Lower Fryingpan River “relatively healthy” — Roaring Fork Conservancy

October 16, 2014

Didymosphenia

Didymosphenia


From The Aspen Times (Scott Condon):

The lower Fryingpan River ecosystem is relatively healthy even though an algae with the notorious nickname “rock snot” has taken hold, according to preliminary results of a study commissioned by the Roaring Fork Conservancy.

Muck from the stream bottom was scooped up from three sites last fall to get a count of macroinvertebrates — bugs that can’t leave the river. An analysis over the winter showed the numbers were in line with results from a similar study in 2003, according to Heather Tattersall Lewin, watershed action director for the nonprofit organization.

“That was good for us to see,” she told the Basalt Town Council on Tuesday night in a briefing about the preliminary results. Macroinvertebrates provide food for the fish in the river.

Populations of the American dipper bird, an important indicator species for river health, were also promising, according to Tattersall Lewin. A consultant found 28 mating pairs and observed that 23 of them were successful in producing young.

Constant monitoring of water temperatures since October 2013 also didn’t produce any red flags…

The Roaring Fork Conservancy’s study didn’t produce all good news. Rock snot, formally known as Didymosphenia geminate and often called Didymo, appears here to stay.

The conservancy hired students from Colorado Mountain College in Leadville to monitor the river periodically for rock snot. They searched for the specific algae in the spring and after peak runoff at 20 sites. They found the coverage was in fewer places after runoff and that it wasn’t as dense in places where it was still found, Tattersall Lewin said.

The CMC students will search for the algae again this weekend to see if it surged back after the lower flows of summer.

Tattersall Lewin said rock snot isn’t your typical, slippery algae. It grows in clumps in a consistency she compared to coarse toilet paper. It appears to collect more easily on the flat, angular rocks of the Fryingpan than the rounded cobble of the Roaring Fork River, she said.

The effects of rock snot on the ecosystem aren’t certain. International studies show Didymo is proliferating even in the healthiest streams, according to Tattersall Lewin. Studies are examining whether the growth is related to climate change.

Rick Lofaro, the conservancy’s executive director, said two management policies by the reclamation bureau, which controls water flows from the dam, appear capable of reducing rock snot. First, maintaining a higher minimum flow during winters and dry times could avoid the buildup. Second, high, sustained water releases during spring runoff would help flush the river and benefit it in numerous ways. The rock snot would disintegrate.

More Fryingpan River watershed coverage here.


Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Co, Aspen and the #ColoradoRiver District reach deal

October 15, 2014

From the Aspen Daily News (Brent Gardner-Smith):

The city of Aspen and Front Range water interests have reached a compromise 20 years in the making that allows more water to be sent east when the spring runoff is plentiful, in exchange for bolstering flows when the Roaring Fork River is running low in the fall. The deal is between the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Co., which operates transbasin diversion tunnels underneath Independence Pass, and the city of Aspen and the Colorado River District, which works to protect water rights on the Western Slope.

The deal, which has its roots in a 1994 water court application from Twin Lakes that sought to increase diversions during the runoff in high-snowpack years. It will leave 40 acre-feet of water in Grizzly Reservoir when Twin Lakes exercises its rights under the 1994 proposal. That water will be stored in the 500-acre-foot reservoir and released into the Roaring Fork for about three weeks in late summer, when seasonal flows are at their lowest. The water must be called for and released in the same year it was stored.

Grizzly Reservoir, located about 8 miles up Lincoln Creek Road near the Continental Divide, is a component of the transbasin-diversion system. A tunnel underneath the reservoir channels water underneath the mountain to the south fork of Lake Creek in the Arkansas River basin, on the other side of the pass.

Additionally, under the deal, the River District will have the right to store 200 acre-feet of water in Grizzly Reservoir and can call for up to 150 acre feet of that water in a year. Importantly, that 200 acre-feet can be stored long-term in the reservoir until it is called for by the River District, which manages water rights across the Western Slope.

Another 600 acre-feet will be provided to the River District for seasonal storage in Twin Lakes Reservoir, also on the east side of Independence Pass. The district will then trade and exchange that water with various entities, which could lead to more water staying on the Western Slope that would otherwise be diverted through other transbasin tunnels.

Twin Lakes diverts an average of 46,000 acre-feet a year from the headwaters of the Roaring Fork and sends it to Colorado Springs and other Front Range cities. The city of Colorado Springs owns 55 percent of the shares in the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Co., entities in Pueblo own 23 percent, entities in Pueblo West own 12 percent, and Aurora owns 5 percent.

Aspen and the River District intend to cooperatively use the stored water in Grizzly Reservoir to boost late-summer flows in the Roaring Fork as it winds through Aspen proper.

Water already flowing
The stretch of the Roaring Fork River below the Salvation Ditch on Stillwater Drive typically runs below environmentally sound flows each year for about eight weeks, according to city officials. And given that this spring saw a high run-off, the three parties to the agreement managed some water this year as if the deal was already signed.

“At the close of the current water year (which ended the last day of September), Twin Lakes started making releases of some of the water stored for the River District, followed by release of the 40 acre-feet, as directed by Aspen and the River District,” Phil Overeynder, a special projects engineer for the city, wrote in an Oct. 3 memo to city council. “These releases had the effect of increasing flows in the Roaring Fork through the Aspen reach by approximately 20 percent and will last for approximately a three-week period at the end of the lowest flow conditions of the year.”

Overeynder added that “both Aspen and the River District believe that this agreement, while not perfect, is of real and meaningful benefit to the Roaring Fork.”

Aspen City Council approved the agreement on its consent calendar during a regular council meeting on Monday. The agreement is on the River District’s Tuesday meeting agenda, and Twin Lakes approved it last month.

The deal still needs to be accepted by Pitkin County and the Salvation Ditch Co. in order to satisfy all of the details of the water court’s 2001 approval of the 1994 water rights application.

Junior and senior rights
In addition to its junior 1994 water right, Twin Lakes also holds a senior 1936 water right that allows it to divert up to 68,000 acre-feet in a single year and up to 570,000 acre-feet in a 10-year period.

Originally, the water diverted by Twin Lakes was used to grow sugar beets to make sugar, but it is now primarily used to meet the needs of people living on the Front Range.

The 1936 water right still has some lingering restrictions in high-water years, according to Kevin Lusk, an engineer with Colorado Springs Utilities who serves as the president of the board of the private Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Co. Under its 1936 right, when there is plenty of water in the Arkansas River and the Twin Lakes Reservoir is full, Twin Lakes is not allowed to divert water, even though it is physically there to divert, Lusk explained. So in 1994 it filed in water court for a new water right without the same restrictions so it could divert more water to the east. It was dubbed the “Twin Junior,” water right.

The city of Aspen and the River District objected in court to the “Twin Junior” and the agreement approved Monday is a long-delayed outcome of the case.

Aspen claimed that if Twin Lakes diverted more water in big-water years, the Roaring Fork wouldn’t enjoy the benefits of the high water, including flooding the Stillwater section and replenishing groundwater supplies. That process, the city argued, helps the river in dry times.

“We don’t necessarily agree with the theory behind it,” Lusk said of the city’s claim, but added that Twin Lakes agreed to the deal as part of settlement negotiations.

And since 2014 turned out to be a high-water year, Twin Lakes exercised its right to divert water under its 1994 Twin Junior right, and worked cooperatively with Aspen and the River District to release 40-acre feet of “mitigation water” as described in the pending deal.

The new agreement between the city, Twin Lakes and the River District is in addition to another working arrangement between Twin Lakes and Aspen related to the Fryingpan-Arkansas diversion project, which diverts water from the headwaters of the Fryingpan River.

That agreement provides 3,000 acre-feet of water each year to be released by Twin Lakes into the main stem of the Roaring Fork beneath a dam near Lost Man Campground, normally at a rate of 3 to 4 cubic feet per second.

More Twin Lakes coverage here.


City’s efforts to conserve Roaring Fork highlighted — Aspen Journalism

October 10, 2014

Map of the Roaring Fork River watershed via the Roaring Fork Conservancy

Map of the Roaring Fork River watershed via the Roaring Fork Conservancy


From Aspen Journalism (Brent Gardner-Smith):

The city of Aspen’s efforts in the summers of 2014 and 2013 to leave more water in the Roaring Fork River as it flows through central Aspen were highlighted Wednesday at the 2014 Sustaining Colorado Watersheds Conference in Avon.

David Hornbacher, the city of Aspen’s director of utilities and environmental initiatives, told a crowd of over 50 people at a conference session on “collaborative water management” that Aspen’s partnership with the Colorado Water Trust to add more water to the river was “innovation for a stream in need.”

The annual watershed conference is sponsored by the Colorado Watershed Assembly, the Colorado Foundation for Water Education and the Colorado Riparian Association It attracts professionals from watershed organizations, such as the Roaring Fork Conservancy, regional water districts, municipalities, and other entities from Colorado’s water world.

During his presentation, Hornbacher said that due to water diversions upstream of Aspen, sometimes less then 10 percent of the Roaring Fork’s natural flow is left by the time it reaches Rio Grande Park near downtown Aspen.

And in the dry years of 2002 and 2012, the river through Aspen on many summer days was well below 32 cfs, which is the level the Colorado Water Conservation Board has determined is necessary to protect the river’s environment “to a reasonable degree.”

In an effort to help the situation in 2013 — which was expected to be drier than normal — city officials worked with the nonprofit Colorado Water Trust to review the municipality’s portfolio of water rights and see if it could add some water to the river, if necessary.

After reviewing its options, the city council approved entering into a “non-diversion agreement” in 2013 with the Water Trust.

Under a senior 1889 water right, the city has the right to divert up to 10 cfs at the Wheeler Ditch, and normally uses the water to irrigate parkland, to bring water to Aspen’s downtown malls, and to send water through the stormwater system in Rio Grande park Hornbacher said the city was able to modify its normal routine in those areas in order to leave 2 to 3 cfs in the river instead.

In 2013, the river dropped below 32 cfs in July On July 9, the city modified its usual irrigation practices on the Wheeler Ditch and began bypassing 2 to 3 cfs of water and letting it run down the river instead of being diverted.

This year, the city once again entered into a non-diversion agreement with the Water Trust and stopped diverting 2 to 3 cfs of water on August 21 after the river first dropped below 32 cfs.

While 2 to 3 cfs is a relatively modest amount of water, Hornbacher noted, it is a “significant increase” when the Roaring Fork’s flow has been reduced to around 15 cfs, as is frequently in the case in late summer.

The Water Trust helped cover some of the costs of the project, including installing temporary water measuring gauges on the river near the Rio Grande Park in order to monitor results.

One finding from the two summers of the program was that while it did raise the volume of water in the river, it did not appreciably drop the temperature of the water in the reach, which could have been beneficial to fish in the river.

Amy Beatie, the executive director of the Denver-based Water Trust, which works to restore and protect streamflows, said it helped Aspen developed a matrix of its water rights and the available tools and techniques it could possibly use to leave more water in the river.

All options had some degree of risk to the value and sanctity of Aspen’s water rights, Beatie said, but the city was comfortable with the risk of a “non-diversion agreement,” which did not include a trip through Colorado’s expensive and slow water court system.

She said the approach developed by the Trust was a flexible and quick way for Aspen to achieve its environmental goals But she added this was a pilot program and progress should not be seen as success.

“This is not a permanent solution and Aspen has long said that this water right can’t be a permanent solution because of the way the Colorado water law system works in regard to abandonment,” Beatie said, “but at least for the first two years, they were willing to take the risks of how their water right is quantified in the future by putting this water back in the river.”

One aspect of Colorado’s water law is “use it or lose it,” as limited use of a water right can come back to haunt the owner of a right who someday goes to sell or change the use of their water.

Hornbacher, after his presentation, said that if the city was willing to take the risk of leaving water in the river under certain circumstances, then other upstream diverters might as well.

The city and the Water Trust are now talking about whether the program should be implemented in 2015 for a third time.

Hornbacher said the city needs to consider if it is willing to take on the additional risk to its water rights posed by a third year of the effort, and it remains to be seen how dry next summer might be.

During the same session at the conference on collaborative water management, a consultant working on water efficiency and conservation plans with the municipal water utilities in Aspen, Snowmass Village, Basalt, Carbondale and Glenwood Springs gave an update on that effort.

Updated water plans for each city are nearly complete and a regional plan is now coming together in draft form, said Beorn Courtney of Element Water Consulting, Inc, who is helping put the plan together with assistance from the Roaring Fork Conservancy and the Ruedi Water and Power Authority.

On Tuesday at the watershed conference, James Eklund, the director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, gave an update on the draft Colorado Water Plan, which is due on the governor’s desk by Dec 10 Eklund said public comments on the draft chapters of the plan — posted at wwwColoradowaterplancom — are due by Friday, Oct 10.

Eklund stressed that the draft plan will not include a call for a departure from the state’s “prior appropriation” system for managing water rights, which is based on the premise of “first in time, first in right.”

More Roaring Fork River coverage here and here.


Feds: 2013-14 water year slightly above average in Aspen-area — The Aspen Times

October 2, 2014

roaringforkwatershedwateryear2014precipitationvianrcs

From The Aspen Times (Scott Condon):

A snowy January and February plus a rainy May and August boosted total precipitation in the Roaring Fork River basin to slightly above average for the 2013-14 water year, according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

The federal agency tracks snow and rain at seven automated sites at the headwaters of the Roaring Fork River as well as the Fryingpan and Crystal river valleys. The water year is considered from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30.

“Things were pretty normal until January, when it looked like it might be drying up. Then we started to get all that snow, which put us above average for a while,” Mage Hultstrand, assistant snow survey supervisor for the conservation service in Lakewood, said via email. “June was very dry, but thankfully we got some good rain in July and August and ended up right at normal precipitation for the water year.”

The conservation service’s website shows that total precipitation at the Independence Pass site east of Aspen was at 104 percent of average for the year. There were 32.4 inches of precipitation recorded. The average at that site between 1981 and 2000 was 31.2 inches.

The site with the highest reading for the year was Kiln, at an elevation of 9,600 feet in the Fryingpan Valley. It recorded 28 inches of precipitation for the year compared with an average of 25 inches. That was 112 percent of average.

McClure Pass in the Crystal River Valley was the only site in the Roaring Fork Basin that was below average for the year. The 33 inches recorded there was 96 percent of average.

Schofield Pass received 50.4 inches of precipitation for the water year, 102 percent of average.

The Roaring Fork Basin as a whole ended at 103 percent of average, according to the conservation service’s data.

Above-average precipitation in January, February, May and August kept the basin at average conditions despite the dry months of December, April and June, Hultstrand noted.

More Roaring Fork watershed coverage here.


River district, county concerned over Crystal River designation — The Aspen Times

September 23, 2014

Crystal River near Redstone via Wikipedia Commons

Crystal River near Redstone via Wikipedia Commons


From The Aspen Times (John Stroud):

Colorado River District officials worry that possible Wild and Scenic designation for part of the Crystal River could sell western Colorado water interests short when it comes to the need for future storage projects, at least one River District board member advised Garfield County commissioners this week.

“We continue to see the Crystal River as an important water supply for western Colorado,” Dave Merritt, Garfield County’s representative on the 15-member River District board, said during a meeting earlier this week to discuss the proposal.

The push to give Wild and Scenic status to a 39-mile stretch of the Crystal south of Carbondale, from it headwaters in the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness to the Sweet-Jessup Ditch headgate just below Avalanche Creek, “attempts to make a determination that the way the river is now is the way should be forever, and that’s a long time,” Merritt said.

“We believe that we need to be able to provide for those who come behind us the same opportunities that we’ve had, and the Crystal River is place where we can meet the needs of the future,” he said, adding there is also concern that the designation could remove local control in favor of federal protections.

County commissioners requested the meeting with River District and White River National Forest officials to get a better understanding of what Wild and Scenic designation would mean, and to offer their thoughts…

Any questions and concerns from the county, the River District or any other entity can be addressed in the eventual federal legislation that would have to go to Congress for consideration, said Redstone resident Bill Jochems.

“The Wild and Scenic Act has great flexibility to address those concerns,” Jochems said, noting that the full River District board has not voted on the proposal, nor will it or the county be asked to do so until the draft legislation is written.

“All we’re asking for is that there be no dams on the main stem of the Crystal above (Sweet-Jessup),” Jochems said. “And it’s not like we’re trying to prevent it forever.”

Small water storage projects could still be pursued downstream of the designation, or on any of the tributaries, he said…

White River National Forest staffers Rich Doak and Kay Hopkins explained that the Crystal River has been listed as eligible for Wild and Scenic status dating back to 1982, and reaffirmed in 2002.

The section of river being studied for formal designation does exhibit many of the “outstanding and remarkable” natural, cultural, historic and recreational values (ORVs) spelled out in the Wild and Scenic Act of 1968.

A key element is also that the proposed waterway be free-flowing. However, it’s possible that streams below an existing dam can be designated as Wild and Scenic, as long as the water releases are adequate to support the identified ORVs, Hopkins said.

“This is the stage of the process where all the hard questions are asked, and is the big planning part of the study,” she said.

The Garfield commissioners sought assurances that existing water rights would be maintained. Commissioner John Martin also asked that stormwater detention projects be addressed in the proposal, pointing to legal struggles in El Paso County related to the ability to build detention ponds.

“The nice thing about this process is that we can take those kinds of things into consideration,” Doak said.

The Crystal River is one of just five waterways out of 72 within the White River National Forest that meet the national Wild and Scenic standard, Hopkins added.

Others include Cross Creek on the east side of the Holy Cross Wilderness, the South Fork of the White River, and two streams nearing a formal suitability decision by Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management officials later this fall, Deep Creek and the portion of the Colorado River in Glenwood Canyon.

Once a record of decision is made on those two waterways, a legislative “advocate” would need to be identified to carry the bill in Congress, Hopkins said.

Since the Wild and Scenic Act was adopted, only one river in Colorado, the Cache le Poudre River west of Fort Collins, has such designation.

More Crystal River coverage here.


Aspen drinking water tour recap

September 23, 2014

Aspen

Aspen


From the Aspen Daily News (Collin Szewczyk):

Through a program by the Roaring Fork Conservancy, a group of over 20 people seeking to quench their intellectual curiosities concerning the city’s water, how it’s treated and where it comes from, toured the city of Aspen’s drinking water treatment facility this week led by water treatment supervisor Charlie Bailey and Laura Taylor, an operator at the facility.

Christina Medved, watershed education director of the Roaring Fork Conservancy, pointed out the parameters of the Roaring Fork watershed, noting that local rivers and streams are fed from an area the size of a small Eastern state.

“Our watershed is about the size of Rhode Island,” she said. “And over 30 percent of it is in designated wilderness areas.”

She praised the relationship that the conservancy has with local government entities such as the city water department, that allows visitors to check out local facilities, which are normally closed to the general public.

“What’s really exciting is we get access to places like this,” Medved said. “We have really wonderful partners that will say, ‘yeah, we’ll open up the gate for you,’ when you normally can’t get in here and have an audience with Charlie and Laura because they’re busy bringing water to Aspen.”

Aspenitus
The plant was completed in December 1966 after Aspen endured a major waterborne epidemic of giardia in the mid-1960s. Giardia is a microscopic parasite that is found in soil, food or water that is contaminated with feces. Another parasite, cryptosporidium, has yet to appear in the Aspen area.

“That was 1964-65; it was the first documented public health problem in the United States,” said Bailey. “There was a documented waterborne problem and that was giardia. There were two redwood tanks up on the hill here that were used for the hydro plant that was down the street, but the Aspen Water Company provided water to the pipes and there was no treatment at all … It was a big hit, they called it ‘Aspenitus.’”

After the outbreak, the city got money together, bought bonds and broke ground on the treatment plant in 1965. There’s been no cases of giardia in the city’s water since the building of the facility, Bailey said.

“There’s lots of giardia in the water and none of it comes out of the pipeline here,” he said. “We’re required to do testing once a year on the performance of our filters and our clear well (a reservoir used for storing filtered water, which flows through a series of baffles, allowing contact time with chlorine for disinfection).”

Beavers were the main culprit for the giardia epidemic, and the area up Maroon and Castle creeks was teeming with them at the time.

“There was a huge beaver population up there,” Bailey said, but added that it’s good to have them in the area. “They’re animals that let us know that the environment is healthy.”

The water plant also checks the water for mining tailings and other non-natural pollutants.

“We’ve requested extra testing of our water sources,” Bailey said. “We’ve done heavy metal testing and we actually do [pharmaceutical] testing, too.”

He added that no traces of either have been found in Aspen’s drinking water.

“Ever since I’ve been here, and even before, there’s been no problem with city water,” he said. “No public outbreaks, no boil orders, because I will not let it happen on my watch.

“We make the water, and the best thing about making the water here is that it’s clean,” Bailey continued. “The water comes from wilderness areas and there is nobody up above us that has dumped back [into the creeks] after industrial processes or anything like that. We get water coming through the geology, through the snowmelt, we are stewards of the water so we really keep track of everything above us and below us.”[...]

The water here is pumped in from Maroon and Castle creeks and begins its journey through the treatment facility and into Aspen taps. He noted that the city has water rights of 142 cubic feet per second (cfs) in Maroon Creek and about 90 cfs in Castle Creek, even though the streams only hit that level during spring runoff…

The purification process
The reservoir, which holds about 4 million gallons in the summer, is the first stop in the purifying process as sediment in the water begins to settle here.

“This is one of our processes,” Bailey said. “We basically bring the water in here and we slow it down. This helps so much during [peak] runoff … the dirt is tumbling, it’s coming in and all the sudden it settles out here and we’re able to draw off the surface and it’s much, much cleaner.”

He added that the water is usually at about one turbidity unit (TU) — the measurement of cloudiness caused by particulates — when it enters the reservoir. When it leaves it’s at .5 TU; during peak runoff it can be as dirty as 60 TU.

“We get reduction in here,” Bailey said. “That’s just a natural tumbling process, we slow it down and that stuff just falls out.”

The nutrient-rich sediment has to be periodically dug out, but it gets spread around the site making the soil perfect for plant growth.

To the north side of the reservoir lies the remnants of the old Maroon Creek flume that was used to divert water to the “tent city” in the late 1800s. As the group was looking down on the wooden channel one observer noticed a bear hanging out in a nearby tree, adding to the natural feel of the site.

The water next goes into large flocculation tanks — which look like UFOs — that, with the aid of chemicals, coagulate the particulates, churn them about and make the sediment again settle to the bottom.

After settling twice, the water makes its journey to a filtration section of the facility. Here, it’s pushed by gravity through a filter that consists of 18 inches of anthracite (coal) and a foot of sand. It next heads to the clear well for 14 to 15 hours to ensure all giardia is killed.

The state’s regulation allows for drinking water to reach one TU and still be acceptable to drink, but on this day Aspen’s drinking water was a pristine 0.037 TU.

More water treatment coverage here.


Residents want wild, scenic designation for Crystal River — Grand Junction Daily Sentinel

September 16, 2014

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

Some local residents think protection of the Crystal River south of Carbondale under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is the next logical step for sparing it from dams and diversions.

The effort will likely face political challenges, as was evidenced Monday by the reservations expressed about it by Dave Merritt, a board member of the Colorado River Water Conservation District. That district and the West Divide Water Conservancy District previously abandoned most water rights, including ones for large reservoirs, in the face of opposition including a legal challenge by Pitkin County.

Nevertheless, “We see the Crystal River still as an important water supply for western Colorado,” Merritt said during a Garfield County commissioners meeting.

He worries that a wild and scenic designation by Congress would permanently prevent not just further water development of the river but also other activities such as more home construction in the valley.

But Crystal Valley resident Bill Jochems said a dam would be a far more permanent action than wild and scenic designation, which occurs through an act of Congress and Congress could later undo.

“This act has great flexibility,” he said, adding that advocates have a “barebones” goal of preventing dam-building above where irrigation diversions already occur several miles south of Carbondale.

Advocates say the designation wouldn’t affect state or local land-use regulations.

In 2012, the Crystal made American Rivers’ annual America’s Most Endangered Rivers list. That was after the river district and the West Divide district had agreed to concessions that included giving up some conditional rights for two large reservoirs on the river while still envisioning smaller ones in the valley. The rights for the big reservoirs dated to 1958, and one would have required flooding the village of Redstone.

The U.S. Forest Service has found the river eligible for wild and scenic designation, based on the river’s free-flowing status, valley historical attractions such as the Redstone Castle and the former coke ovens in Redstone, the stunning beauty of the valley especially during fall-color season, and other historical, recreational and aesthetic attributes. The Forest Service now is in what Kay Hopkins of the White River National Forest said is the long process of determining whether the river is suitable for such a designation.

“It’s where all the hard questions are asked” about whether designation is best or there are some other ways to protect it, she said.

“It really is an outstanding river and what we’re doing is try to preserve it as it is today for future generations, and that’s what the act is all about,” she said.

More Crystal River coverage here and here.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,046 other followers

%d bloggers like this: