Thursday, January 17, 2008

High-Flow Experiment Proposed to Improve Grand Canyon Resources Here's the lowdown on the program to simulate high stream flows in the Grand Canyon from the USGS. From the article: An experiment using high flows from Glen Canyon Dam to study and improve Colorado River resources in Grand Canyon National Park has been proposed by the Department of the Interior. The goal of the experiment is to better understand whether higher flows can be used to rebuild eroded beaches downstream of Glen Canyon Dam by moving sand accumulated in the riverbed onto sandbars. Grand Canyon sandbars provide habitat for wildlife, serve as camping beaches for recreationists, and supply sand needed to protect archaeological sites. High flows also create areas of low-velocity flow, or backwaters, used by young native fishes, particularly endangered humpback chub. The 2008 test would be different than previous high-flow tests conducted in 1996 and 2004. In particular, scientists have concluded that more sand is needed to rebuild sandbars throughout the 277-mile reach of Grand Canyon National Park than was available in 1996 or 2004. Currently, sand supplies in the river are at a 10-year high with a volume about three times greater than the volume available in 2004 due to tributary inflows below the dam over the past 16 months... The proposed experiment is dependent on the completion of environmental review processes required by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is in the process of preparing an environmental assessment of the proposed test. The environmental assessment is expected to be available for public review in early February 2008. This assessment evaluates the impact of the proposed test on a wide range of environmental and socioeconomic resources. A decision by the Department of the Interior is anticipated in late February 2008, with plans to conduct the high flow in early March 2008, if the decision is to move forward with the experiment. Reclamation logo The high-flow experiment and associated research activities, should they occur, will be undertaken cooperatively by scientists and resource managers from Interior's U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Reclamation, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service... One of the proposed studies will document habitat changes and determine how backwater habitats are used by young humpback chub and other native and nonnative fishes. Other studies will look at how higher flows affect the aquatic food base, rainbow trout recruitment and emigration, riparian vegetation, nonnative fishes and archaeological resources in close proximity to the Colorado River. During the proposed high-flow experiment, Reclamation will release water from both the powerplant and the bypass tubes to a maximum amount of approximately 41,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) for about 60 hours. If approved, current plans would call for the flows to begin increasing on March 4, 2008 with powerplant bypass flows to begin on March 5, 2008. If a decision is made to move ahead with the experiment, a final release schedule will then be announced. Since 1996, releases from Glen Canyon Dam have generally ranged between 8,000 and 20,000 cfs. The increase to 41,000 cfs will change river conditions as well as the availability of campsites. It is suggested that all river users be prepared for variable conditions, including higher river flows... "The water released during the test will not change the amount of water to be released over the course of the 2008 water year," said Larry Walkoviak, Regional Director of Reclamation's Upper Colorado Region. "The current plan of operations calls for releasing 8.23 million acre-feet of water from Glen Canyon Dam. That water flows downriver to Lake Mead for use by the Lower Colorado River Basin States and Mexico. The experimental flows are included within this annual volume. Monthly releases later in the year will be adjusted downward to account for the water released during the experiment." The USGS's Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center is responsible for monitoring and research activities in support of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, a Federal initiative designed to assist the Secretary of the Interior in protecting the resources downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. The program includes a wide range of stakeholders, including American Indian tribes, Colorado River Basin States, environmental and recreation groups, power customers and State and Federal cooperating agencies. The program, which helped guide the development of science activities for the experiment, is administered by Reclamation under the guidance of the Secretary of the Interior. Grand Canyon rafters, fisherman and other river users and hikers can call Grand Canyon National Park's River Permits Office at 1-800-959-9164 for additional information on how the high-flow event may affect their visit. Additional information is available at www.gcmrc.gov/research/high_flow/2008/. Category: Colorado Water 6:22:52 PM     Southern Delivery System From The Pueblo Chieftain, "Fremont County wants more information about the federal environmental impact statement for a Colorado Springs water pipeline before an official report is issued. Commissioner Mike Stiehl has asked the Bureau of Reclamation to brief the county on the draft EIS on Jan. 28, and Reclamation agreed. "If someone's going to write the book, I want to be able to talk to the person writing the book," Stiehl said Tuesday. More Coyote Gulch coverage here. Category: Colorado Water 7:37:10 AM     Rio Grande Water Conservation District board meeting Here's a recap of this week's meeting of the Rio Grande Water Conservation Board Meeting from The Valley Courier. From the article: The San Luis Valley's aquifer may be on the rise. "The good news is we did see a significant recovery last year," Allen Davey reported to the Rio Grande Water Conservation District board during its first meeting of the year. Davey serves as the water district's engineer. He said from the fall of 2006 to the fall of 2007 the unconfined aquifer experienced a recovery of more than 242,000 acre feet according to data collected from multiple monitoring wells in a longitudinal study area in the west central part of the San Luis Valley. "I think we would all hope we see a significant recovery this year," Davey added... Colorado Division of Water Resources Division III Division Engineer Michael Sullivan also had good news for the water district. He reported that the Rio Grande Basin currently ranks first in the state for snowpack at 158 percent of average for the Upper Rio Grande Basin. San Miguel, Dolores, Animas and San Juan River Basins are a close second at 153 percent of average followed by the Gunnison River Basin at 144 percent and Arkansas River Basin at 141 percent according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) SNOTEL snow water equivalent measurements for January 14. Other river basins in the state were standing at just above 100 percent of the average. While the Upper Rio Grande Basin was sitting at about 160 percent of average, the Sangre de Cristo Mountain Range Basins were showing an average of 145 percent of average, still higher than average but not as high as the San Juan Mountains. Category: Colorado Water 7:33:59 AM     John Singletary: We're all in this together...This is not the Fort Lyon Canal or Bessemer Ditch vs. Kansas Here's a recap of Wednesday's farmer demonstration against the proposed efficiency rules for the Arkansas River Valley from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article: More than 100 farmers packed a Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District meeting Wednesday, looking for a champion to help fight proposed state irrigation efficiency rules. "We came to see just exactly what you can do for us," said Don McBee, a Lamar-area farmer who organized the rally. The Lower Ark board pledged to do everything it could to help shape the rules, protest them if necessary and help with engineering to comply with the rules if they are adopted. As first steps, the district will write a letter to Gov. Bill Ritter and other key state officials outlining the concerns of the farmers, and Lower Ark President John Singletary will bring the concerns to the attention of State Engineer Dick Wolfe at a meeting today. Singletary said he hopes to resolve the question of the new efficiency rules before the irrigation season begins. "You can't put people out of business," he said... The proposed irrigation rules run counter to state law and ditch company by-laws that require farmers to put water to beneficial use, and they ignore the fact that sprinklers cannot be used during the colder months of the irrigation season, Mauch said. Mauch was joined by farmers from ditches throughout the valley, many of whom have already made improvements with the assistance of the federal government and others who would like to use farm water more efficiently. They were united in opposition to the rules, and presented their case to the Lower Ark board calmly but enthusiastically, braving cold temperatures and iffy road conditions to attend. "What (Witte) is saying at meetings is not what's happening on the ground," said McBee. "If it's not happening on the farm level, what good is it?" "The price is always being paid in the same spot," said Pueblo County Director Melissa Esquibel. She outlined a plan to frame legal and practical questions about the rules, including finding out why the state is initiating them. "We have to be proactive rather than reactive...We can make our efforts more bold and pronounced, if you want," Singletary said. Board members differed on how the problem needs to be approached. "I think we just need to fight all the rules through the whole process and not make any part of it effective," said Otero County Director Wayne Whittaker. Whittaker noted the Arkansas River at Granada drains 15 million acres, and to assert that any one farmer contributes greatly to depleting flows within that basin is "ridiculous." Bent County Director Lynden Gill said the state needs to identify specifically where the problem is, if it is indeed a real problem. Several farmers raised the question of whether the state is really on their side in dealing with Kansas. Matt Heimerich, a Crowley County commissioner and farmer, sits on the Arkansas River Compact Administration, and said Witte has been a tough negotiator in dealing with Kansas, and said the concerns about efficiency are real. "Kansas is concerned about sprinklers in the Lower Arkansas Valley," Heimerich said. "Steve Witte does not let Kansas push him around." More Coyote Gulch coverage here. Category: Colorado Water 7:25:21 AM     Purchasers to be required to register the purchase of water wells? From The Colorado Springs Gazette, "More than three-quarters of El Paso County residents who use well water for their homes are in violation of the law. That was what Rep. Marsha Looper, R-Calhan, told the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday when she introduced a bill that would require property buyers to inform the state when they had acquired a well. A 1995 law says anyone who buys land that includes a residential well must register the purchase with the Division of Water Resources or face a $2,500 fine. Looper's bill would require real estate agents and title companies to tell property buyers about the required paperwork, which doesn't cost a dime to file. 'The state just wants accurate records so we can notify people if there is a pending determination of water rights or a pending water quality issue,' Looper said." Category: Colorado Water 7:13:48 AM     Energy policy: Nuclear On Wednesday a bi-partisan legislative delegation introduced bills designed to protect aquifers in general and the Denver Basin Aquifer System in particular from Powertech's proposed uranium mine in Weld County, according to Loveland Reporter-Herald. From the article: Local lawmakers have listened to those concerns and, Wednesday, a panel of Democrats and Republicans from Northern Colorado introduced two bills to the Colorado General Assembly in hopes of safeguarding Colorado's water from uranium mining. Sen. Bob Bacon described the proposal as avoiding the irreversible and devastating "whoops." "Water is the lifeblood of our state," said John Kefalas, a state representative from Fort Collins. "It's a resource we must protect. The old laws are not adequate to protect from a toxic and radioactive threat looming over our water and mountains." The proposed legislation announced at the state Capitol does four main things: - Puts control of mining into the hands of local governments and not just federal officials. - Requires companies that apply for a permit to mine uranium through in situ leaching to prove through data from an outside source that it can be done safely. The company must give examples of five other mines that kept water safe during mining and returned it to the same quality after mining. - Allows the state Mined Land Reclamation Board to reject applications if members believe mining conflicts with domestic use. That provision, [Robin] Davis said, applies to her and her neighbors because they still need the water during the mining process -- a time she and Carroll say it is not safe to drink. - Removes secrecy from the prospective stage of mining. Residents could learn when and where companies are testing for future mines -- information that is not public in Colorado. Powertech Uranium Corp., the company that wants to mine uranium 10 miles northeast of Fort Collins, will have no problems meeting, and in many cases already is meeting, the proposed rules, said Haley McKean, who is with the company's public relations firm. Powertech's mining process, company officials say, is clean, and the water will be returned in as good condition as it was before the mining started... The processed water has higher levels of heavy metals, which can be dangerous for those who drink it and deadly for animals who eat grass irrigated with it, [Dr. Cory] Carroll said. The dangers could pass to people through dairy and beef, he said. "We're worried about the slow and the minor and the little changes that can occur and migrate," Carroll said on behalf of the Colorado Medical Society, which opposes the mine in rural Weld County. "We may not know (the consequences). We don't want to play with it." More coverage from The Fort Collins Coloradoan. They write: The new legislation would require uranium miners to prove they could return groundwater to pre-mining conditions. It would also lift the confidentiality clause of existing state law that doesn't require companies to disclose mine prospecting during exploratory phases. Water testing under the new law would be completed by a third-party contractor approved by the state - a shift from current state law, which requires the mining company itself to complete the testing. Responding to the criticism lobbed at the Canadian-based Powertech throughout the news conference, spokesman Pete Webb said, "Powertech Uranium is reserving comment on the proposed legislation until it is able to analyze the impact it might have on Powertech's proposed project, as well as how any change in the law may affect mining production overall in Colorado." Webb said the last time Colorado amended mining legislation in 1993, lawmakers sought input from the mining industry to study the environmental and economic impacts. He was disappointed the industry wasn't consulted about the legislation introduced Wednesday. Fort Collins Democratic Reps. Randy Fischer and John Kefalas, as well as Sens. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins, and Steve Johnson, R-Larimer County, are sponsoring the proposed legislation, calling it one of the most important issues facing Fort Collins and Northern Colorado. "We're on the verge of another mining boom," Fischer said. "As a result, (lawmakers) have a responsibility to take action to protect public health, private property and our scarce groundwater supplies that are (seeing) new risks posed by modern mining technologies. We are obligated to enact new 21st-century laws to meet the risks posed by 21st-century mining." Johnson said the legislation does not aim to take away the right of companies to mine their mineral rights in Colorado but does try to safeguard the process. "We're saying that mineral rights are a property right and you have a right to exercise that right, but just as all of us do with our property rights, we think you have to exercise that right responsibly," Johnson said. "And that means that you leave the environment in as good as shape when you're done with it as it was when you started. It's that simple." [ed. understatement of the year so far. ] The legislation has yet to be assigned to a House or Senate committee. Here's an opinion piece from The Fort Collins Coloradoan. From the article: This needs to be told again. Powertech was a boiler and water heater company a couple years ago. They have never done in-situ leach uranium mining. So inept are they that a local, prominent and accomplished well company was hired by Powertech to case their exploratory wells they have recently dug. The well company talked Powertech into this to keep them from contaminating the aquifer from the exploration alone! This same well company has drilled hundreds of wells in this area (including mine) and tells of how dynamic the aquifer is. I live one mile from ground zero and my recharge is 40 gallons per minute. Most of my neighbors have a similar recharge. There are a number of artesian springs in the area. For Powertech to claim the project will be totally contained is an out and out lie! Get the facts. There are a number of other in-situ uranium mining projects around the country that are being exposed as to the contamination they have caused. Is this a good thing for the beautiful Northern Colorado? Is this right for you? More coverage from The Denver Post. They write: Northern Colorado lawmakers from both parties joined forces Wednesday to back bills that would impose strict water-quality regulations on uranium-mining companies. One bill would essentially require mining companies, before they started drilling, to prove they could leave the groundwater they would use in the operation as clean as they found it. Another would affirm local governments' power to regulate water-quality and health standards. "This is not an effort to stop uranium mining in Colorado," said Rep. Randy Fischer, D-Fort Collins, a bill sponsor. "It's an effort to put protections in place before it gets started." Mining advocates said current regulations work well and that they were not consulted on the bills... Stuart Sanderson, president of the Colorado Mining Association, said the bills may "Balkanize" the regulation of mining in Colorado by giving local governments more control over the approval process and could affect a wide variety of mining industries. "We believe that the air- and water-quality provisions in existing law adequately account for any potential impacts on groundwater," he said... Jeff Parsons, an attorney with the Western Mining Action Project, said the process stirs up toxic metals and can leave water contaminated. "The threats are real that you have a continued contamination of the aquifer," Parsons said...The mining company, Powertech Inc., said in a news release that an in-situ operation in Weld County would be safe. Sanderson said in-situ mining will not affect drinking water. "You can't do in-situ mining in areas that meet drinking-water standards," he said. More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here. Category: 2008 Presidential Election 6:54:33 AM

© Copyright 2008 John Orr. Last update: 1/31/08; 9:18:05 AM.