Category: Windy Gap

Trout Unlimited: Upper Colorado River Mitigation Package ‘Not Enough’

A picture named cutthroat.jpg

Here’s the release from Colorado Trout Unlimited (Randy Schofield):

Trout Unlimited today expressed disappointment in a June 9 Colorado Wildlife Commission decision to approve without changes mitigation plans offered by Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District for two new water diversion projects, saying the plans fall short of what’s needed to protect the fish and wildlife resources of the upper Colorado River basin.

“We appreciate the hard work the commission and its staff have put into reviewing the proposed Moffat Tunnel and Windy Gap expansion projects,” said Drew Peternell, director of Trout Unlimited’s Colorado Water Project. “While the mitigation package the commission approved yesterday is an improvement over the plans Denver and Northern offered originally, it is not enough to protect the rivers and streams of the upper Colorado River basin from the impacts of the new projects.”

For decades, large-scale water diversions to the Front Range have severely depleted and damaged the upper Colorado River and its major tributaries, including the Fraser River. Already, transbasin water diversion projects, including Denver Water’s Moffat Tunnel pipeline and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District’s Windy Gap project, take about 60 percent of the native flows of the upper Colorado River basin. The proposed expansions of the Moffat Tunnel and Windy Gap projects would take an additional 15 percent of flows and further stress an ecosystem that is on the tipping point of survival.

Trout Unlimited vowed to seek additional mitigation conditions in the next phases of project permitting and urged Denver Water and Northern to do more to offset the impacts of the proposed projects on the Colorado River and its tributaries.

At the Wildlife Commission meeting in Grand Junction Thursday, several wildlife commissioners expressed concerns that the final mitigation plans submitted by Denver Water and Northern were inadequate, but the commission voted unanimously to approve the plans anyway, without changes.

“We’re disappointed that commissioners apparently believed they didn’t have the statutory authority to recommend additional protections,” said Mely Whiting, counsel for TU’s Colorado Water Project. “We don’t believe that’s an accurate reading of the statute.”

Last week, TU, West Slope landowners and other stakeholder groups urged the Wildlife Commission to include several provisions in the final mitigation package to ensure the health of the rivers:

– Reconnecting the Colorado River by creating a “bypass” around Windy Gap Reservoir.
– A halt to diversions when water temperatures are on the verge of state “impaired” standards – water warm enough to kill trout.
– Adequate spring flushing flows to keep the rivers healthy and sustain riparian areas that are critical to wildlife.
– An ongoing plan to monitor stream conditions and identify needed habitat restoration projects.
– An endowment fund to pay for those restoration projects as an “insurance policy” for river health.

TU leaders stressed that these were reasonable requests. “We weren’t asking for perfection,” said Whiting. “We were simply asking for adequate mitigation, an ‘insurance policy’ that provides the minimal level of protection needed to keep the rivers and streams of the upper Colorado basin healthy into the future. Yesterday’s decision puts these irreplaceable resources at risk.”

The Fraser River was a big loser in the decision, said TU. Under the plan approved by the commission, Denver Water can divert through the Moffat Tunnel even when those diversions violate stream temperature standards designed to prevent lethal effects on fish. And the project could take so much water that flushing flows critical to clean the stream of harmful sediment would no longer be available. The mitigation plans had several other deficiencies, including:

– Funding for stream projects to protect the Colorado River fell significantly short—between $3 and $5 million short, according to TU’s calculations, based on estimates by independent restoration contractors.
– Funding for a potential bypass of Windy Gap Reservoir, which could significantly improve downstream Colorado River conditions, was not included in the package.
– Northern’s plan allows chronic stream temperature problems and provides insufficient flushing flows in the Upper Colorado River.

TU thanked the commissioners for their efforts and acknowledged the complex, difficult nature of these mitigation decisions. But the sportsmen’s group said that the overriding goal of ensuring the future of the river’s wildlife habitat and fisheries was not achieved.

“The bottom line is that under this mitigation package, the health of the upper Colorado River and its tributaries will continue to decline,” said Peternell.

To learn more about diversion impacts on the river and watch TU’s short video “Tapped Out,” go to www.defendthecolorado.org

More coverage from Scott Willoughby writing for The Denver Post. From the article:

Several wildlife commissioners echoed the sentiment that the final mitigation plans submitted by Denver Water and Northern were not ideal, but the commission voted unanimously to approve the plans anyway. The projects’ Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plans now move to the Colorado Water Conservation Board, which has 60 days to affirm or modify the state’s position. Gov. John Hickenlooper will also have 60 days to affirm or further modify it before it’s submitted to federal permitting agencies…

Prompted by a coalition of stakeholders led by Trout Unlimited, both water utilities made concessions to plans previously submitted. Among the additional measures are improved safeguards for maintaining cool water temperatures and minimum flow protections, creation of contingency funds for unanticipated impacts and enhanced funding for river restoration plans. The restoration plans were not required by the permitting process but were offered by Denver and Northern to help address impacts from past water development. The agreements hinge on final federal approval of the water projects.

The additional measures are a step in the right direction, watchdogs say, but don’t go far enough. Trout Unlimited vowed to seek additional mitigation conditions in the next phases of project permitting and urged Denver Water and Northern to do more to offset the impacts of the proposed projects on the Colorado River and its tributaries…

Most significant among the stakeholders’ requests is a “reconnection” of the Colorado River by creating a yet-to-be- designed bypass around the 445-acre-foot Windy Gap collection pond that the group has pinpointed as a major problem area near the confluence of the Fraser and Colorado rivers. Most agree that the proposal has merit, although further study is required. “We feel that the reconstruction of the channel downstream is just as important,” DOW aquatic biologist Ken Kehmeier told the commission. “We feel that we can’t determine the necessity for a bypass until a study is done.”

More coverage from Janice Kurbjin writing for the Summit Daily News. From the article:

Trout Unlimited representatives say the plans fall short of what’s needed to protect the fish and wildlife resources of the Upper Colorado River Basin. They vowed in early June to fight the projects on several fronts, including at the federal permitting level, if the plan didn’t include strong protections for the Upper Colorado River. They are now focused on other permitting levels. “We want more,” said Drew Peternell, director of Trout Unlimited’s Colorado Water Project.

Groups such as the Fraser River Basin Landowners and the Upper Colorado River Alliance are on board with the fight…

According to the Division of Wildlife, restoration plans aren’t required by the permitting process but were offered voluntarily by the utilities. A DOW statement said the commission’s authority is limited to mitigating impacts from the proposed projects and restoring the river to a past condition is beyond the scope of commission authority…

Trout Unlimited and other West Slope landowners and stakeholders asked the wildlife commission earlier this month to include several provisions, they called it an “insurance policy,” to protect the health of the rivers. What’s been offered isn’t enough, they say. Despite flow and temperature monitoring proposed by Denver Water, Trout Unlimited claimed the utility is still allowed to divert through the Moffat Tunnel even when those diversions violate stream temperature standards designed to prevent lethal effects on fish. The diversions could also negatively affect flushing flows that clean the stream of sediment, they said. Both utilities agreed to a $600,000 “mitigation insurance policy” that falls between $3 and $5 million short, Trout Unlimited representatives said. In particular, there’s no funding for a Windy Gap Reservoir bypass, meant to improve downstream Colorado River conditions, nor was an endowment fund established to pay for future restoration projects that would be planned and monitored.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here and here.

More Windy Gap coverage here and here.

Moffat Collection System Project and Windy Gap Firming Project: The Colorado Division of Wildlife commissioners approve both mitigation plans

A picture named fraservalleycollection.jpg

From The Denver Post (Mitchell Byars):

Now the plan must clear the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is expected to release its final environmental impact study later this year. If the Army Corps gives the project the green light, construction on the expansion of Gross Reservoir in southwest Boulder County could start as early as 2015. The project is expected to take four years. The wildlife commission voted unanimously to accept Denver Water’s environmental mitigation plan. “We take this unanimous vote as an endorsement of our cooperative approach with local stakeholders,” said Denver Water’s planning director Dave Little. “Now we want to move aggressively towards implementing these measures.”[…]

In the mitigation plan, Denver Water agreed to stop diverting water from July 15 through the end of August if temperatures in the river reached levels that could possibly threaten local fish populations. The utility also pledged money to enhance stream habitats in cooperation with local counties and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. “Make the river better, that’s sort of our mantra,” Little said. “We’ve addressed all of the impacts in the scientific study the Army Corps of Engineers did, which was an exhaustive effort. But we know the Corps did not capture the impacts that some others have brought up and that’s why we went above and beyond in our mitigation plan.”

More coverage from Tonya Bina writing for the Sky-Hi Daily News. From the article:

In a series of unanimous votes, the commissioners approved mitigation plans for Denver’s Moffat Collection System project and Northern’s Windy Gap Firming Project and also authorized the Colorado Division of Wildlife to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Denver and Northern to help manage a significant restoration project for the upper Colorado River…

The votes came after Denver and Northern described to Commissioners several new or modified plan elements, which include enhanced temperature and flow protections, creation of contingency funds for unanticipated impacts and enhanced funding for river restoration plans. The restoration plans were not required by the permitting process but were offered voluntarily by Denver and Northern to help address impacts from past water development. The agreements hinge on the water providers obtaining final federal approval for their projects…

Prior to the vote, Wildlife Commission chairman Tim Glenn summarized concerns expressed by several commissioners regarding the complex package of plans and the potential that development of the projects may have unintended consequences for the Upper Colorado, Fraser and Williams Fork rivers. “Is it perfect?” Glenn asked “No. But staff has evaluated it inside and out and I’m confident that it’s better than where we are.” The Commission’s recommendation will now be transmitted to the federal permitting agency for each project…

To further address impacts from its Moffat Collection System project, Denver has agreed to new elements including increased safeguards for maintaining cool water temperatures and minimum flows in the Fraser during high summer and additional funds for aquatic habitat improvements in that river. Denver also agreed to reserve $600,000 for a “mitigation insurance policy” to address any new impacts identified by the Final Environmental Impact Statement being developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This is in addition to Denver’s previous proposal to fund a Colorado River cutthroat restoration project and other aquatic habitat restoration work on the Fraser. On the Colorado River, Denver would maintain two water temperature gauges and agree to release water in August if high temperatures threatened fish…

East of the Divide, Denver would allow Boulder and Lafayette to store water in the enlarged Gross Reservoir for release during winter months, replace wetlands inundated by the larger reservoir and monitor stream channel stability.

In its final proposal, Northern agreed to increase minimum peak flows during drought conditions to maintain fish spawning habitat, to further restrict or curtail pumping during extreme conditions to protect cool water temperatures and to reserve $600,000 for a “mitigation insurance policy” to address any new impacts identified by the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Windy Gap being developed by the Bureau of Reclamation. Northern’s proposal included mitigating impacts on the Upper Colorado River system by managing their pumping to maintain water levels in Lake Granby and keep water temperatures cool, looking for ways to improve flushing flows in the Upper Colorado River below Windy Gap Reservoir and contributing to water quality projects that reduce nutrient loading in Lake Granby, Grand Lake and Shadow Mountain Reservoir.

East of the Divide, Northern proposed to replace lost wetlands and improve enhance wildlife habitat near the new Chimney Hollow reservoir…

In their final plans, Denver and Northern agreed to add $1 million in funding to the Upper Colorado River Habitat Project to $4.5 million and increase money set aside to address future contingencies or operating and maintenance costs on that project to $1.5 million. Denver and Northern also pledged to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the DOW to manage the habitat project, and urged that the DOW be given a more direct role in developing and managing stream restoration projects contemplated under the Learn By Doing adaptive management process created by Denver’s global settlement with Grand County and other stakeholders…

Senior Northeast Region aquatic biologist Ken Kehmeier said Division staff believes that in total, the agreements, including those made with mountain communities, would not only address impacts from the new projects but also help repair impacts to the Colorado and Fraser rivers caused by previous projects.

More coverage from David O. Williams writing for the Colorado Independent. From the article:

Commissioners were generally still worried about the “unintended consequences for the Upper Colorado, Fraser and Williams Fork rivers” but felt the revised mitigation plans – including greater temperature and flow protections for aquatic life, more funding for river restoration and a contingency fund for unanticipated impacts – were a lot better than previous plans. “It has always been Denver Water’s goal to go beyond mitigating the project impacts to make the river better than it is today,” Denver Water’s director of planning Dave Little said: “We look forward to working with stakeholders on mitigation for the project and the significant enhancement plan also accepted by the Commission that will improve aquatic habitat in the Upper Colorado River Basin.”

The fish and wildlife mitigation plans still must be approved by federal regulators. Also on Thursday, Denver Water provided a statement on the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation report that includes one scenario in which water levels in the Colorado River decrease by 10 to 20 percent by the middle of this century as a result of global climate change.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here and here.

More Windy Gap coverage here and here.

Moffat Collection System Project and Windy Gap Firming Project: The Colorado Division of Wildlife commissioners approve both mitigation plans

A picture named eisenhowerfishing.jpg

Here’s the release from the Colorado Division of Wildlife:

The Colorado Wildlife Commission Thursday endorsed Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plans submitted by Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District to mitigate impacts that would be caused by two proposed transmountain water development projects.

In a series of unanimous votes, Commissioners approved mitigation plans for Denver’s Moffat Collection System project and Northern’s Windy Gap Firming Project and also authorized the Division of Wildlife to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Denver and Northern to help manage a significant restoration project for the upper Colorado River. Three members of the Colorado State Parks Board joined the Commission at the workshop, which was held at the Doubletree Inn on Horizon Drive.

The votes came after Denver and Northern described to Commissioners several new or modified plan elements, which include enhanced temperature and flow protections, creation of contingency funds for unanticipated impacts and enhanced funding for river restoration plans. The restoration plans were not required by the permitting process but were offered voluntarily by Denver and Northern to help address impacts from past water development. The agreements hinge on the water providers obtaining final federal approval for their projects.

Prior to the vote, Wildlife Commission chairman Tim Glenn summarized concerns expressed by several commissioners regarding the complex package of plans and the potential that development of the projects may have unintended consequences for the upper Colorado, Fraser and Williams Fork rivers.

“Is it perfect?” Glenn asked “No. But staff has evaluated it inside and out and I’m confident that it’s better than where we are.”

The Commission’s recommendation will now be transmitted to the federal permitting agency for each project. Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System project would firm up the yield from Denver’s existing water rights on the West Slope, primarily by enlarging Boulder’s Gross Reservoir and diverting additional water from the Fraser, Williams Fork and Blue rivers. Northern’s Windy Gap Firming Project proposes to firm up the yield from its existing water rights in the Upper Colorado River by diverting additional water to the proposed new Chimney Hollow Reservoir west of Loveland.

Since last fall, Denver and Northern have been in discussions with Division of Wildlife staff to address concerns voiced by the public and by Wildlife Commissioners. The two utilities have simultaneously been negotiating a complimentary set of agreements with a diverse group of stakeholders, including affected local governments like Grand County.

To further address impacts from its Moffat Collection System project, Denver has agreed to new elements including increased safeguards for maintaining cool water temperatures and minimum flows in the Fraser during high summer and additional funds for aquatic habitat improvements in that river. Denver also agreed to reserve $600,000 for a “mitigation insurance policy” to address any new impacts identified by the Final Environmental Impact Statement being developed by the Army Corps of Engineers.

This is in addition to Denver’s previous proposal to fund a Colorado River cutthroat restoration project and other aquatic habitat restoration work on the Fraser. On the Colorado River, Denver would maintain two water temperature gauges and agree to release water in August if high temperatures threatened fish. East of the Divide, Denver would allow Boulder and Lafayette to store water in the enlarged Gross Reservoir for release during winter months, replace wetlands inundated by the larger reservoir and monitor stream channel stability.

In its final proposal, Northern agreed to increase minimum peak flows during drought conditions to maintain fish spawning habitat, to further restrict or curtail pumping during extreme conditions to protect cool water temperatures and to reserve $600,000 for a “mitigation insurance policy” to address any new impacts identified by the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Windy Gap being developed by the Bureau of Reclamation.

Northern’s proposal included mitigating impacts on the Upper Colorado River system by managing their pumping to maintain water levels in Lake Granby and keep water temperatures cool, looking for ways to improve flushing flows in the Upper Colorado River below Windy Gap Reservoir and contributing to water quality projects that reduce nutrient loading in Lake Granby, Grand Lake and Shadow Mountain Reservoir. East of the Divide, Northern proposed to replace lost wetlands and improve enhance wildlife habitat near the new Chimney Hollow reservoir.

Under state statute, the Wildlife Commission’s authority was limited to mitigating impacts from proposed projects. Restoring the river to a past condition was beyond the scope of Commission authority. However, Denver and Northern voluntarily proposed to help enhance conditions for fish and wildlife resources on both sides of the Continental Divide.

The enhancement plans would support the Upper Colorado River Habitat Project, a collaborative plan designed to re-establish a functional channel system and improve habitat for trout and other important aquatic species on a roughly 14-mile stretch of river between Windy Gap Reservoir and the Kemp-Breeze State Wildlife Area.

In their final plans, Denver and Northern agreed to add $1 million in funding to the Upper Colorado River Habitat Project to $4.5 million and increase money set aside to address future contingencies or operating and maintenance costs on that project to $1.5 million. Denver and Northern also pledged to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the DOW to manage the habitat project, and urged that the DOW be given a more direct role in developing and managing stream restoration projects contemplated under the Learn By Doing adaptive management process created by Denver’s global settlement with Grand County and other stakeholders.

That global settlement, announced recently by Denver Water, would address longstanding concerns about the health of the Colorado River. The settlement includes funding for aquatic habitat and for an adaptive management process designed to help maintain river health.

Northern is also working on similar agreement with communities on the Upper Colorado River.

Senior Northeast Region aquatic biologist Ken Kehmeier said Division staff believes that in total, the agreements, including those made with mountain communities, would not only address impacts from the new projects but also help repair impacts to the Colorado and Fraser rivers caused by previous projects.

Commissioner David Brougham credited the Division, Denver and Northern for negotiating agreements which went beyond the Commission’s limited jurisdiction under the statute.

“I think in looking at this the Division has gone beyond and done more than that statute gives us the power to do,” Brougham said. “Denver and Northern could have said no, but they didn’t and I think that’s telling.”

Additional information regarding the Wildlife Commission’s review, including links to the mitigation and enhancement plans being offered by Denver Water and Northern, can be found on the Division’s web site at: http://wildlife.state.co.us/LandWater/Water/MoffatWindyGapMitigationProjects/.

During the morning session, North Park District Wildlife Manager Josh Dilley was presented with the 2010 Shikar-Safari Club International Officer of the Year Award. Dilley, who for the past three years has had responsibility for two wildlife management districts in the high mountain basin, was presented with the award by Bob Boswell of Shikar Safari Club International.

Dilley, who was surrounded by his family, said he was honored by the award. “I don’t have to go to work every morning, I get to go to work every morning,” Dilley told the Commissioners. “Wildlife officers in Colorado have a passion like no other. I work with my heroes every day.”

Grand Junction’s Lynn Ensley, who founded the nonprofit Pathways for Fishing, was recognized for his outstanding service in recruiting young anglers in Colorado. “I can’t say enough about Lynn’s continued dedication, his passion and his enthusiasm,” said Northwest Regional Manager Ron Velarde. “Since 1995, Lynn has introduced almost 15,000 kids to the sport of fishing.”

Ensley expressed to the Commissioners his appreciation for the Division’s support over the years, adding that he is looking to develop a new program to recruit young deer hunters.

Commissioners also received an update on draft black bear management plans for the northern Front Range, the Sangre de Cristos, the Uncompahgre and the Bears’ Ears area of northwestern Colorado, as well as an update on the impending July 1 merger of the Division of Wildlife with Colorado State Parks.

In other action, the Commission adopted final regulations removing bag and possession limits at Bonny Reservoir State Park and allow the use of trotlines and jugs. This action permanently implements an emergency regulation passed by the Commission at its last meeting in May 2011. Bonny Reservoir is scheduled to be drained in the fall of 2011, and this change is intended to allow the public to use all game fish prior to the draining of the reservoir.

The Wildlife Commission meets monthly and travels to communities around the state to facilitate public participation in its processes. The complete agenda for the June Wildlife Commission meeting can be found on the Wildlife Commission web page at:
http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeCommission/Archives/2011/June92011.htm.

The Colorado Wildlife Commission is an 11-member board appointed by the governor. The Wildlife Commission sets Division of Wildlife regulations and policies for hunting, fishing, watchable wildlife, nongame, threatened and endangered species. The Commission also oversees Division of Wildlife land purchases and property regulations.

More coverage from Wayne Harrison writing for TheDenverChannel.com. From the article:

Plans for minimizing the effects on wildlife include ways to maintain cool water temperatures and minimum water flows, restoring fish habitat and increasing flows during drought to maintain fish spawning areas. Denver Water planning director Dave Little says the goal is to improve the rivers.

More coverage from the Boulder Daily Camera. From the article:

Members of the Colorado Wildlife Commission voted unanimously Thursday to accept a plan by Denver Water to mitigate the impacts of a proposed expansion to Gross Reservoir in southwest Boulder County. The mitigation plan addresses impacts in Boulder County as well as impacts to the headwaters of the Colorado River, where more water will be drawn to fill the enlarged Gross Reservoir.

More coverage from the Longmont Times-Call. From the article:

The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, which has its headquarters in Berthoud, provides water for agricultural, municipal, domestic and industrial uses in portionis of Boulder, Larimer, Weld, Broomfield, Morgan, Logan, Washington and Sedgwick counties. According to the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Northern has agreed: to increase minimum peak flows during droughts to maintain fish spawning habitat; to further restrict or curtail pumping during extreme conditions to protect cool water temperatures, and to reserve a $600,000 “mitigation insurance policy” to address any new impacts identified in a final Windy Gap environmental impact statement being developed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here and here.

More Windy Gap coverage here and here.

Vote Slated on Water Mitigation Plans

A picture named fraservalleycollection.jpg

Here’s the release from the Colorado Division of Wildlife (Theo Stein):

The Colorado Wildlife Commission plans to vote on the adequacy of plans to mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife resources from two proposed transmountain water development projects during its meeting in Grand Junction.

The vote will complete the Commission’s 60-day review of the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plans submitted by Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District at the Commission’s April meeting in Meeker.

The Moffat Collection System Project proposes to firm up the yield from Denver Water’s existing water rights on the West Slope, primarily by diverting additional water from the Fraser, Williams Fork and Blue rivers to an enlarged Gross Reservoir in Boulder County. The Windy Gap Firming Project would firm up Northern’s yield from existing water rights in the Upper Colorado River by diverting additional water to the proposed new Chimney Hollow Reservoir west of Loveland. The mitigation plan review by the Wildlife Commission is part of each project’s federal permitting process.

Last month, Ken Kehmeier, a senior aquatic biologist with the Division, presented staff’s analysis of the plans during the Commission’s May meeting in Salida. Following Kehmeier’s analysis, Commissioners questioned whether additional protections might be needed to guard against high water temperatures and whether flushing flows contemplated by the plans would be enough to maintain channel health. They also asked for more consideration of mitigation and enhancement funding, and for a clarification of the role that the Division would play in developing and managing restoration projects.

As part of its mitigation package for the Fraser River and upper Williams Fork River, Denver has proposed to fund a Colorado River cutthroat restoration project and fund other aquatic habitat restoration work. On the Colorado River, Denver and Northern Water would monitor water temperatures and agree to release water in August if high temperatures threatened fish. East of the Divide, Denver would replace wetlands inundated by the enlarged Gross Reservoir and monitor stream channel stability in South Boulder Creek. Denver would also allow Boulder and Lafayette to store water in Gross Reservoir to boost minimum flows in the Boulder Creek drainage during winter.

Northern, for its part, has offered [to] manage their diversions to maintain water levels in Lake Granby and keep water temperatures cool in the Upper Colorado River below Windy Gap Reservoir. Northern also said it would contribute to water-quality projects designed to reduce nutrient loading in Grand Lake, Lake Granby and Shadow Mountain Reservoir. On the other side of the Divide, Northern would replace wetlands submerged by the new Chimney Hollow Reservoir and enhance nearby wildlife habitat.

Denver and Northern are also voluntarily proposing enhancement plans to improve conditions for fish and wildlife on a roughly 14-mile stretch of river between Windy Gap Reservoir and the Kemp-Breeze State Wildlife Area. The enhancement plans are not required by the Commission’s review process.

Once the Wildlife Commission adopts its final recommendation, the Colorado Water Conservation Board will have 60 days to affirm or modify the state’s position. Governor John Hickenlooper will also have 60 days to affirm or further modify it before it’s submitted to federal permitting agencies.

Recently, Denver Water announced it had reached a complex legal settlement with Grand County and 33 other groups regarding longstanding concerns about the health of the Colorado River. The settlement includes funding for aquatic habitat and for an adaptive management process designed to help maintain river health.

Additional information regarding the Wildlife Commission’s review, including links to the mitigation and enhancement plans being offered by Denver Water and Northern, can be found on the Division’s web site at: http://wildlife.state.co.us/LandWater/Water/MoffatWindyGapMitigationProjects/.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here and here.

More Windy Gap coverage here and here.

Colorado River basin: Wildlife Commission hears water plan concerns

A picture named coloradorivergranby.jpg

Here’s the release from the Colorado Division of Wildlife:

Colorado Wildlife Commissioners heard a day of presentations and testimony Friday as they continued to evaluate draft plans to mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife resources submitted by proponents of two major transmountain diversion projects.

The public hearing came midway through the Commission’s 60-day review of mitigation and enhancement plans pertaining to Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System project and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District’s Windy Gap Firming project. The meeting was held at the Hampton Inn and Suites on Highway 50 in Salida.

Wildlife Commission Chairman Tim Glenn said he was encouraged that Denver and Northern had incorporated additional changes to their draft plans based on public input during the past several months.

“Denver Water and Northern have listened to the concerns about impacts to fish and wildlife in the Upper Colorado River system and improved their plans in response,” Glenn said. “I think everyone’s focus is the health of these rivers and we look forward to continuing these discussions through staff during the next month.”

Ken Kehmeier, a senior aquatic biologist with the Division, presented staff’s analysis of Denver’s and Northern’s plans for mitigating impacts from the proposed projects as well as enhancing existing conditions on the impacted streams and rivers.

Following staff and public testimony, Commissioners asked for additional information about whether the mitigation plans were sufficient to protect cool water temperatures in the headwaters of the Colorado and Fraser River systems.

They questioned whether flushing flows would be adequate to rejuvenate cobble beds important for trout spawning and trout forage that have been degraded by previous water development. Commissioners said that they would like to see additional funding to help restore healthy river conditions and a legally binding agreement to ensure restoration would occur. They also suggested the Division should have an integral role in developing and managing restoration projects through the adaptive management process known as Learning by Doing.

Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System Project is designed to firm up the yield from its existing water rights on the West Slope, primarily by enlarging Boulder’s Gross Reservoir and diverting additional water from the Fraser, Williams Fork and Blue rivers.

Northern’s Windy Gap Firming Project is proposing to firm up the yield from its existing water rights in the Upper Colorado River by diverting additional water to the proposed new Chimney Hollow Reservoir west of Loveland.

In addition to the Commission’s fish and wildlife mitigation plan process, Denver Water recently announced it had reached a complex legal settlement with Grand County and 33 other groups regarding longstanding concerns about the health of the Colorado River that includes funding for aquatic habitat and development of the Learn by Doing process.

The Wildlife Commission is scheduled to make a final recommendation on the adequacy of the mitigation plans at its June meeting in Grand Junction.

“Healthy river systems are critically important to the future of this state,” Glenn said. “The Commission’s review of these projects has been lengthy and we greatly appreciate all of the input we have received on how we can best fix the river. Water projects like this have to be done right if we’re going to have healthy wildlife and a healthy tourism economy.”

Additional information regarding the Wildlife Commission’s review, including links to DOW staff evaluations of the mitigation and enhancement plans being offered by Denver Water and Northern, can be found on the Division’s web site at: http://wildlife.state.co.us/LandWater/Water/MoffatWindyGapMitigationProjects/.

More coverage from Bruce Willoughby writing for The Denver Post. From the article:

The commission dedicated the day solely to public commentary on two controversial transmountain water diversion projects proposed for Colorado River headwaters, and river advocates crammed the docket with impassioned pleas for assurance that the projects won’t decimate fragile fisheries such as the Fraser River, Williams Fork, Blue River and the Upper Colorado itself. They came away with none…

Representatives from Grand County, Trout Unlimited, Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Colorado River Landowners and Western Resource Advocates expressed concerns over the proposals by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District to annually draw thousands of acre-feet more water from Windy Gap Reservoir for Front Range storage and by Denver Water to increase diversions through the Moffat Tunnel to an enlarged Gross Reservoir near Boulder…

“I see dead brown trout on the bank every year in August because the water temperatures are too high,” said rancher Ron Jones, whose Fraser River frontage merits Gold Medal designation. “If they want to take the water, then they should put the money into doing what it takes to protect the rivers.”

It’s an interesting perspective — putting the health of the rivers ahead of the perceived need for more water elsewhere. There is some money on the table dedicated to enhancement of a portion of the Colorado, but consensus holds that it’s not nearly enough. And as currently proposed, many mitigation measures are conditional upon the volume of water already diverted and stored in East Slope reservoirs, not necessarily what’s happening in the rivers it’s being drawn from.

The Wildlife Commission, meanwhile, finds itself in the compromising position of attempting to address flaws it has identified in the proposals and finding a way to enforce its stance in the next month. After that, the Colorado Water Conservation Board will have 60 days to affirm or modify the commission’s recommendation as the state’s official position.

More Colorado River basin coverage here.

Colorado Division of Wildlife: Moffat Collection System and Windy Gap Firming projects hearings recap

A picture named coloradotransmountaindiversionscu.jpg

From The Mountain Mail (Joe Stone):

Commission chairman Tim Glenn pointed out that authority of the commission is limited to review of mitigation plans to address impacts to fish and wildlife by the proposed projects.

Representatives from Grand County, Trout Unlimited, Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Colorado River Landowners and Western Resource Advocates urged commissioners to seek more extensive measures than those proposed in mitigation plans. Specific issues during public testimony include higher water temperature, insufficient flushing flow, nutrient loading, effect of climate change, need for monitoring and adaptive management and adequacy of long-term financing…

Studies cited during testimony indicate mayfly species below Windy Gap Reservoir have been reduced from 17 species in 1983 to five species in 2010. Stonefly species have declined from 10 to four during the same time. Both insects are important food sources for trout.

Commissioners heard from the City of Broomfield and Platte River Power Authority who support mitigation proposals. They said reservoir projects would strengthen their operations…

Final recommendation from wildlife commissioners is due in June. After the wildlife commission adopts a final recommendation, the Colorado Water Conservation Board will have 60 days to affirm or modify it.

More coverage from the Associated Press via the Aurora Sentinel. From the article:

At a meeting Friday in Salida, Grand County was among those who told wildlife commissioners to better preserve stream flows so that river temperatures are cool enough for fish to thrive, and so that river systems can be flushed of sediment that can choke bugs that provide food for trout…

Both water suppliers have proposed steps such as not diverting water to their systems in the summer when stream flows drop below a certain level or when water temperatures get too high. Critics said diversions should be restricted whenever those thresholds are crossed, not just on certain dates.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here. More Windy Gap coverage here.

Colorado River basin: Anglers are still working on protection for upper basin streams

A picture named eisenhowerfishing.jpg

Anglers are still concerned with potential streamflow issues at the Colorado River headwaters, in light of the proposed Moffat Collection System and Windy Gap Firming projects, despite the euphoria over the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement announced a week ago. Here’s a report from Bob Berwyn writing for the Summit County Citizens Voice. From the article:

Altogether, the projects have the potential to reduce Colorado River flows to less than 25 percent of their historic native flows. Biologists and anglers have already observed increases in stream temperatures, algae blooms, and declines in fish populations throughout the Colorado River headwaters. Taking more water out of these rivers could be catastrophic if mitigation efforts fall short, according to Trout Unlimited. Both proposals are currently under review by federal and state agencies, with detailed mitigation plans at issue. The Colorado Wildlife Commission will take input on the mitigation plans Friday, May 6 at a public hearing in Salida, and Trout Unlimited, a coldwater fisheries conservation group, plans to ask the commission to make sure there’s an insurance policy in place for the Fraser River and the Upper Colorado.

“We think what we’re asking for is pretty reasonable,” Whiting said. “This is the only chance we’re going get to address some of these impacts. We need to have an insurance policy,” she added. Whiting said the environmental studies for the Moffat and Windy Gap projects dealt with some of the anticipated impacts in a speculative way, and that there’s no way of knowing exactly how the increased diversions — planned during the peak flow season — will play out. If the money currently earmarked toward enhancements is sufficient, great. But if not, there needs to be a pot of money in reserve to do the needed work, she said. Specifically, Trout Unlimited said that significant restoration work and monitoring will be needed to ensure healthy aquatic ecosystems on the Fraser and Upper Colorado rivers. The group estimates that it will cost about $14 million for the needed work, yet only a fraction of that funding is included in the mitigation plans…

Trout Unlimited also wants the Front Range utilities to make a commitment to stop diversions when the water gets too warm or flows drop too low. Removing too much water from the river during runoff or during critical hot summer months raises stream temperatures and eliminates flushing flows that are needed to keep river ecosystems alive. If flushing flows are not occurring or if temperatures rise above state standards, fish can die. Water providers need to make a commitment to stop diversions when stream temperatures approach state standards or if flushing flows are not occurring in accordance with the community-led Grand County Stream Management Plan. These commitments, combined with ongoing monitoring, are what is referred to by the concept of ‘Adaptive Management.’

More Colorado River basin coverage here.

Grand County: Denver Water and several west slope organizations to announce a deal on upper Colorado transmountain diversion projects on April 28

A picture named coloradotransmountaindiversionscu.jpg

The negotiations have been under a nondisclosure agreement. Here’s the link to Allan Best’s analysis running in TheMountainNews.net. He writes:

No single part of this agreement stands out. This is not like a new dam or tunnel. Yet collectively, these elements of compromise may well represent the most important single water news since the veto of the Two Forks Dam in 1990.

Now, the various water agencies will have to sell the deal to their constituencies. Heartburn may be evident on both sides of the Continental Divide. Denver residents may very well question why, if Denver owns the water, it must “pay” Summit and Grand counties to use it.

And for the Western Slope, this does represent further export of water.

Some potential details:

– Key Western Slope organizations remove their opposition to Denver’s plan to draw more water from the close-in headwaters areas near Winter Park and in Summit County.
– The Western Slope also withdraws potential legal opposition to Denver’s plans to sell recycled water from its diversions to thirsty suburbs that now depend upon wells.
– The deal also requires Denver to step up conservation and reuse efforts.
– [The deal] specifies several tens of millions of dollars in grants to Western Slope water organizations
– [It will create] more flexible water-management regimes intended to achieve environmental goals and benefit recreational interests…

This settlement arguably represents a new template for Front Range-Western Slope relations, one that reflects a new balance of power in Colorado and also new sensibilities. This is in sharp contrast with attitudes and laws prior to the late 1960s and early 1970s.

More coverage from Mr. Best running in the Summit Daily News. From the article:

-The deal will also place limits on future diversions by both Denver and key suburbs.
– The agreement also obligates Denver to provide some of its existing water in Summit County for use by local jurisdictions
– The deal obligates Denver to keep Dillon Reservoir nearly full except in specified drought conditions.
– The agreement also requires Denver to provide cash for water projects in Summit and Grand counties.

I wonder where the Shoshone right sits in all of this?

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

Colorado Division of Wildlife: Commissioners begin water plan reviews

A picture named grossreservoir.jpg

From the Summit Daily News:

On Thursday, the Colorado Wildlife Commission received fish and wildlife mitigation plans from Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District that describe the water providers’ proposals for addressing expected impacts from two transmountain diversion projects that would provide more reliable water supplies to the Front Range…

The May meeting in Salida should allow additional time for the public to comment and provide input on the two plans as well as two voluntary enhancement plans also being submitted by the water providers. That’s in addition to numerous public and stakeholder meetings since October…

When the Wildlife Commission submits its recommendation to the Colorado Water Conservation Board, the board will then have 60 days to affirm the Commission’s recommendation as the official state position or modify the recommendation. If the board makes revisions, the governor will have 60 days to affirm or further modify the recommendation, which then becomes the official state position with regard to mitigation.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here and here.

More Windy Gap coverage here and here.

Denver Water releases their Moffat Collection System mitigation plan

A picture named grossdam.jpg

From the Boulder Daily Camera (Laura Snider):

…the “Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan” released last week by Denver Water, which says the Gross Reservoir expansion is necessary to meet a projected shortfall of 18,000 acre-feet of water per year for its customers by 2030. The water to fill the newly expanded reservoir would be drawn from the Fraser and Williams Fork rivers — both tributaries of the Colorado River — and pumped across the Continental Divide to Boulder County via the Moffat Tunnel. The Colorado Wildlife Commission now has 60 days to review the mitigation plan, which addresses impacts on both sides of the divide, before providing a recommendation to the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

In Boulder County, the mitigation plan also calls for monitoring the stability of South Boulder Creek’s stream channel above Gross Reservoir, which would carry an increased amount of water if the expansion is approved. Denver Water would also add an extra 5,000 acre-feet of water to the reservoir that could be released in the winter to increase flows in South Boulder Creek below the dam.

The mitigation plan for the Gross Reservoir expansion was released at the same time as a mitigation plan for the Windy Gap Firming Project, which also seeks to bring more water to the Front Range from the Colorado River watershed. The Windy Gap project, which is being proposed by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, would bring more water to some Boulder County towns, including Erie, Superior, Lafayette, Longmont and Superior…

Managers for the two projects also worked together to create an “enhancement plan” for the upper Colorado River tributaries that would address some of the ecological issues caused by low water flow in the area. Enhancements could include narrowing and deepening the river channel in some areas…

“The heavy focus on what they call enhancements — they are fine and good — but they really address past problems,” [Drew Peternell, director of Trout Unlimited’s Colorado Water Project] said. “What does this mean about these new projects?” Peternell said he also worries that the plan lacks teeth and clear thresholds for enforcement. For example, Trout Unlimited would like assurances that Denver Water will stop withdrawing water from the upper Colorado River if stream temperatures get too high, endangering fish. And they’re also concerned that spring “flushing flows” — which are ecologically important to the river — won’t be preserved.

Here’s the link to the Colorado Division of Wildlife website for the projects.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here and here. More Windy Gap coverage here and here.

Colorado Division of Wildlife: Commissioners begin water plan reviews

A picture named coloradotransmountaindiversionscu.jpg

Here’s the release from the Colorado Division of Wildlife (Theo Stein):

The Colorado Wildlife Commission Thursday received Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plans from Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District that describe the water providers’ proposals for addressing expected impacts from two transmountain diversion projects that would provide more reliable water supplies to the Front Range.

The meeting was held at the Fairfield Center in Meeker.

Under state statute, the Commission now has 60 days to evaluate the proposed mitigation and provide a recommendation to the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The Commission is expected to render its decision at the June Wildlife Commission meeting in Grand Junction.

Wildlife Commission Chairman Tim Glenn said that during the May meeting in Salida, the Commission would offer the public an extended opportunity to comment and provide input on the two mitigation plans as well as two voluntary enhancement plans also being submitted by the water providers. Commissioners have held numerous public and stakeholder meetings on the issue since October.

“We’ve said all along we’re going to take the time to do this right,” said Glenn, who added that he was grateful that Denver and Northern had already incorporated public input from the February release of pre-draft mitigation proposals into the plans presented last week. “And we’re going to allocate plenty of time in Salida to make sure everyone gets heard.”

The mitigation and enhancement plans, as well as other information regarding the projects, are posted on the Moffat and Windy Gap Mitigations Projects page on the DOW web site.

Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System Project is designed to provide 18,000 acre-feet per year of new water supply to firm up the yield from Denver’s existing water rights on the West Slope, primarily by enlarging Gross Reservoir near Boulder and diverting additional water from the Fraser and Williams Fork rivers.

This project’s likely impacts include reduced stream flows and increased temperatures in the Williams Fork, Fraser and Upper Colorado River systems. The lower flows may increase sedimentation in the affected reaches of these rivers and reduce their ability to support aquatic insects and fish life. The lower flows may also reduce the ability of the river channel maintain hydrologic function over the long term.

On the East Slope, the additional diversions would send more water through the Moffat Tunnel, down South Boulder Creek and into an enlarged Gross Reservoir. The project would create a larger reservoir for recreation, but longer periods of high flows in South Boulder Creek above Gross Reservoir would reduce its ability to support trout and other aquatic wildlife.

To mitigate likely impacts from the project on the Fraser River and upper Williams Fork River, Denver is proposing to fund a Colorado River cutthroat restoration project and other aquatic habitat restoration work. On the Colorado River, Denver would install two real-time temperature monitoring gages and agree to release water in August if high temperatures threatened fish.

East of the Divide, Denver would rebuild the Gross Reservoir Dam larger than necessary to allow Boulder and Lafayette to store water to maintain stream flows during winter months, create new wetlands to replace wetlands inundated by the larger reservoir and monitor stream channel stability to identify impacts from higher flows.

Northern’s Windy Gap Firming Project is designed to provide 30,000 acre-feet per year of new water supply to firm up the yield from its existing water rights in the Upper Colorado River by diverting additional water to the proposed new Chimney Hollow Reservoir west of Longmont.

West of the Divide, impacts could include a decrease of water level in Lake Granby, a reduction in trout habitat in the Colorado River due to lower stream flows and increases in water temperature. There would also likely be a reduction in river flows preferred by rafters and kayakers, with a potential impact on anglers who fish from personal floatation equipment. Fisheries east of the Continental Divide would benefit from potential development of a new flat-water fishery in the proposed Chimney Hollow Reservoir, though some wetlands and big game habitat would be flooded by the new reservoir.

To mitigate impacts from the project on the Upper Colorado River system, Northern is proposing to manage their pumping to maintain water levels in Lake Granby and look for ways to improve flushing flows and provide cooler summer water temperatures in the Upper Colorado River below Windy Gap Reservoir. Northern would contribute to water quality projects to reduce nutrient loading in Shadow Mountain, Lake Granby and Grand Lake. East of the Divide, Northern is proposing to replace lost wetlands and improve enhance wildlife habitat near the new Chimney Hollow Reservoir.

Under state statute, the Commission’s authority is limited to a review of plans to mitigate impacts from proposed projects. Restoring the river to a past condition is beyond the scope of the project approval process and Wildlife Commission authority. However, Denver and Northern are voluntarily proposing steps to address impacts of existing water development projects to fish and wildlife resources on both sides of the Continental Divide by enhancing current conditions.

The enhancement plans would support the Upper Colorado River Habitat Project, a collaborative plan that is designed to restore a more functional channel system and improve habitat for trout and other important aquatic species between Windy Gap Reservoir and the Kemp-Breeze State Wildlife Area.

With the plans submitted, the Division has 10 days to perform a completeness review of the proposals. When the Wildlife Commission submits its recommendation to the Colorado Water Conservation Board, the CWCB will then have 60 days to affirm the Commission’s recommendation as the official state position or modify the recommendation. If the CWCB makes revisions, the Governor will have 60 days to affirm or further modify the recommendation, which then becomes the official state position with regard to mitigation. The final state position is then transmitted to the appropriate federal permitting agencies.

Also during Thursday’s morning session, the Commission received a presentation on draft regulations to amend the existing prohibition on dogs at Lon Hagler and Lone Tree Reservoir State Wildlife Areas near Loveland.

Under the proposed change, dogs must be on a leash less than six feet long, unless they are on a boat. In addition, dogs would be prohibited from portions of both properties during certain times of the year except as an aid to hunting. The current dog ban would be maintained around the Lon Hagler annex pond and adjacent land to protect wildlife habitat. The Commission is scheduled to consider final approval of the change at the May meeting in Salida.

The Commission also heard a presentation on a mule deer research proposal for Middle Park that will help Division biologists better manage deer herds across the state. The proposed study is designed to measure natural buck survival under different harvest structures. During the study, buck hunting pressure would be maintained at current levels throughout the Middle Park data analysis unit for three years. During the following four years, harvest rates on half of the unit would be increased while harvest rates would be decreased on the remaining half of the unit. Natural buck survival would be measured on each half of the unit when hunting season is closed.

The results will help biologists understand the impact hunting pressure has on the survival of mule deer bucks and their subsequent availability for harvest, and improve the Division’s ability to inform sportsmen of tradeoffs between managing for big bucks and hunter opportunity.

The Wildlife Commission meets monthly and travels to communities around the state to facilitate public participation in its processes. During the rest of 2011, the Commission is scheduled to meet in Salida in May, Grand Junction in June and in locations to be determined from July through December.

The complete agenda for the April Wildlife Commission workshop, as well as a discussion of proposed regulation changes for Lon Hagler and Lone Tree state wildlife areas, can be found on the Wildlife Commission web page at: http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeCommission/Archives/2011/April72011.htm.

More information on Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System proposal and Northern’s Windy Gap Firming Project may be found here: http://wildlife.state.co.us/LandWater/Water/MoffatWindyGapMitigationProjects/.

The Colorado Wildlife Commission is an 11-member board appointed by the governor. The Wildlife Commission sets Division of Wildlife regulations and policies for hunting, fishing, watchable wildlife, nongame, threatened and endangered species. The Commission also oversees Division of Wildlife land purchases and property regulations.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here and here. More Windy Gap coverage here and here.

Colorado River Basin: The impacted nature of the riparian environment at the headwaters should drive the environmental analysis of moving more water to the Front Range

A picture named eisenhowerfishing.jpg

Guaranteed flows would be a great start. Flushing flows at times. Something similar to the settlement over flows through Black Canyon. Click here for a video of the Crystal Dam Spill last May (William Woody and The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel).

Here’s a report about current impacts from Scott Willoughby writing for The Denver Post. From the article:

…the network of pipes eventually grows to include tunnels with names like Harold D. Roberts, Gumlick, Vasquez and Moffat that stretch across the Divide to move acres of water out of the Blue, Williams Fork, Fraser and other mountain streams. Rather than joining the collective headwaters that unite to form fish and wildlife habitat in the Colorado River, that water winds up in sprinklers and car washes, beer bottles and bathroom spigots along the Front Range.

More of that water is targeted for removal as Colorado’s population continues to swell. Proposals on the table from Denver Water and Northern Water Conservancy District to divert additional water from the Fraser, Williams Fork, Blue and Upper Colorado rivers are designed to keep water supply ahead of demand in municipalities from Denver to Greeley.

Yet, even as the water entities lay out plans required to mitigate the impacts on fish and wildlife from their Moffat Collection System and Windy Gap Firming Project, it’s increasingly evident that these troubled waters can’t accommodate the demands already placed on them. Aquatic species ranging from green drake mayflies to mottled sculpin minnows already have disappeared, whatever the blame. The whole situation is a hot mess. We can’t manufacture water. And apparently we can’t manage it very well, either.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here and here.

The Colorado Department of Wildlife is holding a meeting in Meeker about the proposed Moffat Collection System Project and the Windy Gap Firming Project April 7

A picture named windygapreservoir.jpg

From the Northern Colorado Business Report:

Under consideration will be the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District’s proposal to divert additional water from the Upper Colorado Basin to the proposed new Chimney Hollow Reservoir west of Longmont, and Denver Water’s plan to firm up the yield from its existing water rights on the West Slope, primarily by enlarging Boulder’s Gross Reservoir and diverting additional water from the Fraser and Williams Fork rivers. Denver and Northern are both proposing steps to address impacts to fish and wildlife on both sides of the Continental Divide. Both the mitigation and enhancement plans will be presented to the Commission at the meeting.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here. More Windy Gap coverage here.

The Colorado Division of Wildlife commissioners will open a 60 day comment period for the Moffat Collection System Project and Windy Gap Firming Project Thursday

A picture named eisenhowerfishing.jpg

Here’s the release from the Colorado Division of Wildlife (Theo Stein):

The Colorado Wildlife Commission will initiate a formal review of plans to mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife resources that would be created by two major transmountain water development projects at its April 7 workshop at the Fairfield Center in Meeker.

The 60-day review of mitigation plans to be presented by Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District is required by statute.

Denver Water is proposing to firm up the yield from its existing water rights on the West Slope, primarily by enlarging Boulder’s Gross Reservoir and diverting additional water from the Fraser and Williams Fork rivers. Northern is proposing to firm up the yield from its existing water rights in the Upper Colorado River by diverting additional water to the proposed new Chimney Hollow Reservoir west of Longmont.

Under state statute, the Commission’s authority is limited to a review of plans to mitigate impacts from proposed projects. Restoring the river to a past condition is beyond the scope of the project approval process and Wildlife Commission authority.

However, Denver and Northern are voluntarily proposing steps to address impacts of existing water development projects to fish and wildlife resources on both sides of the Continental Divide. Both the mitigation and enhancement plans will be presented to the Commission at the meeting.

In other business, the Commission will consider draft regulations to amend the existing prohibition on dogs at Lon Hagler and Lone Tree Reservoir state wildlife areas near Loveland.

Under the proposed change, dogs must be on a leash less than six feet long, unless they are on a boat in which case a leash is not required. Additionally, dogs would be prohibited from portions of both properties during certain times of the year except as an aid to hunting. The current dog ban would be maintained around the Lon Hagler annex pond and adjacent land to protect wildlife habitat.

The Wildlife Commission meets monthly and travels to communities around the state to facilitate public participation in its processes. During the rest of 2011, the Commission is scheduled meet in Salida in May, Grand Junction in June and in locations to be determined from July through December.

The complete agenda for the April Wildlife Commission workshop, as well as a discussion of proposed regulation changes for Lon Hagler and Lone Tree state wildlife areas, can be found on the Wildlife Commission web page at: http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeCommission/Archives/2011/April72011.htm.

More information on Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System proposal and Northern’s Windy Gap Firming Project may be found here: http://wildlife.state.co.us/LandWater/Water/MoffatWindyGapMitigationProjects/.

Members of the public who are unable to attend Commission meetings or workshops can listen to the proceedings through a link on the DOW’s website. This opportunity is provided to keep constituents better informed about the development of regulations by the Commission and how they and DOW staff are resolving issues facing Colorado’s wildlife.

To access the live audio feed during the meeting, click on the “listen to live audio” link at the bottom of the Commission webpage at: http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeCommission/

The Colorado Wildlife Commission is an 11-member board appointed by the governor. The Wildlife Commission sets Division of Wildlife regulations and policies for hunting, fishing, watchable wildlife, nongame, threatened and endangered species. The Commission also oversees Division of Wildlife land purchases and property regulations.

From The Denver Post (Scott Willoughby):

The Colorado Wildlife Commission will initiate a formal review of plans to mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife resources that would be created by two major trans-mountain water-development projects at its Thursday workshop at the Fairfield Center in Meeker.

Denver Water is proposing to firm up the yield from its existing water rights on the Western Slope, primarily by enlarging Boulder’s Gross Reservoir and diverting additional water from the Fraser and Williams Fork rivers. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District is proposing to firm up the yield from its existing water rights in the Upper Colorado River by diverting additional water to the proposed Chimney Hollow Reservoir west of Longmont.

The 60-day review of mitigation plans to be presented by Denver Water and Northern is required by statute. A voluntary enhancement plan designed to address impacts of existing water-development projects also will be presented.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here and here. More Windy Gap Firming Project coverage here and here.

Colorado River basin: Are transmountain diversions degrading the Upper Colorado River riparian habitat?

A picture named fraservalleycollection.jpg

From The Denver Post (Scott Willoughby):

“We do a lot of guiding on the Fraser and Colorado rivers, and even before this we’ve lost a lot of insects. The green drakes on the Fraser are completely gone, a whole insect class that’s just disappeared,” said Ehlert, owner of Winter Park Fly Fisher and a 20-year guide with Grand County Fishing Company. “The other one was the salmonfly hatch on the Colorado. We still have them below Kremmling. But we used to get them on the river above Kremmling and now they are completely gone.” Ehlert believes he knows the culprit behind the mystery, and he’s not alone in pointing his finger squarely at trans-mountain water diversions he believes are sucking the life out of the Fraser River and Colorado headwaters. Shallow rivers and rising water temperatures have pushed the ecosystem to the brink, he said. “We’re fighting right now just to keep the water we have in the river, but I personally think we’re not being aggressive enough. We need to get the water back that’s gone,” he said. “If we lose any more, I think the whole system is going to crash. It may be too late now. Once the insects and food are gone, the fish are going to follow.”

Concerns over the health of the entire Upper Colorado River drainage have been magnified in recent months by proposals from Denver Water and Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District to annually draw an additional 45,000 acre feet from the Fraser, Williams Fork and Blue rivers through the Moffat Collection System Project and Windy Gap Firming Project. If approved, the water that would otherwise make its way into the Upper Colorado will instead be diverted across the Divide primarily for residential use among multiple municipalities along the Front Range from Greeley to Denver.

As part of the proposal, the water districts are expected to submit both a Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan and an Enhancement Plan to the Colorado Wildlife Commission at the April 7 workshop in Meeker. While the required FWMP addresses expected future impacts from the two projects, the optional enhancement plans are designed to address past and ongoing impacts to the river suffering the combined effects of development, agriculture, sediment loading, whirling disease and diversions, among others. The formal presentation of the plan starts a 60-day clock in which the Wildlife Commission will determine its official recommendation for or against the projects to the state.

More Colorado River basin coverage here.

Colorado Trout Unlimited’s new video ‘Tapped Out’

A picture named coloradotransmountaindiversions.jpg

From email from Colorado Trout Unlimited (Sinjin Eberle):

In Colorado, cold, clean water is our most precious resource. Healthy, free-flowing rivers support recreation opportunities like fishing, kayaking and rafting, while also supplying drinking and irrigation water to Colorado’s families and farms. Unfortunately, many of the rivers and streams that we depend on to sustain life and our western way of living are on the brink of collapse. The Colorado River is one such river on the brink.

Today, over 50% of the Upper Colorado River’s water is permanently removed and shipped across the Rocky Mountains to growing Front Range cities and suburbs, threatening the health of fish, wildlife and local headwaters communities. And Now, despite this, proposals like the Moffat and Windy Gap Firming Project threaten to TAKE MORE, leaving less for fisherman, farmers, and West Slope communities and threatening the very survival of our state’s namesake river.

In honor of World Water Day, please take a moment to watch our new video, ‘Tapped Out,’ then take the pledge to use our water resources wisely and keep the Colorado River flowing.

More Colorado River basin coverage here.

A Sustainable Solution for Meeting Colorado’s Water Needs Through 2050

I first reported about this report on Wednesday. Here’s an analysis from Alan Prendergast writing for Westword. Click through and read the whole article. Here’s an excerpt:

The challenge is daunting. The population of eleven Front Range counties is expected to swell by another 2.5 million people by 2050, pushing municipal water needs to more than a million acre-feet of water a year. That’s about 365,000 acre-feet more than the available supply. But Filling the Gap makes the case for pragmatic planning now rather than panic later.

Some additional dams and diversion projects are deemed acceptable by the report’s authors. But the Upper Colorado River Basin is already quite stressed by the Moffat, Windy Gap and Colorado-Big Thompson projects, leaving anemic streams and declining water quality. Fully two-thirds of the native waters from the region are drained into the Front Range these days, and city planners have their eyes on much more.

But the new study calculates that much of the increasing demand can be met through common-sense conservation strategies, better cooperation among agricultural and municipal interests, and other measures that don’t involve tapping deeper into overextended supplies.

 

Moffat Collection System Project: The Colorado Wildlife Commission is looking at the possible impacts to the fishery and riparian environment

A picture named grossdam.jpg

From KUNC (Kirk Siegler):

Meeting in Colorado Springs Thursday, state wildlife commissioners got their first look at a proposal by Denver Water to increase the amount of water it sends to the Front Range from the Frasier River and its tributaries in Grand County…

The state wildlife commission has a say though because of concerns about further de-watering rivers, and what that means for trout and the rest of the ecosystem.

Speaking during a public comment session at a hotel conference center, Barbara Green also alluded to economical concerns. Fishing and river guiding is a big business in the central mountains. “The number one concern of the Grand County commissioners, and they said to say this in a very loud voice, is to protect the aquatic environment,” said Green, an attorney representing the Grand County Commission. “That is their number one concern about these two projects,” she said.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here and here.

Interbasin Compact Committee meeting recap: Strategies to take the pressure off agricultural water

A picture named ibccroundtable.jpg

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Patrick Malone):

During its meeting at the Denver West Sheraton on Wednesday, the IBCC unveiled that progress in a draft strategy for sustaining the state’s future water supply. Its four-pronged tenets are a blend of water conservation, identified projects and processes (IPPs), agricultural transfers and developing new supplies.

While agricultural transfers are a staple in the strategy, delicate handling of them and a mindful perspective on their impact also are keys, and minimizing agricultural transfers is an objective of the IBCC’s strategy. “Large-scale dryup of irrigated agriculture has considerable adverse economic and environmental impacts,” the report said. “While some future portion of (municipal and industrial) water will come from agricultural sources, encouraging alternative agricultural transfers and new water supply development is essential to prevent the dryup of agricultural land. To the extent the conservation, IPPs and new water supply development is successful, less water will be transferred out of agriculture to meet the (municipal and industrial) gap.”

One mechanism proposed in the report to protect agricultural water is a legislative fix that makes long-term leasing of water rights more enticing to municipalities. [IBCC member Jay Winner of Pueblo] said that could be an effective step away from the “buy-and-dry” approach that can cripple agricultural areas and the economies they support.

Winner forecast that projects mirroring the Arkansas Valley Super Ditch that feed the urban thirst for water while halting buy-and-dry situations will be another alternative to selling the water that feeds Colorado farms. “It could be the model for the Western United States that keeps agriculture whole while saving municipalities,” Winner said…

The IBCC recommended proceeding with planned water projects such as the Super Ditch in order to be prepared for the population boom and to accommodate its water needs as it gradually arrives. Among the report’s more bold recommendations was state funding for those long-term projects, even if it costs $18 billion. That is a monumental sum at a time when the state is confronting a $1 billion budget deficit, and the general fund at the Colorado General Assembly’s disposal is about $7 billion annually…

Among the more radical ideas contained in the report were the means of conservation. They included adopting a statewide plumbing code for reduced flows and requiring retrofits of water-using fixtures (such as toilets and sinks) to meet certain use conservation standards before a building or house could be sold. Gov. Bill Ritter said he recognized the value of those recommendations, but warned the IBCC to expect a fight from cities and counties that presently enjoy local control over those matters…

Winner said the conservation efforts outlined in the plan aren’t folly, but will be absolutely necessary in order for the state’s water needs to be met a half-century from now. “If the people of Colorado want the state that they envision, they need to take a serious look at this now,” Winner said. Other strategies proposed in the plan include greater state support from permitting to completion of water projects and steep fees to areas that gain water by taking it from another part of the state…

Winner said the timeline is indefinite for the recommendations in the plan to progress from draft to implementation. Certain aspects could be the topic of legislation in the General Assembly when it reconvenes in January, but much of the report will next be vetted by basin roundtables throughout the state.

More coverage — Governor Ritter’s speech at the meeting — from Patrick Malone writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The only way to balance the competing water interests of municipalities and agriculture is to move forward with a strategy for sustained water availability that takes both into account, Ritter said. Likewise, other opposing water forces — energy and nonenergy users, and consumptive and nonconsumptive uses — also must be weighed on the scale of reason when crafting water strategies for the future, the governor said. “You have to reinvent this,” Ritter said, emphasizing that factious fighting between the competing interests in the water arena must join forces to assure that none is left without…

Along with funding for higher education, Ritter said he warned his successor, Gov.-elect John Hickenlooper, that water is a matter of paramount importance awaiting him when he takes office in January. Ritter interjected his belief that human-caused global warming could impact precipitation levels in the future and further limit the water available to the state in the future. He urged even those in the water community who doubt global-warming theories to take heed of the projected impact on precipitation as they plan for the future. “You can’t think about water without some of the forecasting that’s been done, because it’s dire,” Ritter said. “I don’t think it’s something you can dismiss or ignore in terms of planning the future of water availability in Colorado.”

More coverage from the Associated Press (Stephen K. Paulson) via CB Online. From the article:

The panel suggested the state should coordinate, support and endorse projects. One of their main conclusions was that the state needs more storage on the Western Slope. They also suggested that the governor issue an executive order to state agencies to implement a water use reduction and conservation plan. Suggestions included requiring people who sell their house to replace appliances with water efficient models and help utilities reduce water use. Until now, the state has left most water development projects to loca l communities and shied away from promoting water projects until the federal government gave its approval…

“We can’t get to a state with 10 million people without thinking about water. We have often prided ourselves on local control of these issues … but at the same time, we need the statewide vision. If we don’t have statewide vision, we will do the unthinkable, which is become less of an agricultural state and become a state where water usage is for residential and municipal use,” he told the panel…

Former state Agriculture Commissioner Don Ament, a farmer who attended the water basin meetings but has no official role, said the report does little to solve problems in conservation, loss of agricultural land and finding new water sources.

More IBCC — basin roundtables coverage here.

Grand County: Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District plan to coordinate efforts to manage the impacts of the Windy Gap Firming Project and the Moffat Collection System Project

A picture named coloradorivergranby.jpg

Here’s a report from Tonya Bina writing for the Sky-Hi Daily News. From the article:

The news that Colorado’s largest utility companies Denver Water and Northern would be working together to manage impacts of their respective firming projects was a small victory for West Slope residents, who’ve feared either project could be approved without factoring in river depletions from the other. The Colorado Division of Wildlife is charged with working with each water provider to “create a healthy system downstream of Windy Gap,” said Ken Kehmeier, the Division of Wildlife’s senior biologist of northeast Colorado, speaking of the threatened upper Colorado River. “We hope the workshops with stakeholders can be a give and take, to come up with the most viable plan we can for the river.”[…[

“We need to be very diligent and thoughtful about what we put together,” said John Singletary, a Pueblo rancher and one of three Wildlife Commissioners who were present at the SilverCreek Convention Center in Granby on Oct. 28, “because too often in Colorado’s past, mistakes were made that can’t be corrected. And so I hope we are very diligent … I for one am delighted to hear the Northern District and Denver are going to work together on this thing, because I don’t know how we could ever make a decision on the future of the Colorado River without having that … The Colorado is a special place, and if we don’t treat this right, this will truly be the river of no return.”

Representatives from both Northern and Denver say the pledge to approach river health jointly is simply a continuation of what the agencies have already been doing…

Northern’s Windy Gap Firming Project Manager Jeff Drager maintains that the “accumulative impacts” of the two projects already have been addressed in the district’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement and in the joint proposal of April 2009. But if working with Denver on the DOW’s plan “alleviates the fears from West Slope friends, then we’re fine with it,” he said…

Northern anticipates its Final Environmental Impact Statement will be released by this January, and Denver Water is planning for a mid-2011 release of its Moffat Final EIS, presently under review by the Army Corps of Engineers.

At its public meeting in Grand County, before individuals went to the microphone for the chance to voice their views, the Colorado Division of Wildlife presented its own data of East and West Slope impacts along with data from the Windy Gap draft EIS. The DOW highlighted a long list of river threats, such as decreases in trout populations, increased water temperatures, reduction in flows and decreases in fish food such as stoneflies and mayflies below Windy Gap, increased sedimentation, lower levels in Granby Reservoir and increased nutrient loading in Granby and Shadow Mountain reservoirs and Grand Lake. With the firming projects, the impacts would also affect kayaking and rafting on the Colorado River, create limited access to boat ramps on locations of Lake Granby, and create a detriment to fishing guide businesses — all hurting the local economy.

More Windy Gap coverage here and here. More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Windy Gap Firming Project: Colorado Division of Wildlife public meeting October 13

A picture named chimneyhollowreservoir.jpg

From IStockAnalyst.com:

Bob Streeter and David Brougham, commissioners with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, will hear public comments next week on the proposed Windy Gap Firming Project, which is proposed west of Loveland. The meeting will be 6:30-8:30 p.m. Oct. 13 at Thomas McKee Building at The Ranch in Loveland. The Windy Gap Firming Project is a new, 90,000 acre-foot Chimney Hollow Reservoir that would be built west of Carter Lake. The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District is the management agency of the project, which is being paid for by Broomfield, Greeley, Longmont, Lafayette, Louisville, Loveland, Erie, Evans, Fort Lupton, Superior, the Central Weld County Water District, the Little Thompson Water District and the Platte River Power Authority.

More Windy Gap Firming Project coverage here and here.

Windy Gap Reservoir drained to attack siltation

A picture named fortmorganrainbowbridge.jpg

From the Sky-Hi Daily News:

Windy Gap Reservoir outside Granby was drained recently so crews could remove a build-up of silt that was threatening the pumping facility…The reservoir will be refilled when construction is complete.

More Windy Gap coverage here and here.

Windy Gap Firming Project update

A picture named chimneyhollowreservoir.jpg

From the Longmont Times Call (Scott Rochat):

Tonight, the Longmont City Council will be asked to put another $137,646 into the Windy Gap reservoir project. That would help pay for the project’s final environmental impact statement, one of the last hurdles remaining before the federal government would allow construction to begin. “We would hope the decision comes out within the next few months,” said Dale Rademacher, the city’s director of public works and natural resources…

The project would build a new reservoir at Chimney Hollow near Carter Lake. It’s been a bit of a wait to bring everything together — phase one of the project began back in 2000. Over that time, the city’s share of the bill has come to more than $2.1 million. But it’s the result at the end that’s kept city officials swimming ahead. Once the reservoir is built, Longmont hopes to reserve up to 10,000 acre-feet of water for its own use, increasing the city’s water reserves — now about 30,000 acre-feet — by a third. To put that in perspective, Longmont uses about 18,000 acre-feet of water per year — roughly 5.8 billion gallons.

More Windy Gap coverage here.

CWCB: Supply uncertainty dogs the Colorado River Water Availability Study

A picture named coloradoriverbasin

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The final version of phase one of the study will be considered by the Colorado Water Conservation Board after a four-month review period ends on July 21. The study received $700,000 in legislative funding in 2007-08. But the conclusions of the study provide little certainty about the amount of water left for Colorado to develop under the Colorado River Compact — it could be anywhere from nothing to 900,000 acre-feet — or how the water would be used…

In the last five years, there has been a heightened concern about the ability of the river to deliver water if there were a call from downstream states, as well as the possibility of changing climate conditions that could alter the hydrology of the Colorado River. Politically, the study has been a sort of hinge in discussions on future water projects that could take even more water over the Continental Divide. Two water projects are looking at bringing water to Colorado from the Flaming Gorge Reservoir and the Green River in Wyoming, and at least four other concepts have been proposed to deliver water from various points in the basin. “The Colorado River is one of the most important sources of water supply for the state,” said Jennifer Gimbel, executive director of the CWCB in January. “Colorado needs solid information in order to make smart decisions about future water development.”[…]

[Study] conclusions:

– Basin roundtables need to refine state estimates about future use.

– Climate change will affect both future water supply and demand, but models do not agree on what the impact will be.

– Some of the models suggest Colorado has no water left for development.

– Models of water use in the study do not take into account changes in future use, but only extend historic use patterns.

– Decision support systems need to reflect transmountain diversions.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

American Rivers: Upper Colorado is sixth most endangered river

A picture named coloradorivergranby

From The Glenwood Springs Post Independent (Julie Sutor):

“We can’t continue to take and take water from the Upper Colorado without accounting for the serious impacts to fish and wildlife habitat,” said Ken Neubecker of Colorado Trout Unlimited. “This river is on the brink. A vibrant, healthy river system in the Upper Colorado is every bit as important to the future of Colorado as the water it supplies to our farms and cities.” Neubecker nominated the Upper Colorado for its designation on American Rivers’ 2010 list.

The diversions of concern to conservation groups (and headwaters communities like Summit County) are the proposed Moffat Project and Windy Gap Firming Project. Both proposals would expand reservoir storage capacity on the Front Range to move more West Slope water from the Colorado River and its tributaries, including the Blue River in Summit County and the Fraser River and Williams Fork in Grand County.

Denver Water and Northern Water, the two Front Range water providers behind the projects, say habitat protection and water conservation are big priorities, and such principles already figure into their project plans and their daily operations. “I think we’re going to take care of a lot of their concerns,” Northern Water spokesman Brian Werner said of the Windy Gap Firming Project, which would increase supply for a number of Front Range communities including Loveland, Broomfield, Longmont and Greeley. “We’ve been working long and hard to reach some West Slope compromises, and we’ve proposed some stuff that’s never been proposed in this state before, in terms of taking care of the Upper Colorado.”[…]

Neubecker doesn’t feel either the Moffat Project or the Windy Gap Project necessarily equates to a death sentence for the Upper Colorado. On the contrary, if done in the right way, both have the potential to enhance protections for the river’s aquatic ecosystem and adjacent riparian habitat. But for that to happen, he says, the projects must do two things: First, they should take into account the cumulative environmental impacts of existing water diversions and not just examine the impacts of the proposed projects in a vacuum. The Colorado headwaters have been subject to major water depletions for more than 100 years, and wildlife has paid the price, according to American Rivers. Second, guidelines for future diversions and flow management should be flexible enough to adjust for unforeseen environmental impacts — a concept called “adaptive management” — something Werner said Northern Water supports. “We need to have some serious and meaningful mitigations and have the proponents of these projects recognize the impacts they’re having on these rivers beyond the narrow legal concepts under Colorado water law. Lawns recover a lot faster than rivers do. For a river to lose that water is a matter of life and death,” Neubecker said.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

The Upper Colorado River named 6th most endangered river by American Rivers

A picture named coloradotransmountaindiversions

From The Aspen Daily News (Catherine Lutz):

For the third time in 25 years, the upper Colorado, from its headwaters in Rocky Mountain National Park to its confluence with the Roaring Fork River in Glenwood Springs, has made American Rivers’ top 10 list of most endangered rivers, which was released earlier this month. The nonprofit cited water diversions as the main threat to the upper Colorado, the central artery of a major ecosystem and a recreational gold mine for fishing, rafting and kayaking. After more than 100 years of diversions that have collectively degraded the river’s health, two major proposed diversion projects that would take water from the Western Slope to Front Range reservoirs could make it even worse, American Rivers’ report said.

Federal authorities are currently considering the expansion of the two diversion systems. The water authority governing the Windy Gap Firming Project, which transports water from a pipeline near Granby to the Front Range, wants to build a new reservoir that would take about 28,000 additional acre-feet of water per year across the Continental Divide. And the Boulder-area reservoir that’s on the receiving end of the Moffat Tunnel Collection System, which takes water from the Winter Park area, is proposed to be enlarged and would use an extra 18,000 acre-feet…

Another reason everyone should care about the upper Colorado’s issues is that it’s an example of what could happen in other watersheds, said [Ken Neubecker of Carbondale]. The Roaring Fork River, for example, already has the third and fifth largest transmountain diversions in the state: the Fry-Ark Project, which takes water from the upper Fryingpan River, and the Independence Pass Transmountain Diversion Project, which collects water for Twin Lakes from the headwaters of the Roaring Fork River…

…water quality is another issue people need to be concerned about if the increased diversions are approved. The water taken from the Winter Park and Granby areas is closer to the headwaters of the Colorado, and thus clean and pure. Further downstream, the river has picked up sediment, salts and other pollutants. And the more salts in the water the harder it is, said Neubecker…

Both diversion projects are currently making their way through a federal environmental analysis process, and various interested parties throughout the state are in negotiations over what the final projects will look like. Some environmental groups lately have been invited to the negotiating table, and the Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water Conservation District (CRWCB) is involved in the talks. Movement toward a final decision could happen sometime this year…

Neubecker, who is not involved in the process, said he doesn’t believe either water authority behind the two projects is looking at the cumulative impacts of their proposals. He added that Front Range diverters need to first “recognize that there is a problem,” and then accept an adaptive management strategy that would allow the river to get the flows it needs at certain times of the year to maintain its riparian health. He also said he wants to be able to revisit whatever agreement is reached in the next decade or so, in case some of the assumptions are wrong and it’s not working…

But CRWCB spokesman Jim Pokrandt said he sees hope in that Western Slope entities are more involved in talks than they had been before.“The good news is there are negotiations with the two projects that could provide improvements for the river, and can be a win-win for everybody,” he said.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

American Rivers: Upper Colorado is sixth most endangered river

A picture named coloradotransmountaindiversions

From the Sky-Hi Daily News (Tonya Bina):

[Grand County’s continued negotiations with Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Conservancy District Grand County Commissioner James Newberry] said, is sizing up better than putting the kibosh on diversion proposals altogether. “Enhancements,” or ways to improve the river, are being worked out with East Slope water providers outside of official National Environmental Policy Act processes. If Denver and Northern were forced not to do the projects at all, “then the enhancements are also gone and then we’re left with the third most endangered river being the Fraser and the sixth most endangered river being the Upper Colorado, with no way to fix them.”

Denver Water disagrees its proposal could amount to “sapping the life from the Upper Colorado,” as stated in an American Rivers June 2 press release about the river rating. “We’re working on enhancing stream flows, providing water for wildlife habitats, and working with diverse stakeholders to arrive at a solution related to the Wild and Scenic Act,” said Stacy Chesney, spokesperson for Denver Water. “From what I’ve read on the American Rivers website, they are about water efficiency and against short-sighted projects. The Moffat Collection System Project is a well thought-out part of Denver Water’s approach to ensuring a reliable water supply for the future. We’re doing it alongside conservation and recycled water, and are working to enhance the environment as well.”

And what is Northern’s take on the American Rivers posting? “We’re not taking exception to it. We certainly understand there are concerns that are being expressed,” said Northern spokesperson Brian Werner. But in trying to obtain permits for firming projects, “We think we’ve put a lot on the table over there,” he added, calling possible soon-to-be East and West Slope water agreements “precedent-setting.” Asked about the attention the American Rivers rating may draw to Northern’s increase-in-diversions request, “We’re trying to educate the public on what the projects are about, so we don’t shy away from that,” Werner said.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here and here.

American Rivers: Upper Colorado is sixth most endangered river in U.S.

A picture named coloradorivergranby

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Gary Harmon):

The projects, the Windy Gap Firming Project and the Moffat Tunnel Collection System Project, would increase diversions from the upper Colorado River by at least 48,000 acre-feet a year. The threat to the river’s fishery, boating and water supply to downstream users placed the Upper Colorado River at No. 6 in the 2010 list of the nation’s most-endangered rivers by American Rivers…

“Conversely,” American Rivers said, “if the projects incorporate appropriate river protections, they could herald an era of water-supply planning that better balances water development with the needs of the river.”[…]

The Windy Gap project was supposed to go online a year ago, but it was sent back by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for a revised draft environmental-impact statement, said Chris Treese of the Colorado River Water Conservation District. The project calls for the construction of Chimney Hollow Reservoir in Larimer County to be supplied by an annual average of 30,000 acre-feet of water diverted through the existing Windy Gap project. It would supply water to more than a dozen municipalities in northern Colorado.

The Moffat project is designed to divert an annual average of 18,000 acre-feet of water collected on the Fraser River Basin through the Moffat Tunnel to an enlarged Gross Reservoir on the Front Range.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

American Rivers: Upper Colorado is sixth most endangered river

A picture named coloradoriverbasincgs

From the Colorado Independent (David O. Williams):

The scenic Upper Colorado River between its headwaters in Rocky Mountain National Park and its confluence with the Roaring Fork River has landed the sixth spot on the America’s Most Endangered Rivers list…

The national nonprofit group, in concert with other conservation groups such Colorado Trout Unlimited, is calling on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation to require conservation and efficiency measures in the Final Environmental Impact Statements (FEIS) for both the Moffat Tunnel Collection System Project and the Windy Gap Firming Project. “We can’t continue to take and take water from the Upper Colorado without accounting for the serious impacts to fish and wildlife habitat,” Colorado Trout Unlimited’s Ken Neubecker said in a release. “This is a river on the brink. A vibrant, healthy river system in the Upper Colorado is every bit as important to the future of Colorado as the water it supplies to our farms and cities.”

Recent media coverage has also focused on the growing demands on the Colorado for energy production, including hydroelectric in Glenwood Canyon and oil and gas development further downstream in Garfield and Mesa counties.

The Upper Colorado, though, is a recreational paradise, with world-class whitewater and gold-medal trout fishing. It runs through the heart of the state’s most popular mountain resorts from Grand County to Glenwood Springs, with its tributaries supplying water to ski towns like Breckenridge and Vail. It’s a perennial candidate for federal Wild and Scenic River designation.

More coverage from Tonya Bina writing for the Sky-Hi Daily News. From the article:

“The most endangered river listings get the attention of media and policy-makers,” said Randy Scholfield, spokesperson of Trout Unlimited’s Western Water Project. “It does help to highlight some of the threats facing these rivers and helps them get the grassroots support they need.”

The Upper Colorado considered in the listing flows from about Granby to Dotsero…

The Upper Colorado fit the organization’s criteria for being the subject of major public decisions pending in 2010, specifically the Moffat Firming Project proposed by the Denver Water Board and the Windy Gap Firming Project proposed by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Water Conservancy District. The Upper Colorado, especially the stretch from Granby to Kremmling, can lack healthy peak flows and baseline flows…

Without river protections from cumulative impacts outlined in draft Environmental Impact Statements, advocates fear the river could suffer from further detriment despite on-the-side negotiations for enhancement being conducted by river stakeholders.

“They didn’t consider the accumulative impacts at all like they were supposed to,” Neubecker said of those reports pending Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approval. Instead they were saying “that the flows in the river right now are the way they always have been since the beginning of time. We have to be honest with ourselves and everyone on how we use the river.” Neubecker hopes the American Rivers listing can help inform Front Range water users, some of which have little idea “about the connection between what comes out of their faucets and the river resource,” he said.

From 9News.com:

“We really are concerned about destroying the essence of Colorado which includes world-class recreation and beautiful rivers like the Upper Colorado, so we want to make sure there is an appropriate balance struck between the needs of supplying citizens on the Front Range with water and the importance of those benefits of Colorado’s heritage,” [Andrew Fahlund, senior vice president of American Rivers] said…

Currently, meetings between headwater counties and major diverters have the potential to restore river health while also fulfilling domestic and agricultural needs in the state.

From KUNC (Erin O’Toole):

The threat of water diversion from the state’s namesake river has landed the Upper Colorado at number 6 on this year’s list, as compiled by the conservation advocacy group American Rivers. Spokeswoman Amy Kober says they’re primarily concerned about two new proposals – the Windy Gap Firming Project and the Moffat Tunnel Collection System Project. She says both could lower the river flow to the point of threatening its prized trout fisheries “Excessive diversions upset the natural balance of the river, increase water temperatures, and destroy the natural patterns of reproduction for endangered species.”

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

Windsor: Town is sorting out options for long-term supply

A picture named coloradobigthompsonin2007

From the Windsor Beacon (Ashley Keesis-Wood):

Windsor Engineering Director Dennis Wagner agreed, saying the CBT’s carryover system has allowed the town to manage its water needs. The carryover allows the town to “bank” a certain amount of water to be used the following year. The primary concern, and one that is addressed extensively in the new plan, is that the town’s water portfolio relies heavily on CBT water. “I know we’re in the NISP (North Integrated Supply Project) pool for water shares,” Vazquez said. “I do wonder though, with the delays in that project, whether that’s truly going to be the biggest bang for our buck.”

Vazquez said he felt the Windy Gap [Firming] project, which [will include the Chimney Hollow Reservoir] will be constructed near Carter Lake, would be a better buy. “I’m not saying we should abandon NISP but that we want to look at other options,” he said.

Wagner acknowledged the delays in NISP’s construction. “We definitely should meet with the Windy Gap participants and see about that,” Wagner said.

Windsor Town Manager Kelly Arnold recommended a joint work session between the town board and the Water and Sewer Advisory Board to discuss the next steps moving forward.

More Windsor coverage here.

Colorado Water Congress 52nd Annual Convention: Eric Wilkinson — ‘I guess one word strikes me, storage’

A picture named coloradoriverbasin.jpg

Here’s a recap of the session, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

“Averages are not a real tool for development,” [Eric Wilkinson, director of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District] said. “These numbers need to be used for planning purposes and for compact compliance discussions. I guess one word strikes me: storage.”

Wilkinson, whose northern district is trying to get approval for building two new reservoirs and firming yield from current import diversions, explained that storage is the best way for Colorado to balance the unknowns of nature. Water users need to be ready for both wet and dry scenarios, Wilkinson said. “If there’s nothing left (of the compact entitlement), a curtailment would hurt us,” he said. “If there’s water to be developed, we’ll push to get water development.”

If enough water is stored in wet years, it is easier to make it through the droughts, he said. “We need to have our eyes wide open,” Wilkinson added. “Colorado owes it to itself to explore all opportunities to use the Colorado River, but we don’t want to get ourselves into a hole.”[…]

The CWCB this week also agreed to enter into a basinwide study with the other six states in the Colorado River Compact (Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming). That study will use the information Colorado has spent the past two years gathering. At the same time, the state will be applying parts of the study to its other water planning efforts from decision support models to floodplain mapping. The study itself will enter another phase that will look at the potential for changing uses or climate conditions, Gimbel said. “We will get more information as we are planning for the future,” Gimbel said. “We also need to look at storage strategically and use it for our advantage.”

More coverage of the availability study from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

The Colorado Water Conservation Board Tuesday reviewed Phase I of Colorado River Availability study, and learned there are more questions than answers when it comes to things like climate change, future demand and changed uses of water. The report will be released for public review in February. “The Colorado River is one of the most important sources of water supply for the state,” said Jennifer Gimbel, executive director of the CWCB. “Colorado needs solid information in order to make smart decisions about future water development.”

The assessment, funded by $1 million from the state Legislature in 2007, is the most comprehensive to date on Colorado River supplies. It will be used within nearly every other water planning effort in Colorado. “This study rolls into every hallway at the CWCB,” Gimbel said…

All models show the Colorado River basin will be warmer, with more precipitation in winter and less in summer. Growing seasons will be longer, and runoff earlier, meaning a net gain in agricultural water use and more draw-down on reservoirs, said Ben Harding, a CWCB engineering consultant. “One dry year is not going to do us in. We got through 1977 and 2002,” Harding said. “The sequence of years is important.”[…]

The models are drawn from both historical data from 1950-2005 and extrapolations using tree rings to look at conditions back to 1500. Looking ahead, engineers selected five models out of more than 100 available data sets to project what would happen in 2040 and 2070. Some of the models actually show increases in water availability, but all anticipate that increased demand by agriculture — which uses 85 percent of water — would soak up any gain. The 500-year trend surprisingly indicates that the past 50 years were wetter than average, because of unusual clusters of wet years in the 1980s and 1990s. There were also greater extremes in the types of wet and dry years. Models for the future shuffled both types of years to forecast various scenarios. The difference between 2040 and 2070 would not be as great as originally thought, Harding explained…

It is also unclear whether the assessment opens or closes any doors for transmountain water increases, either through existing projects or new proposals. Nearly 500,000 acre-feet annually comes across the Continental Divide to serve needs in the Arkansas and South Platte river basins. Cities are looking for future supplies. At the same time, water is used on the Western Slope to serve the needs of endangered species, and more could be needed for growth and energy development. “It’s a good first step,” said Eric Kuhn, executive director of the Colorado River Conservation District. “It’s pretty clear that there is probably a limit to what we can do. From the river district’s perspective, our approach will be wait and see.”

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

Moffat Collection System Project: Corps Denver hearing recap

A picture named eisenhowerfishing.jpg

The Fraser River of the 21st century is much different from the river that former President Eisenhower used to fish back in the day. Low flows due to transmountain diversions have diminished the fishery there.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers held a hearing last night in Denver for Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System Project which would divert additional water from the Fraser watershed. Residents, planners and politicians (many from Grand County) showed up to be heard. A majority of the speakers asked for the comment period to be extended 45 days.

Speakers for the most part voiced opposition to the proposed Denver Water expansion of Gross Reservoir and the increased diversions to fill the new space. The hope is to raise the dam 125 feet or so to get another 18,000 acre-feet of firm yield on the north side of their service area. They also hope to build a new reservoir on Leyden Creek.

“It breaks my heart to see a natural environment disappear while the east slope creates an environment that belongs east of the Mississippi River,” said Fraser resident Kirk Klanke during the hearing.

He also voiced support for an extension of the comment period. The EIS is a couple of thousand pages and many of the speakers said that they’ve not had enough time to probe the proposed workings.

Canton O’Donnell wants the Corps to evaluate the Moffat project in conjunction with the proposed Windy Gap Firming Project. Windy Gap is the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District’s plan to increase municipal supply for the Front Range using the Colorado-Big Thompson project to transport water stored downstream of Granby Reservoir. One speaker asked the Corps to hold off on issuing permits for either the Windy Gap Firming Project or the Moffat Collection System Project until Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District come up with their plan to coordinate the two projects to minimize impacts to the headwaters area.

“If your house is on fire and you have two bedrooms you’d want the fire department to take care of both,” said 4th generation Grand County rancher and county commissioner Gary Bumgarner in support of consolidating the environmental impact statements for both projects.

“This is a very bad project for many reasons,” said Grand Lake Mayor, Judy Burke, while reminding the Corps that pumping warmer water upstream to Grand Lake is causing algae blooms in the lake.

The Colorado-Big Thompson project moves water from Granby Reservoir, through Shadow Mountain Reservoir and into Grand Lake for transport under the Continental Divide through the Adams Tunnel. The Windy Gap Firming Project would increase the volume of water pumped up to the Adams tunnel so presumably the lake clarity problem will increase along with lowered water quality.

Whitewater enthusiasts oppose the drowning of the reach of South Boulder Creek just above Gross Reservoir. One commenter called it a, “Premier whitewater run.”

Interested parties have one more chance to speak publicly on the project next week in Keystone. Here’s the release from Denver Water with details about the hearings.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Windy Gap Firming Project not without its detractors

A picture named windygap.jpg

Here’s a joint release from Clean Water Action, Fort Collins Audubon Society, Sierra Club PCG, Colorado Environmental Coalition, Environment Colorado and Western Resource Advocates. From the release:

WGFP engages the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Federal Water Supply Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Because of this engagement with federal environmental laws, the process is likely to be long, expensive, and high risk. Specifically, such engagements often boil down to a yes/no permitting decision after years and millions of dollars have already been spent. Additionally, any farmer, city, oil shale company, county, water district, organization, or member of the public can challenge these decisions, thus resulting in potentially more time and expense. Consider examining recent water-supply examples where delay, expense, and conflict have occurred: Two Forks (Colorado), Animas La Plata (Colorado), and King Williams Reservoir (Virginia). Alternatives to WGFP that are less time-consuming, expensive, and risky should be immediately investigated and implemented.

WGFP participants, including PRPA and Fort Collins, should be aware that the WGFP water right is a junior right that is junior to many of the oil shale rights placed on this same Colorado River water.

More Windy Gap coverage here and here.

Grand County: ‘State of the River’

A picture named coloradorivergranby.jpg

Here’s a recap of the recent “State of the River” meeting put on by the Colorado River District in Grand County, from Tonya Bina writing for the Sky-Hi Daily News: From the article:

On May 1, the Upper Colorado showed 90 percent to 109 percent of average, according to Bob Steger, manager of raw water supply for Denver Water. During that same time period in the South Platte Basin, where Denver obtains half of its water in an average year, the water table showed 70 percent to 89 percent of average. The more water available on the South Platte, [Mike Eytel, water resources specialist for the Colorado River District] explained, the less pressure to divert West Slope water…

Quota-setting for the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District was a gamble this year with a dry spell leading up to an April 1 quota date, according to Jeff Drager, deputy manager of Northern Water. Northern settled on an 80 percent quota. A 100 percent quota means each owner of one C-BT unit gets one acre foot — the higher the quota, the more East Slope water is supplemented by C-BT water…

Lake Granby, which when full amounts to about 539,000 acre-feet, was sitting at 283,835 acre feet on May 1. “We think that later this year in November it will be at about 400,000,” Drager said. “We are in better shape this year over last year because we’ve had more water stored in our East Slope reservoirs because of some work done on Carter Lake,” he said. Where Lake Granby is roughly 35 feet down at present, it’s expected to raise 15-20 feet — about 15 feet from full level — in July.

To take part in Shadow Mountain Reservoir and Grand Lake water-quality management, Northern plans to shut down C-BT-Adams Tunnel flows from July 31 to August 13 this year, during which water clarity studies are likely to take place. Drager said two weeks was as long as Northern could comply with shutting down C-BT operations due to power-generation constraints on the system.

“I am going to advocate that we agree to a more robust monitoring program for the two weeks stop-pump period and ask for a six-week period, two weeks preceding and two weeks following,” said Grand County Water Quality Specialist Katherine Morris. Grand County is part of a multi-agency group bound to investigate clarity problems in the C-BT system. “I think that’s a remarkable opportunity to learn of the effects of pumping and diverting water on water quality in Grand Lake and Shadow Mountain Reservoir,” she said.

Plans at Windy Gap are to pump 23,000 acre-feet this year, Drager said. Since May 11, both pumps have been in full swing, pumping 365 cfs at Windy Gap. Last year, Windy Gap pumped 30,000 acre feet…

…several other pressing water topics were explored during the meeting, such as: The Division of Wildlife’s newly adopted boat inspections program to stop the spread of zebra and quagga mussels; the Bureau of Land Management’s Wild and Scenic eligibility that includes a section of the Colorado River starting at Windy Gap, Muddy Creek below Wolford, Troublesome Creek, Rabbit Ears Creek, Kinney Creek and Sulphur Gulch; a nearly completed Upper Colorado Watershed Assessment — a study that identifies the area’s most critical watersheds that are main sources of drinking water vulnerable to wildfire damage; and the Upper Colorado Endangered Fish Recovery federal mandate in which the West Slope may need to ante up at least $8 million for its participation by 2012.

Grand County: Need for sponsors for stream temperature monitoring equipment

A picture named fraservalleycollection.jpg

Here’s a release from Colorado River Headwaters Chapter of Trout Unlimited and the East Grand Water Quality Board asking for financial sponsorships for stream temperature monitoring gear to gather data about the effects of transmountain diversions, via the Sky-Hi Daily News:

Shallower streams heat up to higher temperatures. Grand County streams are all cold water fisheries that can easily be damaged by higher stream temperatures. Three years ago, Grand County Water Information Network (GCWIN), the Colorado River Headwaters Chapter of Trout Unlimited and the East Grand Water Quality Board received a grant to monitor the stream temperatures. We found that trout, which thrive at 55 degree, were experiencing temperatures warmer than 70 degrees. Temperatures this high are lethal to a cold water fishery.

This year we will continue to monitor Grand County’s stream temperatures but we need help to keep this important program alive. The equipment purchased from our original grant needs replacing. Since this is a local issue, we are hoping to get help from local residents to keep this program alive.

The equipment that we need to replace are the continuous temperature sensors placed in 28 locations from Berthoud Pass to the Gore Canyon. These sensors are called TidbiTs. We are asking people to sponsor their own TidbiT in a stream section that has significance to them.

The cost of sponsoring a TidbiT is $120. We encourage individuals, businesses, organizations or groups of friends to pool their resources and sponsor a TidbiT. To date, the information from this stream temperature monitoring program has played a significant role in helping to establish new Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment stream temperature standards. Additionally, this information was used extensively in developing the Grand County Stream Flow Management Plan.

Our stream temperature data is also being used in the mitigation planning for the Windy Gap and Moffat Tunnel diversions. Knowledge is power, and monitoring our stream temperatures is giving us the knowledge that gives us the direction to help our rivers. Please help us help the rivers.

For more information on the Sponsor a TidbiT program, please contact Jane Tollett of GCWIN at (970) 627-8162 or jtollett_gcwin@qwestoffice.net.

Windy Gap Firming Project: Chimney Hollow update

A picture named chimneyhollowreservoir.jpg

Here’s a update on the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District’s proposed Chimney Hollow Reservoir, from Pamela Dickman writing for the Loveland Reporter Herald. From the article:

Officials at the Bureau of Reclamation will decide whether to allow the project and, if they do, what conditions will be imposed to minimize effects on the environment. Jeff Drager, project manager, told the Larimer County Commissioners on Monday that the water agency hopes to hear a decision this year. While the conservancy district is waiting for word from the federal agency, its leaders are not sitting still. They are working on ways to address concerns expressed last year when the project was open to public comment, Drager said.

At public meetings, most of the opposition came from residents who live on the Western Slope and worry about water quality and the effect to the Colorado River in Grand County.

The Larimer County commissioners, in their comments, worried about water levels and quality at Horsetooth Reservoir and Carter Lake but gave support to the project…

Drager assured the commissioners that conservancy district officials are looking at ways to ensure higher water levels at Horsetooth and to lessen the effects on water quality. These could include transferring water between reservoirs and building infrastructure or buffers to prevent agricultural runoff from entering the waterway, he said…

The conservancy district plans to work with Larimer County on the recreation component of the reservoir as well. In 2004, the district and the county bought the land, 3,400 acres total, together. The reservoir will be built on 1,600 acres, and the remaining 1,800 surrounding the reservoir will be managed by the county — an arrangement much like that at Carter Lake.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here

Lower South Platte Water Symposium recap

A picture named splatteriverbasin.jpg

Here’s a recap of the recent Lower South Platte Water Symposium, from Judy Debus writing for the Sterling Journal Advocate. From the article:

What is happening to the water supply in northeastern Colorado now and what can be expected in the future was the topic of the day for the Lower South Platte Water Symposium at Northeastern Junior College. Attending were farmers, ranchers, government representatives, conservation groups, legislators and others concerned with what is going to happen to the Colorado water supply.

Presentations by Jim Hall, division engineer of the State Engineer’s Office; Jerry Kinny of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program; Greg Kernohan of Ducks Unlimited; Peter Walker of the Colorado Division of Wildlife; Nolan Doesken and Neil Hansen of Colorado State University; Rod Kuharich and Jim Yahn, members of the Colorado Water Roundtables; and Eric Hecox of the Colorado Water Conservation Board offered the attendees an overview what is happening and what can be expected in the future…

Hall addressed the increased municipal demand because of growth, regardless of the economy, that is going to put pressure on the water system. If projects aren’t approved like the Northern project or the Windy Gap project and other projects that are proposed, the water will have to come from somewhere. “That water is going to come from somewhere and it will probably come from agriculture” he said. As far as future administration of water, Hall spoke of the continuing drop in irrigated acres in the state. In 1976, there were approximately one million irrigated acres as opposed to 838,000 acres in 2005. In 1956, there were no sprinklers; in 1976, 15 percent of the land was sprinkler irrigated; and in 2005, 40 percent was sprinkler irrigated. Cities are also lining gravel pits to store more water, mainly for reusable water that has historically gone into the river so in the future there will be less flow in the river due to that.

Northern to hold storage briefing

A picture named windygap.jpg

From the Northern Colorado Business Report: ” The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District will discuss the status of current water supplies in Northern Colorado and why additional infrastructure is needed at a presentation at The Ranch on March 19.

“Brian Werner, water district spokesman, will talk about two projects now on the drawing board — the Northern Integrated Supply Project and the Windy Gap Firming Project — during a presentation called ‘Water Storage for the Future’ to be held from 7:30 to 9 a.m. at the Budweiser Events Center.

“Walk-in registration for the event costs $15 for district members and $25 for nonmembers. For more information, call Stephanie Clouatre at 303-388-2422.”