Day: December 26, 2010

Wet Mountain Valley: Terrible Mine tailings mitigation project update

A picture named wetmountainvalley.jpg

From the Wet Mountain Tribune (Hal Walter):

The contaminated tailings comprised about 100,000 cubic yards of gravel. An existing depression large enough to hold the tailings was utilized to contain this material. Griswold says lead carbonate is chemically different from lead sulfide found in most mine cleanup situations, so there’s little concern about it leaching into the groundwater. Thus, the depression holding the tailings was not lined.

However, acidic runoff from the surrounding pine forests poses a potential problem. So the next step was to cover the tailings with a thick evaporative cap, including a drainage layer of coarse gravel, topsoil and vegetation. In all, this cap will be about 3 feet thick. The site will be shored up with boulder rip-rap to keep the soil in place and guard against flash floods from Oak Creek. Finally, the topsoil will be seeded with a native grass mix recommended by the Soil Conservation District.

Andy Kagan, owner of Kagan and Son, said a cooperative effort between his company and Tezak Heavy Equipment is supplying the 70,000 tons of material for the cap. About 45,000 tons of gravel was provided from his pit located in Fremont County, and the balance of topsoil will come from another pit 12 miles south of Westcliffe. Tezak is supplying the boulder rip-rap.

More Custer County coverage here.

Governor Ritter Creates Mediation Process for River Access Disputes

A picture named raftingarkriver.jpg

Here’s the release from Governor Ritter’s office (Myung Oak Kim/Todd Hartman):

Gov. Bill Ritter today issued a report outlining a series of proposals for resolving disputes between landowners and rafters in Colorado. He also signed an executive order creating the River Access Mediation Commission to provide a way for some of the most contentious conflicts between boaters and property owners to be addressed.

“I’m pleased to announce this report, and the formation of a mediation commission, so we can move forward in resolving these issues fairly and thoughtfully,” Gov. Ritter said. “I believe a mediation commission can work its way through these matters in a civil, reasoned way where all parties’ views are respected and considered in developing a resolution that could alleviate the need for litigation.”

The Governor’s River Access Dispute Resolution Task Force was a 17-member group created in July to help craft ways to sort out conflicts on Colorado rivers on a stretch-by-stretch basis as those disputes arise. Gov. Ritter created the task force through executive order as part of an agreement with stakeholders to set aside numerous conflicting ballot measures on the issue.

The task force report includes eight unanimous recommendations to the Governor on ways to limit disputes between various parties. The recommendations include creation of the River Access Mediation Commission to address the thorniest disagreements. Participation by disputing parties would be voluntary, and the commission would not have the power of arbitration. The report can be accessed on the website of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources at http://dnr.state.co.us/

“I commend the hard work of the task force in developing this report, and extend my thanks for its effort in working through difficult issues that required members to find common ground,” Gov. Ritter said. “The report includes a host of recommendations with great potential to reduce friction between rafters and landowners. I look forward to sharing the recommendations with Governor-Elect John Hickenlooper, and urge him, along with the State Legislature, to thoughtfully review the report.”

More coverage from the Associated Press via The Durango Herald:

The bill was prompted by disputes between landowners who don’t want boaters using waterways flowing through their property and boaters who say the state’s waters belong to the public. The conflict came to a head on western Colorado’s Taylor River last year when a developer told commercial rafters they could no longer float through his property.

“I believe a mediation commission can work its way through these matters in a civil, reasoned way where all the parties’ views are respected and considered in developing a resolution that could alleviate the need for litigation,” Ritter said in a statement.

More whitewater coverage here. More HB 10-1188 coverage here.

Uncompahgre Planning Area Wild and Scenic River study update

A picture named sanmiguelriver.jpg

From The Telluride Watch (Karen James):

Following an exhaustive process in which the BLM inventoried every known river with a perennial or intermittent flow within the 675,000-acre Uncompahgre Planning Area, it determined that more than 30 segments of 22 rivers possessed the qualities necessary for eligibility. That is, they must be free-flowing as defined by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, and also contain one or more “outstandingly remarkable values.”

Those values must be river related and may be scenic, recreational, geologic, cultural or historic in nature, or result from large quantities or rare species of fish, wildlife or vegetation, or similar values. The river evaluation was required as the agency revises its Resource Management Plan for the planning area. “We’re not doing because we think it’s a good time to do it, or because we want to get involved in some river controversy,” laughed BLM Water Rights and Instream Flow Coordinator Roy Smith at an introductory meeting held a few weeks ago. “Under the [WRSA] we are required to whenever we do land use planning.”[…]

Wild segments are essentially undeveloped, while recreational areas can have extensive development along their shorelines. Scenic areas fall in between the two. Eligible river segments are given interim protection until the suitability analysis is completed and a Record of Decision is issued, with the intent of protecting the values for which a section was determined eligible. While the BLM makes recommendations on the suitability of the segments, ultimately only the U.S. Congress or the Secretary of the Interior can make the final designation. “Federal designation is a huge process that goes through a massive amount of input,” said Hilary White, Executive Director of local environmental organization Sheep Mountain Alliance, who is following the process closely. Ultimately, “It most likely will not happen for five to 10 years.”[…]

“The designation is meant to ensure that the river runs freely and that future development doesn’t deplete the river to the point of killing the values that live within it, explained Peter Mueller, a member of the BLM Southwest Colorado Regional Advisory Committee and, with Naturita’s John Reams, one of two local members of the Southwest Colorado RAC subgroup composed of area residents representing diverse interests within the Uncompahgre Field Office. The eight-member subgroup is responsible for forwarding consensus-based recommendations regarding Wild and Scenic River suitability by February 2011 to the Southwest Colorado RAC…

The Southwest Regional Advisory Committee will hold public meetings concerning private property impacts and the remaining sections of the San Miguel River at the Wilkinson Public Library on Tuesday, Jan. 4, 5:30-7:30 p.m., and the Norwood Community Center on Wednesday, Jan. 5, 6:30-8:30 p.m. The following week open discussions will take place at the Placerville Fire Department on Tuesday, Jan. 11, 6:30-8:30 p.m. and the Naturita Community Center on Wednesday, Jan. 12, 6:30-8:30 p.m.

More San Miguel River watershed coverage here and here.

Flaming Gorge pipeline: Morphing into hydropower project?

A picture named microhydroelectricplant.jpg

It sounds like Aaron Million is hoping to implement Reclamation’s time-honored strategy — moving water through hydroelectric facilities on it’s way to consumers. Here’s a report from Bobby Magill writing for the Fort Collins Coloradoan. From the article:

So far, only a handful of water suppliers have been revealed to the public, but Million said Wednesday “there’s some significant major interest from nationally recognized entities in the project.” He declined to identify them or say whether or not they might be revealed next year.

Regardless, Million is convinced 2011 will be a significant year in shaping the plans for the pipeline, which is under environmental review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “What you should expect is a major expansion of the alternative energy, the hydropower for the project,” he said. That’s hydropower to the amperage of 1,000 megawatts that would be generated as the water in the pipeline falls from Laramie to Fort Collins, he said. “One thousand megawatts would be one of the biggest hydro projects in the country,” he said.

The Hoover Dam, by comparison, produces just over 2,000 megawatts of electricity, according to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

More Flaming Gorge pipeline coverage here and here.

Arkansas Valley Conduit update

A picture named arkansasvalleyconduitproposed.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“If we don’t get the conduit, the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project will be the worst thing we’ve ever done. The Fry-Ark will be used to dry up this valley. We will have had a benefit for a short time with the ag water and the storage, but it will have done the damage,” said Bill Long, a member of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District board in 2006.

This year, Congress for the first time approved funding for the conduit, finally launching a long-awaited study. Corresponding legislation also opened the door to using other revenues from the Fry-Ark Project to pay for the conduit.

That’s important to Long, a Las Animas businessman who now is president of the Southeastern district.
“This is an opportunity to put forth a very valuable project that will be repaid,” Long said. “We will be contributing to the funding stream ourselves as we store more water.”

Click through for Mr. Woodka’s short bio of Bill Long.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here and here.

Lake Mead: Arizona to forego 80,000 acre-feet of Colorado River diversions in 2011 to help slow the drop

A picture named hooverdamaerial.jpg

From The Arizona Republic (Shaun McKinnon):

Arizona’s plan to leave water in Lake Mead was devised as such a trade-off, officials say. The idea is almost as simple as it sounds. With the approval of its elected board, the CAP would reduce by as much as 80,000 acre-feet of the water diverted from the river into the 336-mile canal that connects the Colorado to Phoenix and Tucson…

The amount is a fraction of the 1.6 million acre-feet the canal moves annually, but it would save 1 foot of elevation at Lake Mead, whose water levels determine when and if drought restrictions take effect under a 2007 agreement among the seven Colorado River states…

The first shortage trigger is at elevation 1,075 feet above sea level, about 10 feet below the reservoir’s current level. At that trigger level, water deliveries to the river’s lower basin – Arizona, Nevada and California – are reduced by 323,000 acre-feet for at least one year. Almost all of that water would be taken from the CAP’s allocation for Arizona because of an agreement forged with California more than 40 years ago. To secure California’s votes in Congress for construction of the CAP Canal, Arizona agreed that the water in the canal could be used to guarantee California’s full allocation in any future shortages. Nevada agreed to absorb a small amount of the shortage as part of a separate water-banking arrangement with Arizona. The water Arizona would forgo would have gone toward the state water bank, which stores unallocated water from the Colorado River as a hedge against long-term water shortages. If Lake Mead sinks low enough to trigger a shortage, some water users would feel the effects, but the CAP supply still has a big enough cushion to protect Phoenix, Tucson and the other cities that use the water. Even in a third-stage shortage, which would be declared if the reservoir dropped an additional 50 feet, the primary municipal supplies would remain untouched. Phoenix, Tucson and other cities would give up no water.

More Colorado River basin coverage here.

Fountain Creek

A picture named fountaincreekwatershed.jpg

Here’s a look at Fountain Creek’s current status with a bit of historical context, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

…a couple of things make the Fountain Creek watershed unique:

Water cascades from 14,115 feet above sea level at the top of Pikes Peak to 4,630 feet at the confluence with the Arkansas River. That’s a huge drop that cuts away banks and washes sediment downstream. It’s a population magnet. More than 525,000 people live within its boundaries, most of them in Colorado Springs or in neighboring El Paso County communities. The flows in the stream have changed as the area has developed and base flows in Fountain Creek are now mostly treated effluent. By the time Fountain Creek joins the Arkansas River, it’s a muddy brown river in its own right, a sign of the constant load of sediment it carries as it erodes its banks…

“A lot of people felt the creation of the [Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District] was the end, when in fact it’s just the beginning,” [Gary Barber, who will leave in January after nearly a year as interim director] said. The district operates on a shoestring budget for now, using funds contributed through the Master Corridor Plan agreement, legal services donated by the counties and miscellaneous revenues for things such as grant management.

More Fountain Creek coverage here and here.