Lighten Up!

By Adam Armold

At last, winter has relented and it seems as if everyone is out and about. From early morning runs and evening walks, to bike rides and barbeques, we are enjoying the warmth of extended daylight again.

It’s also the beginning of a new social season and many of us are naturally interested in looking our best. After shaking off the doldrums of a particularly nasty winter, it is natural that we harbor thoughts of lightening up. Although the shelves of our favorite bookstores are filled with volumes of the latest guaranteed weight loss diets, it is no secret that consumption and weight go hand in hand.

Have you weighed in lately? I’m not inquiring as to the numbers that register with a “creak” when you ease onto the scale. But rather, the concern is with your footprint; specifically, your carbon footprint. Every one of us leaves a personal imprint as we go about our daily lives, and the effects of our actions can be transcribed and measured by the size of our carbon emissions….our personal footprint.

The weight of our footprint is directly linked to the daily choices we make between our “wants and needs.” For example, consider the following scenarios:

• Vehicle choices: Large, macho, gas sucking vehicles that can transport our fishing buds over any landscape to remote destinations…or transportation that meets our needs and reduces the weight of our impact.

• Landscaping choices: An opulent, flowing, water fountain to accessorize the law, or a pleasant photograph of an appealing waterfall to decorate the interior of our homes.

• Lighting choices: The high wattage yard light that burns all night or the efficient fluorescent fixture on a motion sensor.

Does your footprint resemble the proverbial 600 hundred pound gorilla or the sleek track of a fit and informed angler with a lifestyle sensitive to the impacts upon trout habitat? If you suspect that you may be carrying more weight than is healthy, take heart, you have the power to make the change….one pound at a time.

The BFC Flagship Project

On May 15, 2007 a presentation was made to the Department of Wildlife Fishing is Fun Committee for a $169,330 grant on the $235,030 project to restore one-half mile of Middle Boulder Creek nine miles from the City of Boulder and four miles from Nederland. The presentation can be seen on our website.

Fishing Is Fun program funds come from federal excise taxes collected on the purchase of fishing equipment, boats, motor boat and vehicle fuels. Those funds are subsequently distributed back to the states for sportfish programs.

According to the DOW, projects totaling more than $20 million have been selected through the Fishing Is Fun program to receive grants ranging from $1,000 to $400,000. The 250 FIF projects in nearly every county in Colorado have increased annual angler recreation days by an estimated 1,800,000 days.

The Project committee headed by Roger Svendsen has expended a considerable amount of time on bringing this project forward. The partnership with the City of Boulder, Boulder County Parks and Open Space, and the Colorado Department of Transportation has been of significant help.

We believe our chances for approval in June with a 2008 start date are excellent.

In our recent membership survey there was a fair amount of input concerning the BFC commitment to improving local fisheries. For those of you who are concerned about this issue and want to make a difference on both Middle and South Boulder Creek I’d suggest you get in touch with me to translate that concern into action.

Remember that getting DOW approval is only part of the way – there are significant funds that will need to be raised.

I think that the same Chapter that made the Boulder Creek Path happen, can step up to the challenge and get the community at large behind this phase of improving Boulder Creek.

Paul Prentiss

'He was one of a kind'

Leo Gomolchak’s conservation efforts are still being felt today

It was Gomolchak, along with the late Jim Belsey and Steve Lundy, who really gave Colorado Trout Unlimited its boost toward its present standing of being a major player in the state’s conservation scene.

http://www.gjsentinel.com/sports/content/sports/stories/2007/06/03/6_3_OUT_sunday_column_WWW.html

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Every time an angler catches a healthy trout from Colorado’s rivers and streams, a small voice of thanks ought to go to Leo Gomolchak, the ardent coldwater conservationist who died on May 23.

A career military man who was proud but not prideful about his service to his country, Gomolchak, 81, rarely mentioned those times. Instead, he preferred to focus on whatever conservation battle was at hand, which more often than not was protecting this state’s coldwater fisheries for the future.

And some of the battles, notably about the state’s decision to stock whirling disease-infected trout, were memorable, indeed.

David Nickum, executive director for Colorado Trout Unlimited, recalls a wildlife commission meeting in 1994 when the panel was discussing whether or not to continue stocking whirling-disease infected fish in certain closed-basin waters.

Gomolchak ardently was opposed to stocking more WD-positive fish, particularly on the Western Slope, but the commission went ahead and approved a limited stocking plan that left Gomolchak red-faced.

“He always was frustrated that they didn’t come around faster on whirling disease and didn’t get a handle on it before it affected so many rivers,” said Nickum.

Rebecca Frank of Grand Junction was on the wildlife commission at the time and remembers that particular vote as one of the most-difficult she faced during her 12-year tenure.

“Leo was a key person in leading the charge” to do something about whirling disease, Frank remembers. “Early on, he wanted nothing to do with whirling disease and we should have listened to him.

“The good thing that came out it is we finally got a (whirling disease) policy adopted and the money (around $8 million) to clean up our hatcheries and get them ready for this century.”

That day was only one of the times the commission and state biologists were on the receiving end of Gomolchak’s pro-conservation scoldings.

Former state fisheries manager Eddie Kochman, one of those who felt the sting from Gomolchak’s arguments, called Gomolchak’s persistence “truly exceptional” while never showing a lack of respect for his opponents.

“Some of our greatest, more bitter arguments were about whirling disease,” Kochman remembered. “And in the end, we have to say Leo was right. He was one of a kind. I have never seen anyone so dedicated and persistent.”

Frank said Gomolchak remained receptive even during the most-heated discussions.

“He was so tenacious but he also was so gentlemanly,” Frank said. “At the end of the day, no matter how heated things got, you wanted to sit down with him and drink a beer and mull over the day.”

That tenacity earned Gomolchak the nickname “Pit Bull,” and his adversaries, nearly all of who became his friends, too, said he never let go of his main cause, conserving coldwater fisheries.

“You always knew that when Leo got up in front of the wildlife commission, he always was speaking on behalf of the resource,” Frank said. “There was no other agenda.”

It was Gomolchak, along with the late Jim Belsey and Steve Lundy, who really gave Colorado Trout Unlimited its boost toward its present standing of being a major player in the state’s conservation scene.

As a continuation of Gomolchak’s legacy, CTU recently established the “Gomo Grant” program to provide seed money grants for chapter conservation projects.

“He was one of the few folks who understood that to have a presence, you need to be present,” Nickum said. “We still miss having someone who has that fire and drive.”

Kochman agrees.

“I don’t see that today as much,” he said. “Between Leo and Belsey and Lundy, there was a level of accomplishment I had never seen before and probably never will see again.”

Among Gomolchak’s triumphs, including the state’s reversal on its whirling disease policy, are the roles he played in defeating Two Forks Dam, obtaining miles of public fishing waters in South Park and easing the “Row vs. Wade” controversy on the Arkansas River, when it was being debated whether water flows should be managed for anglers or recreational boaters.

“He would always ask us, ‘You guys sure you’re doing the right thing?’ ” recalled Doug Krieger, senior fisheries biologist for the Colorado Division of Wildlife’s Southeast Region. “He was one of the few guys eager to find out the details and go over the data and he really kept an open mind that way.”

While Gomolchak was a skillful negotiator, “There were some areas he felt there was no room for compromise,” Krieger said.

That including whirling disease, but he wasn’t hesitant to applaud the DOW when it adopted what Gomolchak thought was the right policies.

“He told me, ‘Kochman, you’re a slow learner but at least you learned,’ ” Kochman said.

It’s rare that a single voice can have such an impact, particularly one that rarely grabbed the spotlight and in fact purposely avoided being the center of attention.

Government agencies at all levels have much inertia to overcome, but like a small tugboat guiding a battleship into harbor, one persistent voice can help an entire agency change direction.

“His greatest attribute was his persistence,” Kochman said. “When it’s all over, if you look back and can say you made a difference, that’s all that matters. In Leo’s case, it was a big one.”

At 45, Fry-Ark not so golden

Drew Peternell, director of the Trout Unlimited Colorado Water Project, called for a programmatic environmental impact statement on the Fry-Ark Project to look at how it has changed over the years.

http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1180771084/1

Concerns for the future of the project are weighed down by the need for water for growth.

By CHRIS WOODKA THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

A congressional hearing Friday began with a film of President John F. Kennedy at Dutch Clark Stadium on a hot August day in 1962, heralding the cooperative spirit of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.

The hearing ended in a less cooperative spirit after a morning that proved the testimony of one witness who said Colorado water is a geographic, rather than political concern.

“To make life better for some of the people is to make life better for all of the people,” Kennedy said, outlining the benefits of the project for the farms and cities of the Arkansas Valley in his riveting speech.

The words drew applause from a crowd 45 years later as a field hearing of the water and power subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee opened at Pueblo Community College.

“This is our future,” said committee chairwoman Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-Calif. “It was just as evident and true then as it is today.”

Napolitano said the hearing in Pueblo is the second she has held - the first was last year in Pomona, Calif. - to assess the water needs of Western states. About 150 people attended the 3-hour event.

People from Leadville, the Lower Arkansas Valley, Colorado Springs, Aurora and Pueblo came to hear public statements on rating the success of the Fry-Ark Project.

The hearing took on shades of partisanship, more from a geographic standpoint than by political parties, as described by Wally Stealey, former president of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, who told the committee water is a geographic issue.

Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., promoted his version of a Fryingpan-Arkansas bill through his statements and questions of witnesses throughout the hearing, making no bones about his defense of agriculture and small communities.

“I believe it is immoral for large cities to rob small towns for the sake of growth,” said Salazar, who represents Pueblo, the San Luis Valley and the Western Slope. “To add insult to injury, the Bureau of Reclamation has not made the case that it can contract with entities outside the basin.”

Holding a golden frying pan, he told the story of John Singletary, chairman of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, who helped his parents sell the pans to promote the project in the 1950s.

“John Singletary didn’t help his parents sell golden frying pans so the water could be sold out of the Arkansas Valley,” Salazar said.

Meanwhile, Rep. Doug Lamborn, the lone Republican on the committee, was equally vigorous in promoting the interests of Colorado Springs, which he represents. He is sponsoring competing legislation that adheres to past intergovernmental agreements for the Preferred Storage Options Plan.

At one point Lamborn labeled the negotiations over PSOP as being stalled by “a few obstructionists” and promoted the view that the Fry-Ark Project should focus on future growth.

“The old adage of build it and they will come no longer applies to Colorado. They’ll come anyway,” Lamborn said.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter, Salazar’s Democratic colleague, disagreed with Salazar’s view that the Fry-Ark Project originally was intended primarily to benefit agriculture. Perlmutter, who represents Aurora and other growing areas in the Denver suburbs, focused on Kennedy’s statement that Fry-Ark was an “investment in the growth of the West.”

“I believe there is a real opportunity to find a compromise. I would love to see a solution,” Perlmutter said.

Finally, Democratic Senate Candidate Mark Udall gave a nod to Western Slope interests in the Fry-Ark Project, but generally took the high road in his comments and questions.

“Nothing is more important to us in the West - it is our lifeblood - than water,” Udall said.

Testimony followed lines of self-interest as well, as most of the 11 witnesses struggled to conform to guidelines that allowed only five minutes of testimony.

Jay Winner, general manager of the Lower Ark district, drew spontaneous applause for his testimony lamenting the decline of agriculture and the increasing burden of small communities in dealing with water quality as the Fry-Ark Project has aged.

Colorado Springs has worked for its own benefit, rather than with Fry-Ark partners and Aurora has “bullied its way into the valley,” Winner said.

The exchanges of the cities have hurt water quality, he said.

“When we talk about water quality, here’s a good example of what has happened,” Winner said, holding up jars of muddy water from the Lower Arkansas Valley and clean water from mountain lakes. “They bought this (the dirty) water and took this (the clean water). . . . I’m told over and over (by the cities) it’s too expensive to clean up the water, so the burden falls on the Lower Arkansas Valley.”

Mayors Lionel Rivera of Colorado Springs and Ed Tauer of Aurora urged the congressional delegation to look to the future and needs of growth, rather than dwelling on the past. Both emphasized their significant financial contribution to repayment of the project - Colorado Springs through taxes, Aurora through contracts.

“For all the rhetoric and misinformation that has been spread about our city, the truth is that Colorado Springs has historically sought to avoid relying on the transfer of agricultural water rights to provide a water supply for the city,” Rivera said.

Napolitano took Rivera to task, asking why the city has not dedicated more effort to reusing its supply.

Rivera responded that the city reuses 13 percent of its water supply for public landscapes and power plants and touted the city’s conservation efforts, sewage and stormwater control.

Tauer described the Fry-Ark Project as a “series of pipes, pumps and buckets that allow people to move water and defended Aurora’s right to contract with Reclamation for excess-capacity space. He praised intergovernmental agreements Aurora has made in the valley to attempt to address ill effects of water transfers.

“Aurora will continue to cooperate with all involved entities to promote the Bureau’s goals of maximum utilization of existing infrastructure,” Tauer said.

Napolitano asked Tauer if Aurora isn’t creating a situation in the Arkansas basin similar to the Owens Valley in California, which was dried up by Los Angeles. Tauer said the IGAs prevent Aurora from taking more water from the valley.

Bill Long, president of the Southeastern District, said the construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit is the most important piece of the Fry-Ark Project that has yet to be developed.

The conduit was part of the 1962 legislation, but never built because communities could never afford it.

“If we don’t get the conduit, the project will ultimately be used to move water out of the valley,” Long said.

Terry Scanga, executive director of the Upper Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, said the project has changed over the years, providing water for the growth of a recreation industry and new growth in the upper end of the river.

Pueblo District Attorney Bill Thiebaut said the major new challenge of the project is water quality.

“The quality can change as fast as the use,” Thiebaut said.

Drew Peternell, director of the Trout Unlimited Colorado Water Project, called for a programmatic environmental impact statement on the Fry-Ark Project to look at how it has changed over the years.

Chris Treese, manager of external affairs for the Colorado River Conservation District, said the original Fry-Ark Project was intended to market water to an oil shale industry that has not materialized. He asked Congress to look at the repayment plan for Ruedi Reservoir to avoid higher lease rates in the future as interest piles up.

Sandy White, a lawyer representing The Pueblo Chieftain and other valley water interests, challenged Reclamation’s authority to enter contracts with Aurora, saying Aurora circumvents state law with federal contracts.

“The Bureau essentially is on an adventure of its own,” White said.

Mike Ryan, Great Plains regional director for the Bureau of Reclamation, defended contract policies, saying the Fry-Ark Project is not harmed by the bureau’s actions.

Stealey, however, disagreed.

“The biggest danger we’ve got is diminishing the taxpayers’ role in the Fry-Ark Project by diluting the stock,” Stealey said. “When does it quit becoming the Bureau of Urban Development? Some of us are very angry.”

Hearing to look at Fry-Ark impacts

Congressional subcommittee meets today at Pueblo Community College.

Scheduled to testify at the hearing are: Drew Peternell, Boulder, director of the Colorado Trout Unlimited Colorado Water Project.

http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1180683495/2

A congressional subcommittee will meet today in Pueblo to review the 45-year history of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.

The water and power subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee, chaired by Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-Calif., will meet at 9 a.m. today in the Pueblo Community College Ballroom to look at the project that brought water from the Colorado River basin into the Arkansas River basin.

Two members of the subcommittee, Reps. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., and Mark Udall, D-Colo., will attend today’s hearing. Reps. John Salazar and Rep. Ed Perlmutter, both Colorado Democrats, also plan to be at the hearing.

The hearing is not intended to debate current legislation regarding the Fry-Ark Project, although most of the speakers intend to discuss projects of concern to them, such as the need for more storage, the Arkansas Valley Conduit and the Southern Delivery System.

In Congress, there are competing water storage bills.

Salazar’s Fryingpan-Arkansas legislation would authorize a $10 million state study of the impacts of Arkansas basin water transfers, as well as a $4 million feasibility study that would include looking at enlargement of Lake Pueblo.

Lamborn is sponsoring a different version of the bill, nearly identical to former Rep. Joel Hefley’s failed version of a PSOP bill in 2004. It would authorize the $4 million study along the lines of PSOP.

A fundamental difference in the two bills is the authority of the Bureau of Reclamation to enter contracts with out-of-basin entities such as Aurora. Salazar’s bill specifically prohibits such contracts, while Lamborn’s specifically allows them.

The public will not be given an opportunity to testify, but may observe.

Scheduled to testify at the hearing are:

Bill Long, president, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District.

Mike Ryan, Great Plains regional director for the Bureau of Reclamation.

Harris Sherman, executive director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources.

Lionel Rivera, mayor of Colorado Springs.

Terry Scanga, general manager, Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District.

Bill Thiebaut, Pueblo district attorney.

Jay Winner, general manager, Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District.

Sandy White, La Veta water lawyer.

Ed Tauer, mayor of Aurora.

Drew Peternell, Boulder, director of the Colorado Trout Unlimited Colorado Water Project.

Chris Treese, external affairs manager of the Colorado River Conservation District.

Wally Stealey, rancher and former president, Southeastern district.

Snake River cleanup plan eyed; possible treatment

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20070530/NEWS/105300061

SUMMIT COUNTY - State and federal water quality experts will take a close look at the polluted water leaking from the abandoned Pennsylvania Mine into Peru Creek this summer, eying designs for a treatment plant that could remove some of the toxic heavy metals.

Zinc and cadmium oozing from the mine taint the creek all the way to its confluence with the Snake River and beyond - creating a dead zone, where trout don't survive for long. The collaborative Snake River Task Force has been working for years to develop a cleanup plan for the drainage, and will meet today for an update.

The biggest question marks include what sort of technology is best suited for the remote site, how to fund construction and operation, and how to deal with potential Clean Water Act liability of taking action, said Summit County environmental planner Brian Lorch.

Along with treating the water coming out of the mine, state experts will also try to determine other ways of improving water quality in Peru Creek and the Snake River, maybe by moving some of mine waste material or re-routing surface flows away from the polluted tailings piles.

Similar tactics were used at the Shoe Basin Mine last summer, where the county completed a remediation project that will reduce the amount of zinc reaching the water.

Snake River cleanup plans have started to look more promising since Trout Unlimited, a cold-water fisheries conservation group, took a lead role in the process. Fresh from a model mine cleanup in Utah, the organization hopes to bring a similar approach to table for Peru Creek.

Along with site-specific projects, the task force will also get an update on a watershed approach to stream health in the Snake River Basin, as well as the potential for re-evaluating water quality standards in the basin.

The task force meetings are the best way for citizens in the Snake River Basin to find out the latest on the status of the cleanup plans.

Information is also available at http://instaar.colorado.edu/SRWTF/.

STATE WATER BOARD DIRECTOR ANNOUNCES INTENT TO RETIRE

May 24, 2007 Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) Director, Rod Kuharich, announced his intent to retire from state service on June 30, 2007.  The announcement was made on the first day of the Board’s bi-monthly meeting, which was held in Montrose, CO.  The CWCB is the State agency responsible for developing, conserving and managing Colorado’s water resources.  It is run by a 15-member Board.

Rod Kuharich was appointed as director to the Colorado Water Conservation Board in November 2000.  Among a myriad of important state projects, during his tenure, Kuharich worked hard to protect the CWCB Construction Fund, which provides low interest loans to water users throughout the State and to promote the Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI) Study.  He devoted considerable time to interstate compact issues, which included forming a Colorado River Compact unit to help ensure Colorado is prepared to protect its interests in the Colorado River.  Mr. Kuharich also worked to protect Colorado’s interests in the Arkansas River.  In addition, he also presided over the evolution of instream flow water rights, including recreational in-channel diversions (RICDs).  Prior to taking this position, he spent 24 years working for the Colorado Springs Utilities in Resource Planning and Development.

Department of Natural Resources Director, Harris Sherman, an ex-officio member of the Board, thanked Mr. Kuharich for his years of service and his many accomplishments.  Sherman noted: “The state government is in a period of significant transition and we look forward to the opportunity to identify new leaders to help guide us into the future.” 

Mr. Sherman then discussed his intent to appoint CWCB Deputy Director, Dan McAuliffe, as acting Director until a new director is appointed.  Dan McAuliffe has been the Deputy Director since 1999, and prior to that he served as DNR Assistant Director under Governor Romer.

State of river ‘fairly good’

“Scott Linn, president of the Headwaters Chapter of Colorado Trout Unlimited, said Trout Unlimited fully encourages that the EIS for both firming projects not be finalized until the county’s stream management plan is complete.”

http://www.grandcountynews.com/mondaydailytribune/mondaydailytribunestories.html#news1

This year’s snowpack is similar to last year — slightly below average and melting quickly, according to last week’s State of the River meeting in Granby, presented by the Colorado River District.

But compared to other watersheds in the state, the northern Colorado River basin is having a fairly good year, with reservoirs such as Green Mountain Reservoir, located near Kremmling, expected to fill by early July, and Wolford Reservoir, located just north of Kremmling, “spilling probably right now,” said Colorado River District Water Resources Engineer Don Meyer, who spoke at the meeting.

In fact, many reservoirs are expected to fill this spring. The South Platte River Basin, Denver Water’s primary water supply, is doing better than it has in at least 10 years, according to Marc Waage of Denver Water, who said the South Platte collection system is expected to fill soon. On the west side of the Continental Divide, Denver Water’s Williams Reservoir is 88-percent full, and Dillon Reservoir is 95-percent full, he added.

Gross Reservoir and Ralston Reservoir, two reservoirs off the Fraser System Operation on the east side of the mountains, are expected to fill “easily,” Waage said, which lessens the amount of water taken from the Fraser River this spring.

“We’re already limiting the amount of water we’re getting through the Moffat Tunnel,” Waage said. It is hoped that the extra spring runoff will help flush out some of the sediment that has been building along the Fraser River.

The only reservoir not expected to fill this year is Granby Reservoir. Asked if Granby would ever fill again, one official said, “It goes in cycles . . . We haven’t seen it (fill) in a while, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen.”

While Tuesdays’ meeting was generally more positive than say, during a drought year, numerous graphs shown that night depicted an alarming trend: Less snowpack and quicker runoffs. This past winter’s snowpack was less than last year’s, and warmer temperatures were causing snowmelt to be about a week ahead of schedule.

Alan Martellaro of the Division of Water Resources said last winter was “decent” compared to 2002 and 2004. Lake Irene, located in Rocky Mountain National Park, was said to have below average snowpack, tracking close to last year’s, and its snowmelt progression was about a week and a half ahead of schedule in runoff.

Berthoud summit’s snowpack was a little less than the previous winter (although two winters ago it was slightly above average). Runoff was “a little ahead of schedule.”

Things are certainly different in the lower part of the basin, Martellaro added. In fact, the more south one goes in the state of Colorado, the worse it gets, due to the warm temperatures this spring and a below-average snowfall this past winter. Heavy demands are expected on Green Mountain Reservoir, for example, due to Western Colorado needs this year.

Updates on projects

A packed room of various water and environmental representatives and concerned citizens listened carefully as updates were given on the two upcoming firming projects.

One is the Windy Gap Firming Project, a project to “firm up” water rights that belong to the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern). The subdistrict currently stores its water at Windy Gap, but due to insufficient storage space, it loses out on some of its water rights. A plan to build a new reservoir near Carter Lake on the Front Range would allow for more storage, and for the subdistrict to have access to 30,000 acre feet of water to be diverted to users on the Front Range.

A draft Environmental Impact Study (EIS) is to be completed sometime this fall by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). (The Windy Gap Firming Project would tie into the federally owned and managed Colorado-Big Thompson Project, therefore Reclamation is the lead agency on the EIS for this project.)

The draft EIS will give a chance for the public to respond and give feedback. Designs for the project, if approved, could start in 2012 or 2013.

Grand County representatives are concerned that the Windy Gap Firming Project will take more water out of the Colorado River and cause more shortages on the already-strained stretch below Windy Gap.

Last fall that concern became a major reality when Reclamation dropped its flows to 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) and Denver Water stopped releasing out of Williams Fork Reservoir; that combination caused flows to reach dangerously low levels, and ranchers were forced to stop irrigating their crops for fear of drying out the river completely.

Grand County commissioners are currently undertaking a stream management plan to study all the shortages and water rights in Grand County, and find a way for entities — mainly Northern, Denver Water and Reclamation — to work together so that everyone can have water without drying out sections of the river.

The plan incorporates a scientific approach by measuring and monitoring various sections of the Colorado River, the Fraser River, Vasquez Creek and other tributaries. The plan is currently going into its second phase, and is expected to be completed sometime in 2008.

Unfortunately for Grand County, the draft EIS for the Windy Gap Firming Project will most likely be completed before the stream management plan, even though many representatives of the county feel the stream management plan is an important component and should be incorporated into the EIS.

One resident in the audience asked if Northern would support and incorporate Grand County’s stream management plan into its EIS before it’s completed.

“I don’t know what the timing will be,” said Don Carlson, Northern’s deputy general manager. “ . . . Guess it would depend on what’s in it. We’re working with (the county). I think it’s a good idea they’re doing that. (But) we are obligated to our participants, so it would depend on how it would affect operations.”

The Moffat Firming Project, a project to develop 18,000 acre-feet of water per year for users in the Front Range, is also a major concern among Grand County citizens. The firming project would allow for more water to be taken from the Fraser River’s collection system during high-flow (spring) conditions. Many feel the health of the Fraser River, listed as the third most endangered river in the U.S., will further deteriorate if the firming project is approved. A draft EIS by the U.S. Corps of Engineers is expected to be completed early next year.

Population growth, a trend in warmer temperatures and a harsh reality check in 2002 — a drought year — are the driving forces behind the two firming projects proposed by Northern and Denver Water; if both projects are approved, the combined effect will most likely be devastating on Grand County’s already dwindling water supply. That is why many hope the Grand County Stream Management Plan will be taken into consideration in both projects.

Scott Linn, president of the Headwaters Chapter of Colorado Trout Unlimited, said Trout Unlimited fully encourages that the EIS for both firming projects not be finalized until the county’s stream management plan is complete.

“Trout Unlimited implores that the environmental impact statements not come out until the stream management plan is completed,” Linn said. “Fishing below Windy Gap is still very bad . . . the fish are suffering from low flows . . . Without coordinated bypass flows, otherwise known as a stream management plan, our river is going to die a slow choking death.”

Other updates

Linn added, however, that he was happy to hear about the temperature monitoring below Windy Gap, a section of the river prone to low flows, sedimentation and high temperatures. The Colorado River District installed 10 temperature gauges up and down a section of the Colorado River below Windy Gap. The gauges will give data on temperatures on real-time basis.

The county still faces major challenges, however, such as low flows on the Fraser River, and not enough water below Windy Gap to flush out the growing amount of sediment, Linn said.

Carlson gave some updates on local concerns such as Whirling Disease, a parasitic infection caused by a microscopic parasite that causes fish to swim in circles and eventually die, is essentially obsolete in the Windy Gap Reservoir.

Carlson also spoke about the draw down on Shadow Mountain Reservoir, which he said will “hopefully help water quality problems.” He added that it is being monitored closely in the next couple of years to see how successful it will be.

Tuesday’s State of the River meeting, an annual meeting put on by the Colorado River District, was generally positive this year. Two strong winters are helping replenish some badly needed water supplies, and various local projects — such as restoration projects along the river by Trout Unlimited, and a major watershed project led by Carolyn Schott — are making some positive headway toward maintaining the health of local fisheries and rivers.

But nobody in the room that night was lulled into a false sense of security. The threats to Grand County’s water supply are very real, and things are bound to start heating up once the draft EIS is completed for the Windy Gap Firming Project, expected this spring. Grand County commissioners are also pushing for the county’s stream management plan to be taken into consideration by all entities and held a meeting the following Thursday with representatives of Northern, Reclamation and Denver Water.

A story about that meeting will be printed in this week’s Manifest.

Check Out Mo Henry's 3rd Annual Loco Appreciation Day and TU Fundraiser

Aspinall Operation Meeting

I attended the Aspinall Operations Meeting held here in Grand Junction on April 26^th.  The purpose of operation meetings-- held in January, April, and August-- is to gather input for determining upcoming operations for Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, and Crystal Reservoirs. This input is used in Reclamation’s development of specific operations for the Aspinall Unit.  Operation of the Aspinall Unit considers projected inflows to its reservoirs, hydropower needs, flood control needs, existing water rights, minimum instream flows, target elevations for reservoirs, flow needs for endangered fish and other resources, recreation, and other factors. In addition, the meetings are used to coordinate activities and exchange information among agencies, water users, and other interested parties concerning the Gunnison River.  Dan Kowalski of the CDOW had a flow request to conduct his annual fish survey in the Gorge the first week of April.  The Gunnison Basin snow pack is only 57% of average and dropping so the runoff could be minimal.  Flows through the Black Canyon will continue to be around 500 cfs until later in June unless the basin receives significant moisture.  No peak flow will occur under the current forecast. 

~ Pat Oglesby