From the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (Scott Condon):
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation said it released water purchased from Ruedi by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when the agency demanded or “called” it in August. “We don’t have a lot of flexibility there,” said reclamation bureau spokeswoman Kara Lamb. “That’s their water. They can call for it when they want.” The Fish and Wildlife Service is running a recovery program for four species of native fish in the Colorado River: The pikeminnow, razorback sucker, bonytail club and humpback chub. Water is needed during dry times to enhance habitat in what’s called the 15-Mile Reach, a stretch of the river in the Grand Valley near Grand Junction.
The reclamation bureau’s data shows there were 33 days with flows at or above 300 cubic feet per second on the Fryingpan River between Aug. 5 and Sept. 24, when the water was needed for the recovery program. The flows exceeded 400 cfs on 21 days and topped 500 cfs on eight days. Anglers prefer flows below 250 cfs. Wading into the river is nearly impossible at higher flows and fishing the gold-medal trout stream is difficult when it exceeds that level…
[The Ruedi Water and Power Authority] , along with Basalt town government, invited the reclamation bureau to a meeting to discuss the operations. Lamb said the bureau accepted the invitation and is waiting for the local governments to set a time and place. “These are important concerns and we know that,” Lamb said. But she also stressed that the reclamation bureau doesn’t have a lot of control over the issues that upset anglers, fly shops and the local governments. The Fish and Wildlife Service has contracts for Ruedi Reservoir water. It can use 5,000 acre feet annually, and an additional 5,000 acre feet four out of any five years. There is also a special agreement that allows the federal agency to use an additional 10,825 acre feet for the endangered fish recovery program. All told, the Fish and Wildlife Service can call up to 28,825 acre feet of Ruedi water per year for the recovery effort. It’s not unusual for that entire amount to be demanded, but the timing varies. The tendency is for the water to be called in late summer and early fall, Lamb said. This year was different because the water was demanded earlier.
Work at the Shoshone Power Plant created lower flows on the Colorado River at the endangered fish habitat at the same time that hot, dry weather was reducing flows, Lamb said. As a result, the Ruedi Reservoir water was required earlier.
Colorado Division of Wildlife Native Species Hatchery sends 3,000 Roundtail chubs to San Juan River
November 5, 2009
From the Associated Press via The Durango Herald:
The New Mexico Game and Fish Department announced Wednesday that the fish were released into the river in late October. Roundtail chub were once found throughout the Colorado River basin, including the San Juan River and its tributaries in New Mexico, Colorado and Utah. The species was listed as threatened under the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act in 1975 and uplisted to endangered in 1996.
They were stocked in the San Juan near the confluence with the Animas River, high in the system in the hope that they will disperse downstream into suitable habitat.
Reclamation Hosting Public Open Houses on Water Users’ Commitment to Provide Water for Endangered Fish
October 30, 2009
Here’s the release from Reclamation (Kara Lamb):
Reclamation Hosting Public Open Houses on Water Users’ Commitment to Provide Water for Endangered Fish
The Bureau of Reclamation is hosting two public open houses as part of the public scoping process for its Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the effects of entering into three potential long-term water contracts. Reclamation will be accepting public comments until November 18, 2009.
The first open house will be November 4 in Basalt, Colo. at the Basalt Middle School. The second open house will be November 5 in Granby, Colo. at the Inn at Silver Creek. Both open houses will run from 6-8 p.m.
At the request of east and west slope water users of the Colorado River, Reclamation is considering entering into three proposed long-term water contracts that would provide 10,825 acre-feet of water from Ruedi, Granby, and to a lesser extent, Green Mountain reservoirs to the 15-Mile Reach of the Colorado River – critical habitat already identified for the endangered fish.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Reclamation is preparing the EA to determine what effects might result from the three proposed contracts. Comments received from the public will help Reclamation identify the scope of the EA.
Comments must be submitted in writing via e-mail to 10825EA@mwhglobal.com, or by hard copy. Hard copy letters or comment cards will be accepted at the public open houses, but may also be mailed to: Attn: 10825 EA, MWH, 1110 Elkton Drive, Suite B, Colorado Springs, Colo. 80907. Comments must be received by November 18, 2009.</p
For additional questions about the public open houses and scoping process, please contact Kara Lamb at (970) 962-4326 or klamb@usbr.gov.
More endangered species coverage here.
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program: New Clifton wastewater plant should meet water quality effluent standards
October 28, 2009
From the Grand Junction Free Press (Sharon Sullivan):
The three huge lagoons used by the former wastewater treatment plant serving Clifton no longer exist. Instead the Clifton Sanitation District, 3217 D Road, has a new system which treats wastewater in a more controlled environment, using less space, less energy, and with fewer odors. Clifton Sanitation Districts I and II consolidated to create a new wastewater treatment plant that complies with water quality standards mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency and the state of Colorado. A federal mandate to protect four endangered fish species is what drove the project, said manager Brain Woods.
More endangered species coverage here.
Michelle Shaughnessy named to lead Colorado River Fishery Project
October 16, 2009
From the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel:
The new leader of the Colorado River Fishery Project in Grand Junction has worked previously with private interests to preserve habitat. Michelle Shaughnessy most recently was the chief for the Branch of Recovery and Delisting in the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s office in Washington, D.C. While there she was involved in controversial issues related to many species, including the gray wolf and the Preble’s Meadow jumping mouse…“After working on recovery of listed species at the national level for the past several years, I am excited to get back into the field and apply my endangered species knowledge to implementing recovery on-the-ground for the endangered fishes in the Upper Colorado and San Juan rivers,” Shaughnessy said in a statement.
More restoration coverage here.
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program update
September 23, 2009
Here’s an update about the monitoring of fish moving through the new fish passage at the Price-Stubbs dam near Palisade, from Gary Harmon writing for The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article:
Monitoring the fish that way gives more information about the movements and is preferable to electro-shocking or other methods of counting the fish, [Tom Chart, the new head of the Upper Colorado Basin Endangered Species Recovery Program] said. The Fish and Wildlife Service has stocked endangered razorback suckers in the river, and Chart said he is planning to do more. “We’re still in full force with the stocking program” and will build more ponds in Horsethief Canyon to grow additional razorbacks, Chart said.
Here’s an article about Mr. Chart, from Gary Harmon writing for The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article:
The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, which this summer was extended through 2023, now is headed by Tom Chart, who has worked for and with the program during a 26-year career dealing with endangered fish. Chart worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Ecological Services Field Office in Salt Lake City on projects to recover endangered fish in the Colorado and Virgin river systems. Before that, he was a biologist for the Bureau of Reclamation in Salt Lake City. He also worked for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources in Moab.
More endangered species coverage here.
Max Schmidt — ‘Two things are for sure with water: gravity and greed’
September 3, 2009
From the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Le Roy Standish):
The 15 acres at 2962 A 1/2 Road cost $1.25 million, according to a news release from the district. When the reservoir is built, it will serve the Orchard Mesa Irrigation District. The new reservoir and other Orchard Mesa Irrigation District improvements will reduce the amount of water needed to operate the system, according to the release. “The saved water could be used in late summer to improve endangered fish habitat … and to help Western Colorado irrigators in dry years,” according to the release. The reservoir should help preserve Colorado River water levels through a 15-mile stretch of the river during dry parts of the year. The 15-mile stretch is between the point where Orchard Mesa Irrigation takes its water to where the Gunnison River flows into the Colorado. When water demand is high, water levels for fish can become critical in this stretch…
The reservoir, which [Brent Uilenberg, technical service division manager for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation] calls “more of a pond,” will hold 100 acre-feet of water…
The cost of construction is $15.25 million, Uilenberg said. The price tag includes pumping plants, pipelines, an automation system and placing structures in the canals…
Max Schmidt, manager of the Orchard Mesa Irrigation District, said the project will help maintain river flows on the Western Slope even as a thirsty Front Range pulls thousands of acre-feet of water each year up and over the Continental Divide. “We are right in the middle of a great rubber band. Denver pulls one way, California pulls the other, and this is one of the very few chances to put more water into the 15-mile reach,” Schmidt said. “Two things are for sure with water: gravity and greed.”
More Gunnison Basin coverage here.
From the Sky-Hi Daily News:
Starting Sept. 1 to Sept. 15, the county seeks to augment the river by 45 cfs…Grand County-paid pumping would supply another 30 cfs from Sept. 16 through Sept. 30, another 20 cfs Oct. 1-15 and additional 10 cfs Oct. 16-30. That would leave 321 acre-feet of water carried over for release in 2010, according to county officials.
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program: Senator Udall introduces legislation for permanent Ruedi Reservoir pool
August 14, 2009
From the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel:
The bill would let the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation permanently use Ruedi water to help the Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback chub and bonytail chub…Water users negotiating the agreement have decided half of the water will be provided by converting old, unused agricultural rights, and half will come from unobligated water in Ruedi Reservoir…Additional unsold water would remain in the reservoir to help defray construction costs. But because the water targeted by the bill would be used for fish recovery, the bill would waive the requirement that it be used to pay for reimbursement of costs, Udall’s office said.
More endangered species coverage here.
Here’s a release from the Colorado River District:
A proactive environmental program designed to recover four endangered fish in the Colorado River has prevented the legal and social upheavals involving the Endangered Species Act experienced in other parts of the country while allowing the public to benefit from continued water development for a growing population and agricultural uses.
The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovering Program employs a tool box of initiatives to aid fish recovery, including the construction of fish ladders at dams, fish screens in irrigation canals, fish hatcheries, water conservation by irrigation companies and the contribution of stored water from reservoirs and water users to support habitat.
One of the agreements between water users and the Recovery Program for stored water is up for renewal in 2010 and is this year subject to a pending environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Colorado River District is leading an effort to help fund the assessment and has gained support from a number of Western Colorado entities that have benefited from the Recovery Program.
Contributors include Grand County, the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (Eagle County), the Upper Eagle Water Authority (Eagle County), Breckenridge, Silverthorne, Frisco, Parachute, the Ute Water Conservancy District (Mesa County), the West Divide Water Conservancy District (Garfield and Pitkin Counties), the Basalt Water Conservancy District (Pitkin, Eagle and Garfield Counties), the Grand Valley Water Users Association (Mesa County), the Orchard Mesa Irrigation District (Mesa County), the Grand Valley Irrigation Company (Mesa County) and the Colorado River District.
The partners are helping to fund an environmental assessment of a program to preserve a 10,825 acre-foot pool of water dedicated to the Recovery Program. An acre-foot of water is equal to 325,851 gallons of water.
This water obligation is currently split 50-50 by West Slope water users of the main stem Colorado River and Front Range entities that divert water from the Colorado River through transmountain diversions.
Under an expiring deal, the Colorado River District has been releasing half the water from Wolford Mountain Reservoir on behalf of the West Slope and Denver Water has been releasing its half from Williams Fork Reservoir on behalf of the Front Range. A new arrangement would provide half the water from Ruedi Reservoir and half from Granby Reservoir. The Colorado River District will continue to supply a separate pool of environmental water for endangered fish – 6,000 acre-feet – from Wolford Mountain.
The environmental analysis will cost an estimated $550,000, to be split 50-50 between the Front Range and the West Slope. Dan Birch, Deputy General Manager of the Colorado River District, is coordinating the effort to achieve the new deal and to gain financial support from West Slope water users. Negotiations continue to bolster the West Slope’s half of the commitment.
“We are pleased that 13 water providers have committed thus far and we look forward to help from other water users in the basin,” Birch said. He commended Ute, the Eagle County districts and Grand County for being leaders on this environmental issue.
If water users cannot win approval of the 10,825 plan, the blanket protection afforded water users by the Recovery Program would be jeopardized, forcing entities who need to improve their water supplies from the Colorado River and its tributaries to undergo expensive, individual consultations with federal authorities.
The water in question, as well as other sources of environmental water for the endangered fish, helps bolster flows in the 15-Mile Reach between Palisade and Grand Junction. The endangered fish are the Colorado pikeminnow, the humpback chub, the razorback sucker and the bonytail chub.
Pending the environmental assessment, water users are still liable for payment for the new arrangement. The Front Range option at Granby Reservoir is estimated to cost about $17 million. The West Slope option at Ruedi Reservoir could cost about $8 million. The Colorado River District is working on Congressional legislation to make the cost of the Ruedi water non-reimbursable because the federal water would be used to meet a federal environmental program. Ruedi is part of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, a transmountain diversion that supplies West Slope water to water users in the Arkansas River basin.
For more information about the 10,825 effort, contact Jim Pokrandt of the Colorado River District at (970) 945-8522 x 236 or jpokrandt@crwcd.org. For more information on the Recovery Program, go to www.coloradoriverrecovery.org.
More Coyote Gulch endangered species coverage here.
Fountain Creek: CSU diversion incorporates fish passage targeting Arkansas darter and flathead chub
August 2, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The project at Colorado Springs’ Clear Spring Ranch, located near Pikes Peak International Raceway, will benefit the Arkansas darter and flathead chub, which are listed as threatened or of concern under the Endangered Species Act. The fish passages are strategically placed rocks that provide the fish shelter as they make their way upstream, said Carol Baker, Fountain Creek watershed planning manager for Colorado Springs Utilities.
“The project will identify for the first time fish performance curves for the Arkansas darter and flathead chub and will establish fish passage design criteria for plains fish species,” Baker said. The fish passages will also demonstrate how similar projects should be constructed on Fountain Creek and elsewhere in the state, Baker said. “Little is known about the biology of these fishes, including their swimming and jumping performance,” said Gregory Gerlich, aquatic section manager for the state Division of Wildlife. “This information is critical to the design of a fish passage.”
Pat Edelmann of the Pueblo office of the U.S. Geological Survey agreed, saying the timing of flows and size of barriers have to be considered in evaluating fish habitat. “To reduce the level of uncertainty, individual species have to be evaluated for swimming performance and jumping ability,” Edelmann said…
The project also ties in with ongoing studies of 16 species of fish in Fountain Creek by Colorado State University-Fort Collins, said professor Christopher Myrick, who is leading the project. “In my view, the construction of a fish passage at Clear Springs Ranch diversion dam on Fountain Creek had the highest potential benefit to a state listed species of any future project we identified within the Fountain Creek watershed,” said Champe Green, senior ecologist with the Army Corps of Engineers.
The project also is part of the list of conditions Colorado Springs agreed to for a 1041 land-use permit with Pueblo County for the Southern Delivery System.
CWCB: Front Range water suppliers asking for top-down planning (and modification of environmental protections)
July 27, 2009
Large Front Range water suppliers wrote a letter to the Colorado Water Conservation Board on July 15 asking for a review of regional water planning to date. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
A July 15 letter from the major importers of Western Slope water – Aurora, Colorado Springs, Denver, Pueblo Board of Water Works and the Southeastern and Northern water conservancy districts – outlines the concerns about water planning in the state. The letter was to the Colorado Water Conservation Board and Interbasin Compact Committee. It included a review of regional cooperative water planning to date and a “white paper” of suggested future actions.
“A major (although not exclusive) water supply challenge facing Colorado is the projected gap in water supply needed for the growing population in the Front Range urban corridor from Fort Collins to Pueblo,” the letter signed by managers of the six water providers states. “Unfortunately, the ability of Front Range water supply agencies to meet this water supply gap is complicated by a variety of political, institutional and regulatory factors that significantly hamper the ability to pursue new supply alternatives.”
However, each of the six water suppliers currently are moving their own projects forward, including the Southern Delivery System by Colorado Springs, Bessemer Ditch purchases by the Pueblo water board and the Arkansas Valley Conduit by the Southeastern district in the Arkansas Valley alone. [ed. Add the Windy Gap Firming Project, Northern Integrated Supply Project, Moffat System expansion, Colorado-Wyoming Coalition.]
“The prospects for arriving at a statewide consensus on the right timing and mix of water supply and demand management alternatives is further hampered by Colorado’s balkanized water supply and development framework,” the letter states. The letter goes on to call for CWCB and IBCC leadership to confront the political or legal obstacles to develop water projects in an “efficient and cost-effective manner.”
While commending the Front Range providers for taking a “positive step” toward resolution of problems, Eric Kuhn, manager of the Colorado River District, said it is important to continue addressing the underlying conflicts, in a letter he wrote on July 17. “I believe without airing . . . underlying conflicts on (identified) projects, reaching a consensus on longer term projects is going to be impossible,” Kuhn wrote. “Without a resolution of the issues and inherent conflicts among (identified projects), how can there possibly be a consensus on the next generation of projects.” There is a “cultural divide” between the Front Range and the rest of the state which places the water needs of outlying areas as subordinate to those of the Front Range, Kuhn said. “Overcoming this cultural gap is very critical to establishing a positive environment that will open the door for the roundtable to succeed,” Kuhn wrote…
The list of “obstacles” the water providers included in their white paper included the Endangered Species Act, wild and scenic designation, wilderness designation, the National Environmental Policy Act, the need for “reform” of county land reviews under 1974’s HB1041, clean water certification, reuse regulations, water court decrees, recreational in-channel diversions and use of water in energy development.
Meanwhile, here’s a report on the current state of the roundtable process, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
Meeting over the past four years, the IBCC and nine basin roundtables have yet to produce any agreements that would lead to a new transbasin water project. In fact, there are as often comments that such projects are no longer possible suggestions about how to move them forward. [Harris Sherman, Department of Natural Resources director], taking over the job as Gov. Bill Ritter’s appointee in 2007, redirected the IBCC to think in terms of a 50-year vision, looking toward the best possible future for all. “As we double our population in the next 50 years, it’s not a question of if we grow, but how we grow,” Sherman said. “The 2005 HB1177 (which set up the IBCC and roundtables) was a way to look at a future not as destructive to agricultural communities.”
The need for Front Range growth is frequently questioned, but big water interests counter they are merely preparing for an inevitable surge of urban population growth. The Western Slope has revived the specter of oil shale, which could drink up the remaining allocation of water to Colorado under the 1922 Colorado River Compact. Many are skeptical because the energy and water costs of producing oil shale are so high, no matter what price is set by the world market. Without a new transmountain project using unclaimed flows, agriculture would be dried up. There are studies about how to make the transfer of water easier, and what happens to local economies if all the water is taken from one area. It appears to be taboo to suggest that any Western Slope agriculture be diminished, however. “I don’t think it’s appropriate for this group to write the death knell for agriculture,” said T. Wright Dickinson, a northwestern Colorado rancher…
The lines of the problem have been clearly drawn and haven’t changed in the last four years. The IBCC and roundtables were created in 2005 after the worst annual drought in state history in 2002, a failed ballot measure to build unspecified big water projects in 2003 and a study revealing a gap in municipal water needs in 2004. The state has between 445,000 and 1.438 million acre-feet of water to develop from the Colorado River basin under the Colorado River Compact, although prolonged drought or climate change could affect the amount. The state demographer says the state’s population will double to 10 million people by 2050, with most of the growth occurring in the Pueblo-Fort Collins corridor. Right now, the state uses 1.2 million acre-feet for treated water supplies, and will need at least 2 million acre-feet by 2050. Only about one-third of the new supply will be developed under identified projects such as Colorado Springs Southern Delivery System, the Arkansas Valley Conduit, the Northern Integrated Supply Project, Aurora’s Prairie Waters or the Windy Gap water supply firming project. Oil shale development could require as much as 500,000 acre-feet of water, if it ever happens.
“There are no single or simple solutions. It’s all about trade-offs,” Kuhn said. “The more water we develop, the greater the risk. This is as much about risk management as water development.”
More Coyote Gulch Colorado water coverage here.
Green River: New release regime from Flaming Gorge will supplement winter flows for endangered fish
July 25, 2009
From The Salt Lake Tribune (Mike Stark):
Matt Lindon, Utah’s assistant state engineer, said a new policy expected to be signed Sept. 21 will help guarantee year-round flows for the fish — and means any new requests for water in that area won’t be granted at the expense of the endangered species. The change is part of ongoing efforts to protect four endangered species: the humpback chub, the Colorado pikeminnow, the razorback sucker and the bonytail…
Although there isn’t much development along that stretch of the Green River now, Lindon said the new policy will safeguard the fish against future water requests and still allow the river to provide water that’s already spoken for. “We’re just making sure there’s water for fish and water for water rights,” he said.
Jana Mohrman, a hydrologist for the Fish and Wildlife Service in Denver, said the new policy will become especially important in years of low water, when the strain on the river is at its greatest. The fish would retain a “senior” water right and others who sought water in a new application after Sept. 21 would be subordinate to that.
More Coyote Gulch endangered species coverage here.
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program update
July 24, 2009
Here’s an update on the Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, from John Colson writing for the Glenwood Springs Post Independent. From the article:
…Dave Merritt, now serving as the Garfield County representative on the [Colorado River District's] board of directors, [says that] there still is a need to raise half a million dollars in a “cost-sharing arrangement” to pay for a federal environmental assessment (EA) required by the National Environmental Policy Act. And it all must be finished up before the expiration of an existing agreement between the Denver Water Board and the Colorado River District, which together provide 10,825 acre feet each year to keep ample water in a stretch of the river known as the 15-mile Reach east of Grand Junction, which is the habitat of the fish. The issue, Merritt said, is the ongoing effort to prevent the extinction of four species of fish in the Colorado River — the razorback sucker, the bonytail chub, the Colorado pike minnow and the humpback chub.
The effort goes back to the 1980s, Merritt said, when the Bureau of Reclamation “reserved” 21,650 acre feet of water in the federally controlled Ruedi Reservoir, on the Fryingpan River above Basalt, to be used for the preservation of the endangered fish. The water was claimed by the federal agency after completion of the second of two rounds of water sales to private interests, Merritt said, leaving that amount of water unsold. An agreement was drawn up calling for the Western Slope and the Front Range water users to share in providing supplemental water flows, released from two reservoirs in the late summer every year, to raise the level of the 15-mile Reach and save the fish. Currently, the water is coming from the Wolford Mountain Reservoir for the Western Slope’s half, and from the Williams Fork Reservoir for the amount supplied by the Front Range, under an interim agreement reached in 1998, Merritt said. But that agreement is to expire in 2010, and a new arrangement has to be in place by 2012, according to Merritt. Currently, the new plan is for half the water, or 5,412.5 acre feet, to come from the Granby Reservoir, satisfying the Front Range obligation. The other half is to come from Ruedi Reservoir, to meet the Western Slope’s obligation.
Merritt said the river district is hoping that the water from Ruedi will be considered “nonreimbursable,” meaning the district would not have to pay the estimated $8 million value of the Ruedi water, because the water is being required to meet a federal environmental purpose. Although he is not directly involved in the ongoing negotiations for the Granby Reservoir water, Merritt said the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District has estimated its value at $17 million. If the money is ruled to be “reimbursable,” Merritt said, it would be used to reimburse the Bureau of Reclamation for its costs in building the reservoir, which was completed in 1968 as the centerpiece of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and has a capacity of more than 102,000 acre feet…
Merritt said the river district is hoping that the water from Ruedi will be considered “nonreimbursable,” meaning the district would not have to pay the estimated $8 million value of the Ruedi water, because the water is being required to meet a federal environmental purpose. Although he is not directly involved in the ongoing negotiations for the Granby Reservoir water, Merritt said the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District has estimated its value at $17 million. If the money is ruled to be “reimbursable,” Merritt said, it would be used to reimburse the Bureau of Reclamation for its costs in building the reservoir, which was completed in 1968 as the centerpiece of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and has a capacity of more than 102,000 acre feet.
More Coyote Gulch endangered species coverage here and here.
Here’s an update on the efforts by Front Range and west slope water providers to provide the necessary water to further the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, from Tonya Bina writing for the Sky-Hi Daily News. From the article:
The Colorado River District has taken on the role of fundraising organizer, asking town boards and water districts to contribute money so the West Slope complies to a federal fish recovery program. A pledge, said Daniel Birch of the Colorado River District to Granby and Grand Lake town boards last week, would help the West Slope meet its first obligation of National Environmental Policy Act permitting. The West Slope and East Slope are sharing the cost of $550,000 as each enters the process. Colorado River District fundraising on behalf of the West Slope already has raised just more than $200,000 in commitments. The River District approached 40 water users in the Grand Valley into Summit and Eagle counties…
As part of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, East and West Slope diverters committed to supplying 10,825 acre-feet of water in late summer, evenly split among the two regions. As a temporary solution, Denver Water has been releasing flows from Williams Fork Reservoir to comply; meanwhile, the Colorado River Water Conservation District has been releasing from Wolford Mountain Reservoir for the West Slope’s share. By the end of 2009, however, stakeholders must arrive at a more permanent solution mandated in the program.
Negotiations have led to supplying half of the 10,825 acre-feet out of Granby Reservoir sourced from the Northern Water Conservancy District’s Red Top Ditch Shares (about a $17 million solution) for the East Slope’s share. The other half would come out of Ruedi Reservoir near Basalt for the West Slope’s share. The plan also includes using excess storage capacity in the Green Mountain Reservoir. Contracting with the federal government to have water shepherded from Ruedi to the critical section of the Colorado could cost West Slope water users about $8 million, according to the Colorado River District. For this reason, the district is working on legislation it plans to introduce to Congress, asking for forgiveness of that cost…
Both the Towns of Grand Lake and Granby agreed to consider the $5,000 while crafting next year’s budget, a process starting in August. Grand County Water and Sanitation No.1 and the Winter Park West Water and Sanitation District have also made commitments, according to Birch.
Susan’s purse-making caddisfly: Scott Hoffman Black ‘We sure feel that if any animal deserves it, it’s this one.’
July 18, 2009
From The Fairplay Flume (Danny Ramey):
The Susan’s purse-making caddisfly (Ochrotrichia susanae) is found in just two places – Trout Creek Spring in Chaffee County and High Creek Fen in Park County.
The High Creek Fen is made up of 1,147 acres of wetland in western Park County, about 8.5 miles south of Fairplay. It is primarily owned by The Nature Conservancy and the Colorado State Land Board, as well as private landowners, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
An EPA document tied to the petition states that the Susan’s purse-making caddisfly is a small, hairy, brown caddisfly in the family Hydroptilidae. and adult forewings are 2 millimeters, or 0.08 inches, in length.
The rarity of the Susan’s purse-making caddisfly was one of the main factors motivating the petition, said Scott Hoffman Black, the executive director of the Xerces Society. “When you’re an animal that lives in only two places, if one of those places is destroyed, you’re in trouble,” he said. The petition also cited threats such as grazing animals, logging, roadbuilding, fires, water use, and camping and hiking as dangerous to the caddisfly and its habitat, said Gelatt. Along with its rarity, the Susan’s purse-making caddisfly should be put on the list because of its importance to its ecosystem, said Black. It is not only a vital part of the food chain but also a good indicator of how the ecosystem is doing. “When you see that they [the caddisflies] are declining, the ecosystem isn’t doing well,” said Black.
With the petition approved, the process will now move into the status review phase. During this phase, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will begin examining whether or not the Susan’s purse-making caddisfly requires protection under the Endangered Species Act. A 60-day public comment period began on July 8, to receive feedback from both scientific experts and normal citizens. The period will end on Sept. 7, said Gelatt.
Once the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has researched the threats to the caddisfly, it will receive one of three designations, said Diane Katzenberger, a spokesperson for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The first is that the threats to the caddisfly do not warrant a place on the list, which would end the process. It could also be found that the threats warrant a place on the list for the caddisfly. At that point, work on a proposal would begin. Finally, it could also be found that while a place on the list is warranted, it could be “precluded by listing actions of higher priority,” said Katzenberger. If that happened, the caddisfly would be put on a candidate list.
Black is confident that the caddisfly will find its way onto the endangered species list. “We sure feel that if any animal deserves it, it’s this one,” he said.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Chaffee County: Xerces Society is pushing for endangered status for the Susan’s purse- making caddisfly
July 9, 2009
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Tracy Harmon):
The Susan’s purse-making caddisfly is found only in Trout Creek Spring area of Chaffee County and in High Creek Fen in Park County.
The petition was submitted by the Xerces Society, Center for Native Ecosystems, WildEarth Guardians and Western Watersheds Project. It asserts that grazing, logging and other activities affect Susan’s purse-making caddisfly habitat.
Here’s the link to the petition. Here’s the link to the federal rule-making webstie where you can deposit your comments.
Here’s the release from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
U.S. District Judge David Campbell said in a ruling Tuesday that the 2008 opinion is a sharp departure from the federal agency’s long-standing opinion that fluctuating flows at the Glen Canyon Dam likely would jeopardize the fish. Campbell said the 2008 opinion never explains why the agency changed its position and doesn’t address the effects of modified river flows on the chub or its habitat using best science. In court documents, the agency said that although previous opinions predicted the chub would suffer under modified river flows, the population has stabilized and increased in the past few years. It’s up from 4,000 in 2000 to 7,650 at the end of last year, but still down from historical numbers, the U.S. Geological Survey said last month. Conservation efforts have allowed the population to increase, despite modified flows, Fish and Wildlife said. Campbell said the logic was insufficient and ordered the agency to revise its 2008 opinion by Oct. 30…
Environmentalists sued in 2007, alleging that the dam is being mismanaged by the federal government, threatening the humpback chub for the benefit of power production. Nikolai Lash, water program manager for the Grand Canyon Trust, hailed the Tuesday’s ruling and said science has consistently shown that current dam operations erode sandbars and beaches that humpback chub need to survive, reduce food production and decrease water temperatures. Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation have tried to dance around those issues, he said. “This judge has caught them in a lie, and is requiring that Fish and Wildlife come up with a reason why current dam operations should continue when they are damaging habitat illegally,” he said. Campbell didn’t agree with all the environmentalists’ claims. He rejected arguments that the Bureau of Reclamation’s assessment of an experimental plan increasing river flows for a short period of time violated federal law and that too few alternatives were considered. Campbell also rejected claims that the experimental plan violates the Grand Canyon Protection Act.
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program: Memorial Day weekend coordinated water releases
May 25, 2009
Here’s some background on the coordinated release from six dams in the Upper Colorado River Basin designed to provide an approximation of historical spring streamflows to improve habitat for the endangered natives in the river system, from Mark Jaffe writing for the Denver Post. From the article:
The releases from Granby, Ruedi, Windy Gap, Williams Wolford Mountain, Dillon and Green Mountain reservoirs are designed to replicate spring peak flows on the Colorado before the dams were built. “This is a valuable step in in helping to restore these endangered species,” said Angela Kantula, assistant director of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
The extra water will flush sediment and build sandbars to improve the mating habitat for four endangered fish species — the Colorado pikeminnow, the bonytail, razorback sucker and the humpback chub — along a 15-mile stretch of the river near Grand Junction. The releases raised the flow of the river about 15 percent, to a peak of 20,000 cubic feet per second, according to the recovery program. Although the reservoir release program was developed in 1995, there has only been enough water in the reservoirs for the releases in five years, Kantula said…
The releases, which began in mid- May, sent a cue to fish that it was mating season, along with cleaning the riverbed cobbles, where the eggs are laid, and creating sandbars, behind which pockets of calm water offer habitat for the fry, Kantula said…
Between 1989 and 2008, $187 million has been spent on the recovery program, with about 80 percent coming from the federal government and funds from hydropower generators. Colorado has contributed $16 million.
Long journey for pikeminnow
May 17, 2009
It didn’t take long for endangered Colorado pikeminnows to move upstream past the Price-Stubbs diversion on the Colorado River. Last week one was netted near DeBeque. The tagged fish had been netted in the past near Flaming Gorge dam in the Green River. That’s a pretty remarkable journey, down the Green and back up the Colorado. Administrators of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program have to feel good about what they’re seeing. Here’s a report from Gary Harmon writing for the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article:
The dam, built in 1911, has prevented the migration of the Colorado pikeminnow, known to early residents of the Grand Valley as “white salmon” for their travels, from visiting the highest part of their range. The range was reopened in April 2008 with the completion of a $10 million, 900-foot-long, fish passage just upstream from the mouth of De Beque Canyon. The capture of a 26-inch, two-pound adult male on April 22 showed the species, also once called the Colorado squawfish, had negotiated the fish passage and was moving upstream. The capture is significant “because it demonstrates fish have regained access to historic habitat that was blocked for almost a century,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Bob Burdick said. “This Colorado pikeminnow is the first of its kind that we’ve detected in that river reach” since biologists began sampling at the Grand Valley Project Diversion Dam for pikeminnow and the endangered razorback sucker.
The pikeminnow captured in April is “a fairly old fish” that is relatively well known to biologists after it was captured in the Green River near Ouray, Utah, on May 10, 1995. It has swum at least 447 miles during the ensuing years and was recaptured five more times in various sections of the Colorado River. The fish was 7 to 10 years old when it was first tagged, and biologists believe individuals live to about 40 years of age. Biologists also are celebrating the return of the razorback sucker to a section of the Yampa River, where the species hasn’t been seen for 30 years. Researchers captured a 17-inch, 1.7-pound, 7-year-old adult razorback sucker in the Yampa near Lily Park, about seven miles upstream of Dinosaur National Monument. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists stocked the hatchery-raised fish as a 2-year-old juvenile in the Green River near Green River, Utah, in 2004. During the next five years, it traveled 280 miles upstream and grew six inches.
More coverage from the Associated Press via the Grand Junction Free Press.
Update: More coverage from the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
In fact, the [Colorado pikeminnow] – along with razorback suckers, humpback chubs and bonytail chubs – were such good eating that they hardly exist today. They were fished nearly to extinction. Why is this important to the Arkansas River basin? Because if they don’t thrive, nobody gets to bring over water from the Colorado River basin. On average, about 130,000 acre-feet is moved from the Colorado River to the Arkansas River each year through the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Twin Lakes, Homestake and smaller diversions. That doesn’t happen unless water is made available for the four endangered species on the other side of the Continental Divide. “It’s water that’s beneficial for the fish,” Jim Broderick, executive director of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, told the district board last week. “Anyone who diverts gets to play the game.” That includes water users on the Western Slope as well as the Front Range, in both the Arkansas and South Platte river basins. The load is shared equally by the diverters and annually puts back 30,000-90,000 acre feet of water – or the amount used by a city the size of Pueblo on the low end or Colorado Springs on the high end – into the Colorado River for the fish.
From 2000-08, 500,000 acre-feet of water was delivered to the critical 15-mile stretch of the Colorado River east of Grand Junction, according to Tom Pitts, who coordinates the fish recovery program. The deliveries were made through cooperative efforts of the Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Conservation District and Denver Water, with assistance from the Grand Valley Project. Right now, the Western Slope and Front Range are in agreement on a program that will provide a portion of that water, 10,825 acre-feet to be exact, to supplement flows from July to October. The stress to the fish in that reach of river is most commonly felt during late summer as diversions increase and rains taper off. Under an agreement reached 20 years ago, the water has been provided from various sources with costs shared by all diverters. On the Front Range, that includes the Northern and Southeastern conservancy districts, Denver Water, Aurora, Colorado Springs, Twin Lakes and the Pueblo Board of Water Works. Ruedi Reservoir, a compensatory storage vessel of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, has been the sole source of the 10,825 acre-feet of water since 2003, using water that has, so far, found no buyers on the Western Slope. Under a new agreement that water users hope will be in place by the end of the year, only half of the water will come from Ruedi in the Roaring Fork watershed, while the other half will come from Lake Granby, a reservoir located in the Eagle River watershed. The option was chosen from among several in the latest study.
Humpback Chub numbers increasing
April 27, 2009
Here’s a release from the USGS:
Adult endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha) in Grand Canyon, Arizona, increased by about 50 percent between 2001 and 2008, according to analysis recently conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey. The upward trend reverses population declines from 1989 to 2001. The estimated number of adult chub in the Grand Canyon population is between 6,000 and 10,000, with the most likely number being 7,650 individuals.
The humpback chub is a freshwater fish that may live up to 40 years and is found only in the Colorado River Basin. The humpback chub was placed on the Federal list of endangered species on March 11, 1967. Only six populations of humpback chub are currently known to exist, five above Lees Ferry, Arizona, and one in Grand Canyon, Arizona.
“USGS scientists and their cooperators are actively pursuing research that will increase our understanding of why native fish populations are increasing,” said Matthew Andersen, USGS supervisory biologist. “Experimental flows from Glen Canyon Dam and above average water temperatures as the result of drought conditions may have supported native fish. Removal of some nonnative fish species in select locations may also have helped.”
It is not easy to determine what is causing the rebound because several natural and human-caused changes have taken place between 2000 and 2008. The primary factors thought to be contributing to the findings are as follows:
The experimental removal of large numbers of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) from the area near the confluence of the Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers may have benefited humpback chub. Rainbow and brown trout are thought to prey on young fish and compete with humpback chub for food. Between 2003 and 2006, the rainbow trout population in the Colorado River near the Little Colorado River, the area where most Grand Canyon chub are found, was reduced by more than 80%.
Native fishes, including humpback chub, are thought to have benefited from drought-induced warming beginning in 2003. Before 2003, water temperatures in the main channel of the Colorado River have been too cold for humpback chub to successfully reproduce near the Little Colorado River. Humpback chub require a minimum temperature of 16°C (60.8°F). As the level of the Lake Powell has dropped, warmer water found closer to the surface of the reservoir has reached the release structures. In 2005, water temperatures in the mainstem Colorado River near the Little Colorado River exceeded 17°C (62.6°F), the warmest temperatures recorded in this section of the river since the reservoir filled in 1980.
A series of experimental releases from Glen Canyon took place between 2000 and 2008 that may have benefited humpback chub and other native fish. Humpback chub hatched in 1999 may have prospered as the result of substantial in-stream warming as the result of the 2000 low summer steady flow experiment. As a result of the experiment, peak water temperatures in lower sections of Grand Canyon exceeded 20°C (68.5°F) in the summer of 2000, compared with typical peak temperatures of 15-18°C (59-64°F).
Grand Canyon native fish populations have experienced recent improvements, which is not the case elsewhere in the Colorado River Basin. In addition to humpback chub, the flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis) and bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus), both native Colorado River fish, are stable, appear to have increased in the reach upstream and downstream from the mouth of the Little Colorado River. In this area, scientists have found juvenile and adult fish of both species, suggesting that more successful reproduction is occurring.“The Grand Canyon is the one bright spot in the Colorado River Basin for native fishes, which is excellent news,” said Matthew Andersen, USGS supervisory biologist.
The likely factors that contributed to the historical decline of Grand Canyon native fish include changes in flow and reduced water temperature resulting from the regulation of the Colorado River by Glen Canyon Dam, the weakening of young fish by the nonnative parasites such as Asian tapeworm (Bothriocephalus acheilognathi), and competition with and predation by nonnative fish species.
Specific recovery goals for humpback chub in Grand Canyon are currently being established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which has jurisdiction over the humpback chub as a federally endangered species.
The USGS Southwest Biological Science Center’s Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) is responsible for the synthesis and analysis of fish data collected by a number of cooperating entities, including U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Arizona Game and Fish Department. These activities are undertaken as part of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, which is administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior.
More information is available by visiting the Status and Trends of the Grand Canyon Population of Humpback Chub factsheet and open file report.
