Willoughby: Roan deserves protection

For years, Colorado TU and our Grand Valley Anglers chapter have been working to protect and enhance habitat for native cutthroat trout atop the Roan Plateau.  From involvement in a legal challenge against a BLM oil and gas leasing plan that lacked adequate protections for watersheds, to volunteer work days with fencing and riparian restoration - from water quality monitoring and securing "outstanding water" protections, to construction of a fish barrier to secure native trout habitat from invasion by non-native brookies - TU has been, and continues to be, hard at work in protecting this unique place within Colorado. As part of a four-part series on some of Colorado's best wild lands and efforts to conserve them, Scott Willoughby of the Denver Post recently took notice of the efforts by TU and our partners on the Roan.  TU's Corey Fisher noted some of the challenges:  "Our Grand Valley chapter out of Grand Junction has been working on stream restoration projects up there for over 15 years, so our engagement up there in fisheries conservation goes back long before the oil and gas issue really got going on the Roan.  But those leases and areas that could be developed theoretically could cover the entire top of the plateau, including all the trout streams up there."

Read Scott Willoughby's full Sunday feature on the Roan here.

Sportsmen Fly to DC to Protect U.S. Rivers

Beginning in 1972, all waters with a significant nexus to navigable waters were covered by the Clean Water Act (CWA).  While navigable waters has been an oft used phrase the EPA has also defined covered waters as Waters of the Unites States (WOTUS) that include territorial seas. This spring and summer the EPA has been working on a rewrite of definitions in answer to the suggestions by the Court.  Those efforts have caused a flurry of activity by many affected interest groups.  Some environmental groups are fully in support of anything the EPA can put in place to further define, protect or expand WOTUS.  Some Industry and Agriculture folk are vigorously opposed to a rewrite of regulations that in any way increases the reach of the federal government.  Some Municipalities are concerned that without well thought out language, new regulations could have a major and costly impact as they have to deal with both ends of the pipe – providing potable water and treating wastewater.  Finally, there is the pure politics of the issue.  There are those that want nothing more than to see the EPA’s rewrite efforts stopped for no other reason than to showcase it as a failure of the current administration.

On July 15^th and 16^th Dick Jefferies, President of the Rocky Mountain Flycasters Trout Unlimited chapter, joined13 other Sportsman representatives to discuss with elected officials the importance of not allowing politics to win out over sound and accepted procedure and policy.  Currently, any policy can be changed if consequences or outcomes realized from policy implementation cause harm.  There are many documented cases where provisions within the CWA have been successfully challenged.  There are also many cases whereby regulatory provision was upheld.  The simple fact of the matter is the process of challenging provisions that you disagree with cannot be considered if the definitions are not allowed to be created.  Thus we end up where we are at today.  Extremely muddled and ambiguous guidelines that are difficult and expensive to navigate through or use efficiently in project planning.

On March 25^th of this year the EPA and the Army Corp proposed a rule for public comment.  That proposal makes a strong effort to more clearly define what waters are covered and equally, if not more important, what waters are not covered.  However, the EPA needs to do an even better job of providing clarity in all of the descriptions, classifications and definitions.  Furthermore it is vital that flexibility be incorporated that allows for regional considerations.  Water issues and water law in the Western United States force us to address issues in ways that can be entirely different than those found in States that have an abundance of water and do not manage water through a prior appropriation system.

Allowing politics to win out by gutting the efforts to rewrite these definitions is the wrong approach and the worst outcome possible.  Let’s hope that common sense can overcome politics.  After all, it’s true that some things don’t change.  Take care of the water and it will take care of you!

The EPA needs to hear from you!! To comment on the proposed rule click here to tell the EPA to protect our streams and rivers!!

Climate Change is Heating Up Along With Colorado Water

Climate change has been a hot topic the last few years and it’s about to heat up once again. The Colorado Climate Change report states that Colorado is warming up. But how will air temperature affect the water quality and fishing in Colorado? The report was  done for the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Western Water Assessment, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental sciences and the University of Colorado at Boulder with funding from a grant the NOAA Climate Program Office.

Temperatures have been rising over the last 30 years due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These changes in the atmosphere and temperature are affecting the water supply in Colorado and its basins.

With the increase in temperature in the entire region, the snow packs will begin to melt one to three weeks earlier in the year than normal. This will result in lower flow periods later in the summer due to the shift in peak periods. Although the runoff will occur earlier, there is less certainty that the amount of runoff will change.

With the change in flows, the procedures of reservoirs and draining may be changed to counter the lower periods of flow.  Reservoirs will be forced to keep flows downstream, therefore changing the flood control and water storage operations.

With a lower water supply and higher temperatures, the amount of water needed for crops will increase, consequently reducing the amount of stream flow. According to the Colorado Climate Report, “Warming temperatures could increase the loss of water from plants and soil, lengthen growing seasons, and increase overall water demand.”

The ground water available for agriculture will also be depleted and the recharge rate will decrease due to lower amounts of precipitation every year. If the groundwater is used too much and is unable to recharge in time, more water will be used from the rivers, resulting in even lower stream flows.

These higher temperatures will also affect the quality of the ecosystems. The warmer temperatures will lead to warmer water temperature, resulting in spreading of invasive species. Particularly the spreading into higher mountain streams.

The patterns of fish and other aquatic species will change with the increasing water temperatures. This will lead to a difference in fishing throughout the state. Rainbow trout prefer a water temperature between 55 and 60 degrees Fahrenheit; the change in temperature will force the fish to adjust accordingly. The spawning times will change and the fish would move into higher mountain streams where the water may be cooler.

For more information, read the Colorado Climate Report or the Executive Summary version of the report.

Clean Water Act worth bolstering, says Summit County Commissioner

Summit County Commissioner Karn Stiegelmeier penned an op-ed piece that ran in the Denver Post on August 4th, supporting the proposed new "Waters of the United States" rulemaking by the EPA as an important step in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Clean Water Act permitting processes.  The piece is well worth the read, and you can find it online by clicking here. The EPA rulemaking is a key step in ensuring that headwater and feeder streams, which may not flow year-round, are still afforded protection under the Clean Water Act. Commissioner Stiegelmeier sums up the bottom line for Summit County and Colorado as a whole: "Healthy waterways benefit the whole state by protecting and enhancing recreational opportunities. For those of us living and working in Summit County, protecting our waters means protecting our clean water and our tourism economy. The proposed rule is a thoughtfully crafted, urgently needed clarification to protect Colorado's waterways."

The EPA is taking public comment on the Waters of the United States through October.  You can add your voice in support of protecting headwater streams by visiting our action alert and submitting your comments to the EPA, and sharing them with your Senators and US Representative.

Sportsmen applaud Senate hearing on Browns Canyon (Press Release)

July 22, 2014 Media Contact: Kyle Perkins, Trout Unlimited, kperkins@tu.org, 303.579.6498

(Denver, CO)--On Wednesday, July 23, the Senate National Parks Subcommittee will hear a variety of bills – including S. 1794, which designates Browns Canyon in Chaffee County as a National Monument. Sportsmen and women, rafters and local communities and businesses have worked for over 20 years to have this area’s hunting, fishing and recreational values protected—and they urged quick passage of the legislation.

“Now is the time to get this done,” said Kyle Perkins, Browns Canyon coordinator for Trout Unlimited. “We have overwhelming local support for protecting Browns Canyon—we just need Congress to get it across the finish line.”

David Leinweber of Angler’s Covey fly shop in Colorado Springs said Front Range anglers are pleased to see this hearing, and eager to see this designation accomplished: “Browns Canyon is a favorite fishing spot for many of my customers and clients. Virtually all of us want to see Browns Canyon—a stretch of the Arkansas River’s Gold Medal trout water—receive National Monument protection.”

Sen. Mark Udall introduced his bill, which will protect 22,000 acres of rugged backcountry as well as a popular rafting canyon, in December 2013 after a lengthy process of public input and listening sessions. The area is highly valued by sportsmen who hunt and fish the area, and just want to keep it the way it is now. Browns Canyon is important to outdoor recreation businesses, a mainstay of the local and state economy.

Sportsmen praised Sen. Udall’s effort to protect one of Colorado’s most treasured landscapes. Supporters of the National Monument status include Colorado Trout Unlimited, National Wildlife Federation, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Fishpond, Ross Reels, Scott Fly Rod Co., Umpqua Feather Merchants, and Bull Moose Sportsmen Alliance. For more information, see the Sportsmen for Browns Canyon website at www.sportsmenforbrowns.com.

The groups urged hunters and anglers to contact their local senator to support S. 1794 – Sen. Mark Udall (Chairman), Sen. Ron Wyden (D, OR), Sen. Rob Portman (R, OH), Sen. John Barrasso (R, WY), Sen. Mike Lee (R, UT), Sen. Bernard Sanders (I) (D, VT), Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D, MI), Sen. Brian Schatz (D, HI), Sen. Mike Lee (R, UT), Sen. Martin Heinrich (D, NM), Sen. Lamar Alexander (R, TN), Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D, WI), and Sen. John Hoeven (R, ND).

Trout Unlimited is the nation’s largest coldwater conservation organization, with 150,000 members dedicated to conserving, protecting, and restoring North America’s trout and salmon fisheries and their watersheds. Colorado Trout Unlimited has 11,000 grassroots members across the state. Follow TU on Facebook and Twitter, and visit us online at tu.org 

Moffat Agreement: What's In It for the River?

Earlier this year, after a long-standing dispute over Denver Water’s proposed Moffat Collection System Project (Moffat Project), Trout Unlimited, Grand County and Denver Water have reached an agreement on how to protect the Fraser River and its tributaries from the project’s impacts. Denver already diverts water - including an estimated 60 percent of the native flows of the Fraser - from the Fraser and Williams Fork basins through an extensive network of tunnels and pipes that funnel water to the Moffat Tunnel for delivery and use in the Front Range.  Denver's proposed project would expand storage at Gross Reservoir and enable them to divert additional water from this network during comparatively wetter periods (generally spring and early summer, in wet and average years).  The loss of these higher flow periods and the sediment flushing they provide, and the potential for summer diversions to exacerbate existing high stream temperatures, raise significant concern for TU and others concerned with the health of the Fraser basin.  Above all, TU has been concerned that existing habitat models cannot properly predict impacts in a stream system that is already so depleted, and so we have consistently called for a monitoring and adaptive management program capable of detecting and addressing unanticipated impacts.

The agreement among Denver Water, Grand County, and TU responds to these concerns through an extensive package of enhancement and mitigation, guided by an ongoing monitoring and adaptive management effort called "Learning by Doing." Whether mitigation or enhancement, Denver Water commits to implement this package and that commitment would be included in the 404 permit for the project.

Learning by Doing (LBD) will be implemented by a committee that includes Grand County, Trout Unlimited, Denver Water, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife.  The LBD Committee would implement an extensive monitoring program to assess stream health based on specific parameters including stream temperature, aquatic life, and riparian vegetation health.  Water and financial resources committed by Denver Water (listed below) would be deployed to prevent declines and improve conditions where needed.  Denver Water also commits to use flexibility in how it can operate its extensive water diversions system to help reduce impacts and where possible provide benefits to the streams.  LBD would also be the vehicle through which mitigation measures imposed by the Corps would be implemented.The core concept is to dedicate substantial resources for mitigation and river enhancement, and then let future monitoring data help guide how to best apply those resources - so that river conservation efforts will be based on actual conditions, not on uncertain model results.  And the program offers a path forward to not only address impacts from the proposed Moffat Project, but also to improve existing stream conditions.

So what are the resources Denver will provide to help the Fraser and Upper Colorado river basin? Here's a brief summary:

Mitigation Measures include: (1) Measures to address stream temperature issues:

• Monitor stream temperatures and bypass up to 250 AF of water annually if stream temperatures reach or exceed state standards
• Bypass sufficient additional flows to reach defined minimum flows if stream temperature problem persists after the 250 AF have been bypassed
• If temperature problems persist, contribute $1 million to LBD for additional projects to help reduce temperatures (such as riparian re-vegetation and channel improvements)

(2) Measures to address sediment/flyshing flow issues:

• Using flexibility in Denver's system operations, work to provide flushing flows as recommended under Grand County’s Stream Management Plan
• Operate and maintain sediment pond that catches highway traction sand
• If sediment problems persist, contribute $1 million to LBD for additional projects to help reduce sedimentation (such as channel improvements to facilitate sediment flushing)

(3) $750,000 for fish habitat restoration projects

(4) $72,500 for fish barrier and restoration of cutthroat habitat, plus any additional measures required by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in its Biological Opinion

Enhancement Measures include:

(1)  Through LBD, implement an extensive monitoring program including stream temperature, sediment transport, benthic macroinvertebrates, and riparian areas and wetlands

(2)  1000 AF of water each year released from Denver Water’s Fraser collection system for the benefit of Fraser basin streams (guided by LBD and presumably during key low-flow periods)

(3) 1000AF of water each year released from Williams Fork reservoir (including up to 2,500AF of storage) for the benefit of the Colorado River below its confluence with Williams Fork

(4)  Use Denver Water’s system operation flexibility (ie, retiming/reoperating their diversions) to address identified problems while maintaining water yield

(5) $3.75 million for aquatic habitat improvement projects ($1.25 million available before the Gross enlargement is built)

(6)  $1 million to pump water at Windy Gap to Granby for release for the benefit of the Colorado River below Granby and below Windy Gap Reservoir

(7) $2 million for stream improvement projects in the Colorado River

(8) $1 million for the Colorado River Wild and Scenic Stakeholder effort in the Colorado River

(9) $2 million for water quality projects (available before the project is built)

(10) Provide in-kind contributions of people, equipment and material to benefit LBD

These are significant resources to benefit river and watershed health, especially as they will be applied based on a data-driven monitoring and adaptive management program in which multiple stakeholders, including TU, have a full voice. If for any reason LBD were to cease functioning, Denver Water commits to continuing to implement these measures through an alternative process that would be approved by the Army Corps of Engineers.  To guarantee the enforceability of these commitments, Denver Water has asked that they be included as a term and condition of its Clean Water Act 404 permit for the Moffat Project.  Inclusion of this “fail-safe” permit condition is critical to the agreement.  Without it, Trout Unlimited cannot support either the agreement or the Moffat Project.

Trout Unlimited has fought long and hard to protect the Fraser River basin streams.  The new agreement not only provides the tools needed to protect and even improve stream conditions, but it also puts Trout Unlimited in a position to influence their future.  With that opportunity, we recognize an ongoing responsibility as well.  Reaching this agreement (and next, ensuring its inclusion in the Moffat Project's permits) is a major milestone, but only the beginning for the real work ahead of saving the Fraser.

Browns Canyon Campaign in Full Pursuit

Colorado is home to some of the most natural and beautiful landscapes all across the country. It’s only right to want to keep the land protected. Right now protecting Browns Canyon is one of Colorado Trout Unlimited's highest priorities. With some help, Browns Canyon can become the next National Monument. Recently, former Colorado Governor, Bill Ritter wrote an opinion piece for the Denver Post pushing for Coloradans to make the area a National Monument right now.

The current bill was proposed by Sen. Mark Udall will help protect roughly 22,000 acres of Browns Canyon and the outlying land. In 2005, a similar effort was introduced by Congressman Joel Hefley and Sen. Wayne Allard. The first bill was derailed by special interest groups. However, it had over 100 businesses behind the bill including all of the Colorado Congressional Council.

As a National Monument, Browns Canyon will receive protection forever and provide a testament to the state’s rich and proud sporting tradition. The status will help protect the land from irresponsible development from mining companies and help keep the land healthy.

Along with protecting fish and game in the area, a National Monument status will improve the local economy. Colorado is a recreation enthusiast’s heaven and an estimated 200,000 tourists will visit the area this summer for recreational activities, including white water rafting and hiking. According to a Denver Post article, Browns Canyon will generate more than $55 million this summer.

A National Monument status will keep this area protected forever. The land is used by anglers, hunters and recreation fanatics alike and all of them want to see the land protected for future generations to enjoy just as they have done.

Recently, the Arkansas River had 100 miles of water designated as a Gold Medal fishery. Part of this section includes Browns Canyon. Anglers enjoy the great fishing opportunities while hunters enjoy the rugged landscape and the game the area is home to; including elk, bighorn sheep, deer and mountain lions.

For anglers and hunters, the plentiful opportunities will still be there and this will not reveal or affect any secret spots. With the status, Browns Canyon and the surrounding land will be protected from outside sources disrupting the site.

Currently, mining claims have been made in the canyon so it is very important to act now in making the land a National Monument. Mining could disrupt the natural landscape of the area and affect hunting and fishing opportunities.

Colorado Trout Unlimited has been pushing a new campaign called Sportsmen for Browns Canyon which is a coalition of sportsmen and women who want to see Browns Canyon be protected and conserved forever under the status of a National Monument.

For more information on the bill visit the Denver Post Article and please show support for the legislation by commenting on the article.Senator Udall needs to know that there are anglers, sportsmen, and conservationist behind him that support the National Monument designation.

For more information on the Sportsmen for Browns Canyon effort visit SportsmenForBrowns.com or email Kyle Perkins at kperkins@tu.org

Help Defend Bristol Bay's Salmon!

Bristol Bay, Alaska is home to one of the last great salmon fisheries on the planet. The salmon, wildlife, people and fishing jobs of this beautiful and productive region are threatened by the proposed Pebble gold and copper mine. If built, Pebble could become the largest mine in North America, located atop drainages feeding right into Bristol Bay - and the mine operations and waste produced could jeopardize the future of the salmon. We have an unprecedented opportunity to stop this mine and protect Bristol Bay's fish and jobs through the Clean Water Act.  EPA is taking comments on the issue through September 19 - you can take action by clicking here.

TU calls on Army Corps to include protections for Fraser River

Trout Unlimited and its grassroots members today called on the Army Corps of Engineers to include a river protection package recently approved by stakeholders in the final federal permit for Denver Water’s Moffat project. For more than a decade, Trout Unlimited has closely monitored the water diversion project, concerned about potential impacts on Colorado River headwater streams and their valuable wild trout fisheries. In March, TU, Denver Water and Grand County announced agreement on the Mitigation and Enhancement Coordination Plan (MECP) for Moffat. All sides hailed the stakeholder agreement as a breakthrough that balances municipal needs and environmental health.

At the time, TU emphasized that the effectiveness of this agreement depends on its formal incorporation into the final permit—a point reiterated by TU and its grassroots member during the recent public comment period for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Moffat, which ended Monday, June 9.

“We believe that implementation of the MECP, as a whole, provides the best opportunity to prevent impacts and improve conditions in the areas most impacted by the Moffat Project,” wrote Mely Whiting, counsel for TU, in TU’s comment letter to the Corps.

The multiparty agreement offers several protections that TU says need to be included with this project. The key features include:

• Water is made available to address elevated stream temperatures on the Fraser and Ranch Creek;
• Denver uses its operating flexibility to provide flushing flows to cleanse streams;
• Ongoing monitoring of stream health, and adaptive management using water and financial resources provided by Denver Water – and leveraged by other partners;
• Commitment to this monitoring and management program—called “Learning by Doing”—through the project’s federal permit.

The centerpiece of the agreement is the Learning by Doing program, overseen by a management team that includes Denver Water, Grand County, Trout Unlimited, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the Colorado River District and the Middle Park Water Conservancy District. Upon the project permit being issued, the management team will implement an extensive monitoring program to assess stream health based on specific parameters including stream temperature, aquatic life and riparian vegetation health. Water, financial and other resources committed by Denver Water through project mitigation, the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement and other agreements will be deployed to prevent declines and improve conditions where needed.

In recent weeks, hundreds of TU members have written to the Army Corps, calling on the agency to formally include the MECP agreement in the permit requirements.

“Though I now live in Georgia, I have spent much of my life in Colorado trout streams, and I can attest first hand that further damage to the Fraser will destroy a national treasure,” said Richard Tatem.

“This agreement, the Mitigation and Enhancement Coordination Plan, will protect a river which has been allowed to deteriorate for the past decade,” wrote Jim Belknap, a TU member and Colorado native who grew up in the Fraser Valley. “I have witnessed water temperatures reach dangerous levels while fishing the river the past few years; I have also seen more dead fish in the river—most likely due to the stress of being caught and released in too warm of water. This is a tragic misuse of Colorado's resources, and is resulting in the loss of one of the most beautiful river systems in Colorado. Please help restore the Fraser River to a healthy, thriving river-the type of attribute of Colorado's natural beauty, which has always been one of the state's greatest attractions and economic strengths.”

“I have fished the Fraser River for 20 years and the new Moffat Tunnel would be disastrous unless you make the Mitigation and Enhancement Coordination Plan (MECP) part of the federal permit,” wrote Tom Ciaglo of Louisville, CO.

Several other conservation groups—including Western Resource Advocates, American Rivers, the Sierra Club, and Conservation Colorado—have joined TU in calling for inclusion of the MECP in the final record of decision for the Moffat permit.

EPA, Corps propose new rule to protect water quality

The Environmental Protection Agency and US Army Corps of Engineers today announced a new proposed rule that would help ensure protection for many Colorado streams whose status - as protected or not protected under the Clean Water Act - has been in doubt since two troubling Supreme Court decisions upset long-standing definitions for what constituted "Waters of the United States".  As many as 76,000 miles of stream in Colorado - 75% of our total, including most headwater areas - were facing an uncertain future. We are in the process of reviewing the guidance, but it appears that most of these will be protected under the proposed rule.  Below is the notice we received from EPA's regional office describing the proposal:

Dear Region 8 Clean Water Stakeholder:

I am sending this message on behalf of Regional Administrator Shaun McGrath.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) today jointly released a proposed rule to clarify protection under the Clean Water Act for streams and wetlands that form the foundation of the nation’s water resources. The Clean Water Act is the nation’s foremost water quality and wetland protection law.  The clarifications in the proposed rule will benefit industry, business, and government by increasing clarity and efficiency in determining coverage of the Clean Water Act.

Determining Clean Water Act jurisdiction over streams and wetlands became confusing and complex following Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006. For nearly a decade, members of Congress, state and local officials, industry, agriculture, environmental groups, and the public asked for a rulemaking to provide clarity.  

The proposed rule does not protect any new types of waters that have not historically been covered under the Clean Water Act and is consistent with the Supreme Court’s more narrow reading of Clean Water Act jurisdiction.

The proposed rule preserves the Clean Water Act exemptions and exclusions for agriculture. Additionally, EPA and the Army Corps have coordinated with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop an interpretive rule to ensure that 53 specific agricultural conservation practices that protect or improve water quality will not be subject to Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting requirements. The agencies will work together to implement these new exemptions and periodically review and update USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) conservation practice standards and activities that would qualify under the exemption.

The health of rivers, lakes, bays, and coastal waters depends on the streams and wetlands where they begin. Streams and wetlands provide many benefits to communities – they trap floodwaters, recharge groundwater supplies, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and wildlife. They are also economic drivers because of their role in fishing, hunting, agriculture, recreation, energy, and manufacturing.

About 60 percent of stream miles in the U.S (significantly higher in some Region 8 states) flow only seasonally or after rain, but have a major impact on the downstream waters. Approximately 117 million people – one in three Americans – get drinking water from public systems that rely in part on these streams. These are important waterways for which EPA and the Army Corps are clarifying protection.

The agencies are launching a robust outreach effort, holding discussions around the country and gathering input needed to shape a final rule. The proposed rule will be open for public comment for 90 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.  We look forward hearing your views on this proposal.  Please find information about providing comment at: www.epa.gov/uswaters.

With respect to Region 8, the clarifications provided by this rule will lead to better protection of waters that are critical to the welfare of the people in our states of Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.

• The proposed rule will provide direction on the application of the definition of “waters of the U.S.” to streams and adjacent wetlands in the upper reaches of watersheds where small tributaries may have only seasonal flow. When wetlands and headwater streams are filled or damaged, the risk of flooding increases, and drinking water supplies, wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities can be significantly impacted.
• The vast majority of the population in Region 8 is dependent on public drinking water systems that rely on high quality streams that do not flow year round. (Montana 67% of the population; 96% in Utah; 98% in Colorado and Wyoming; 100% in North and South Dakota).
• In Region 8, 77% of streams do not flow year round and wetlands make up only 2-3% of the land area, yet these streams and wetlands provide important habitat for wildlife and waterfowl, and harbor many plant species that could not survive in the surrounding terrestrial landscapes. For example, Colorado streams and wetlands provide habitat and benefits to an estimated 75% of the state’s wildlife and waterfowl.
• Flood events have recently led to significant economic losses, especially in Colorado and parts of the Northern Great Plains states. Wetlands act as sponges that filter and store water, alleviating the frequency and intensity of floods.

For more information visit www.epa.gov/uswaters.