plan, which will guide management of the area for the next 20 years, also acknowledges the importance of wildlife habitat corridors connecting to winter range at the base of the Plateau.

At the same time, the BLM management plan allows responsible development to proceed in less-sensitive areas of the plateau that harbor promising natural gas reserves and can help meet our domestic energy needs.

What happened? After years of acrimony and lawsuits, stakeholders on all side of the issue sat down and hammered out a balanced solution. Everyone won.

It’s too bad it took lawsuits and years of impasse to get all sides to do what they could have done early on: Listen to each other. We all could have saved a lot of time, money and tears.

The Roan example is a lesson to remember, as the incoming administration looks at how to tackle the issue of energy development on public lands.

There’s a better way, and it’s working in Colorado.

The BLM also this month, incorporating stakeholder input, closed oil and gas leasing in several critical habitat areas in the Thompson Divide—another Colorado last best place—while permitting leasing to go ahead in adjacent areas.

That plan also represents an acknowledgment that some places are too special to drill, while others can be an important part of meeting our energy needs.

And in the South Park area—a vast recreational playground for the Front Range and an important source of drinking water for Denver and the Front Range—the BLM is moving ahead with a Master Leasing Plan (MLP) for the area that would identify, from the outset, both those places and natural resources that need to be protected and the best places for energy leasing to proceed.

We have said that we want federal agencies in charge of public lands to involve local and state stakeholders more closely in land management planning—that perceived disconnect has been the source of criticism and conflict in the West regarding federal oversight of public lands.

The MLP process is a new tool that promises to address some of that top-down, fragmented approach to public land management. To their credit, the BLM is listening and incorporating suggestions from local ranchers, conservation groups and elected officials into their leasing plan for South Park.

This landscape level, “smart from the start” approach is one way for stakeholders to find consensus on commonsense, balanced solutions that allow careful, responsible energy development to occur while protecting our most valuable natural resources.

The lesson I take from the Roan? We can find solutions through respectful dialogue—and we shouldn’t wait for litigation to do so. Coloradoans can meet our needs for energy development and for preserving healthy rivers and lands by talking earlier to each other and looking for common ground.

Roan and Thompson Divide: Reasons for Sportsmen to be Thankful

At this time of year, we all take stock of the many things for which we can be thankful. Last week, the Bureau of Land Management and Department of Interior gave Colorado hunters and anglers two more reasons to give thanks: the agencies announced two final decisions on oil and gas leasing that protect key backcountry habitats on the Roan Plateau near Rifle and the Thompson Divide near Carbondale - two of Colorado's "Last Best Places."   The Roan Plateau is home to outstanding big game habitat and unique native trout like those pictured here. Trout Unlimited has been hard at work on the Roan for more than two decades, with many hundreds of volunteer hours invested by the Grand Valley Anglers chapter on habitat protection and improvement projects from instream structures to riparian fencing and replanting. TU also helped install a fish barrier to protect native cutthroat trout habitat being restored by Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

Throughout the past decade, Colorado TU has also been involved in advocacy and litigation to help protect the Roan in the face of proposed oil and gas development. The legal battle culminated in productive settlement talks that produced the new Roan plan that BLM approved last week.  For the next 20 years, the most sensitive watersheds atop the Roan will remain unleased, while responsible development will be allowed on other areas on and around the Plateau that are closer to existing oil and gas infrastructure. Continued improvements in directional drilling technology over those years could make it possible, by the time BLM next updates the Roan plan, to extend development to natural gas reserves below the Roan without needing to sacrifice the valuable habitat on its surface. This agreement is a great example of how balance can be achieved when all parties sit down and try to listen honestly and respectfully to each other to craft a solution.

   The Thompson Divide (including Thompson Creek pictured here) makes up more than 220,000 acres of federal land in Pitkin, Garfield, Gunnison and Mesa counties and contains some of Colorado's most productive habitat for big game, cutthroat trout and numerous other native species. The area is used by more than 10,000 resident and nonresident big game hunters every year and serves as the headwaters to some of Colorado’s most popular fisheries including the Roaring Fork, North Fork of the Gunnison, and Crystal River.

Concurrent with its Roan announcements, the BLM also issued a decision canceling 25 contentious oil and gas leases within the Thompson Divide (the leaseholders to be repaid from government funds), while maintaining 40 other leases in surrounding lands - mostly closer to existing development areas. As with the Roan, the decision reflects a responsible balance between protecting our most valuable fish and wildlife habitats and enabling responsible energy development to move forward on pubilc lands. Unlike the Roan, this decision does not yet reflect a larger consensus among conservationists and industry, nor does it provide longer-term protection for the Thompson Divide. The decision was a necessary victory in protecting the Thompson Divide from the imminent threat of oil and gas drilling, and TU remains committed to working with the BLM, Forest Service, ranchers, local governments, and the oil and gas industry to achieve a long-term solution that includes permanent protection of the Thompson Divide as part of a larger, responsible plan for energy development in the region.

These victories came only after many years of hard work and advocacy by Trout Unlimited staff and volunteers.  For many years, we have worked in partnership with local partner coalitions to achieve balanced solutions that recognize that some areas are too special to drill, while others are important parts of meeting our nation's energy needs. The support you and our other members have given over the years enables us to tackle these vital but challenging issues, making the long-term commitment that it takes to achieve these kind of successes.

Reconnecting: the Beaver Creek Diversion

By: Hillary Walrath, Henry’s Fork Project Manager, Wyoming Trout Unlimited A small creek in southwest Wyoming just got a big upgrade. This November, a push-up style diversion was improved to a fish-friendly rock vane structure with a head-gate, reconnecting approximately 6 miles of habitat for the native Colorado River cutthroat trout that reside there. This project was unique in that it all began with the local school. Trout Unlimited partnered with the McKinnon Elementary School to study their home water, the Henry’s Fork River, through the Adopt-a-Trout program. This particular program involved tagging Colorado River cutthroat trout with telemetry tags and tracking their movement from 2014-2016. The students each got to “adopt” their own fish and follow it throughout the year. They learned a variety of river ecology lessons, including fish anatomy, macroinvertebrate identification, applying the scientific method, riparian ecosystems and many more. They also had to map where their fish moved using Google Earth.

Using two years of the Adopt-a-Trout data and an instream flow study that TU conducted on Beaver Creek, a major tributary, we discovered that there was a push-up dam near the confluence to the Henry’s Fork that was not allowing fish passage for a critical part of the year. None of the students’ fish were able to pass that point during the summer months. So, TU collaborated with the Lonetree Ranch to develop a fish-friendly diversion that would still allow them to receive their irrigation water, but would allow for fish passage during low flows. A head-gate was also installed so that they could turn the ditch off when they no longer needed to irrigate, leaving more water instream for the trout. Thanks to the funding provided by the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative, the Wyoming Wildlife Natural Resource Trust and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the project was able to be completed November 2016.

This is just the first of many projects that will be done along Beaver Creek to benefit native trout. Over the next year, the McKinnon students will be assisting with vegetation planting and monitoring on several sections right above the diversion to provide better cover and reduce stream temperatures during the summer months. Projects like these are not only reconnecting populations of native trout, but reconnecting kids to “their” fish and river.