|
|
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
|
|
| |
From the USGS: "Nearly 40 percent of fish species in North American streams, rivers and lakes are now in jeopardy, according to the most detailed evaluation of the conservation status of freshwater fishes in the last 20 years. The 700 fishes now listed represent a staggering 92 percent increase over the 364 listed as 'imperiled' in the previous 1989 study published by the American Fisheries Society. Researchers classified each of the 700 fishes listed as either vulnerable (230), threatened (190), or endangered (280). In addition, 61 fishes are presumed extinct. The new report, published in Fisheries, was conducted by a U.S. Geological Survey-led team of scientists from the United States, Canada and Mexico, who examined the status of continental freshwater and diadromous (those that migrate between rivers and oceans) fish. 'Freshwater fish have continued to decline since the late 1970s, with the primary causes being habitat loss, dwindling range and introduction of non-native species,' said Mark Myers, director of the USGS. 'In addition, climate change may further affect these fish.'"
Update: More coverage from Rocky Mountain Water Issues. They mention the Upper Colorado Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the reservoir expansion at Elkhead Reservoir that stores federal water to augment stream flows. They write:
With only 1% of Earth's water available as freshwater, management of this key resource is paramount if both human water needs are to be met and native species are to be preserved. Examples such as Elkhead reservoir demonstrate that both human requirements for water can be satisfied while benefiting the health of the natural ecosystem. The necessity is however for preventative action, forward planning, and open negotiation, before any more fish species become extinct.
Numerous Humpback Chub were seen doing backflips the day the work was finished in 2007.
Category: Colorado Water
6:37:26 PM 
|
|
Here's an update on efforts to use aerial spraying to control tamarisk in Montezuma County, from The Cortez Journal. From the article:
A helicopter crew sprayed a herbicide called Habitat over 200 acres west of Cortez in an attempt to lessen Montezuma County's tamarisk troubles. The spraying was part of a plan from the Dolores Tamarisk Action Group through which more than 80 landowners were contacted to see if their property could be treated against the invasive plant. "We had 99 percent of positive feedback from the private property landowners," said Jodi Downs, district manager for the Dolores Soil Conservation District.
For the past five years, the Dolores Tamarisk Action Group and the soil conservation district have received grant funding from various government and local groups for the tamarisk removal project. The project has extended through Montezuma County, with 80 percent of the spray covering private lands and 20 percent covering public lands. Downs said the project is using a "top down"' approach, starting at headwaters of local reservoirs to eliminate seed sources. "This spray was the phase one and two aerial spray for the Upper McElmo watershed," Downs said. "We chose to spray this area due to inaccessibility of the area (on foot), the large amount of invasive tamarisk and the low use of ag and farm land in the area."[...]
Treatments won't eradicate tamarisk, Downs said. "But we can definitely control it," she said.
Dolores Tamarisk Action Group isn't the only organization with projects aimed at eliminating tamarisk. Tom Kelley, with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in Dolores, is the acting noxious weed coordinator and had more than 200 acres of public land sprayed with the Olathe Spray Service last week. "We were looking to get an aerial spray over some of the more remote portions of the Canyon of the Ancients," Kelly said. Drainage areas treated in Canyons of the Ancients National Monument are hard to access but can provide a source for tamarisk to distribute its seed into other tributaries, Kelley said. "Tamarisk is spread by seed, through air, wind and water," he said. "It's so prolific through river corridors of the West." Different approaches are being taken to reduce tamarisk's impact on the local riparian, or river bank, habitat, including an introduction of tamarisk leaf beetles, which can decimate the plant in a few years...
According to Downs, the Dolores Tamarisk Action Group and the local Colorado State University Extension office offer a cost-share of chemicals to treat tamarisk for private landowners. She said recent landowner participation was important to the project.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:24:44 AM
|
|
From The Fort Morgan Times: "The city's Water Advisory Board is juggling several issues as it works to ensure a dependable supply of water for the city's future. One of many steps toward that goal is the creation of a new water development policy, which the water board discussed at its monthly meeting Thursday. The water development policy essentially dictates that anyone who constructs new homes or commercial buildings in the city must purchase water to supply that building. Since the city recently adopted a new rate structure for water use, city officials have been working on the new policy governing how new construction will be asessed for access to city water."
From The Pagosa Daily Post: "The San Juan Water Conservancy District gave a new look at some impact fee 'talking points' at last week's special meeting, apparently with the intention of questioning some of the assumptions implied during discussions at recent Community Economic Roundtable meetings. The talking points concerned a Roundtable proposal coming from Archuleta County Commissioner Bob Moomaw, who has been urging local government entities to cooperate on an update to a two-year-old impact fee study -- a study which one of the local water districts, Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District, essentially rejected when it came out in 2006. The study had been done by consultants Economic and Planning Systems (EPS) on behalf of the Town, County, Fire District, School District, and SJWCD."
From The Pagosa Daily Post: "For a few months it was standing room only in the meeting room at the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District. Lately, the room has been more than half empty. Half of that more-than-half-emptiness is owing to decisive action taken by the PAWSD board to dramatically reduce impact fees for half the future construction market: commercial, lodging, multifamily and affordable housing. Half of that emptiness is due to the full realization by local builders and realtors that the water districts are going to do nothing decisive about impact fees for single family residential construction during this construction season. Arguments against $70,000 fees for small restaurants are easy to make. Arguments for and against the residential fee schedule recently adopted are much more complicated. Meeting fatigue has also set in for many."
Category: Colorado Water
6:01:10 AM
|
|
Here's a look at today's Colorado Supreme Court hearing on Summit County's cyanide heap leaching ban, from The Valley Courier. They write:
The case revolves around a 2004 lawsuit by the Colorado Mining Association against Summit County regarding that county's open pit cyanide mining ban but its outcome could affect similar bans in effect in Conejos and Costilla Counties as well as future actions regarding mining proposals in the Valley. The Colorado Mining Association will argue before the state supreme court today that the state government should have sole authority over the placement of open-pit cyanide gold mines while Summit County legal counsel will argue that local governments should retain that control. The Colorado Court of Appeals earlier sided with the county, and the mining association chose to take the matter one step further to the state supreme court. Jeff Parsons, senior attorney with Western Mining Action Project, said throughout the West and in Colorado the courts have generally upheld counties' local control, "and that's what we hope to affirm and preserve here in Colorado." If the Colorado Supreme Court rules in favor of the Colorado Mining Association, the decision would overturn decades of solid precedence favoring local control, Parsons said. He said, "This is a precedent-setting case. This case will likely determine the extent of local government land use authority over mining operations in the state." He added that a win by the Colorado Mining Association in this case would affect all mining throughout the state, not just cyanide mining. "An adverse decision in this case could strip local government of authority over all mining in the state."
[San Luis Valley resident Dr. Colin Henderson] explained that Costilla, Conejos, Gunnison, Gilpin and Summit Counties enacted prohibitions to open pit cyanide gold mining to protect their water and other natural resources from the kind of damages already brought on by such San Luis Valley mines as Summitville and Battle Mountain Gold. Conejos County Commissioner John Sandoval pointed to the negative downstream effects from the Summitville mine. "It has done so much to harm our local ecosystem, our wild rivers, the reservoirs in the area." He added, "It's killed fish for miles and miles and miles." He said, "All that water that is coming down from there is being used to irrigate the Valley floor. That raises concerns for the safety of the crops grown with that water and the livestock and humans watered from that source, he said. Sandoval said the water contamination has not been entirely repaired although millions of dollars have been spent to do so, but it is better...
Gary Lindstrom, who was a Summit County commissioner at the time of the open pit cyanide ban and subsequent lawsuit, said Summit County has a huge mining history and has never been opposed to mining but does not want mining that will destroy the environment that draws visitors to Summit County. "The best government is local government," he added. "The further government gets away from the people, the less effective government is."
More coverage from The Summit Daily News. From the article:
A local ban on cyanide heap-leach mining will take center stage at the Colorado Supreme Court Tuesday. The seven-judge panel will listen to oral arguments in a case that has been wending through the courts since 2005. The case is set to be heard at 9 a.m. Mining companies can profitably glean gold by drizzling a diluted cyanide solution over piles low-grade ore, but cyanide is toxic to humans and dangerous to wildlife, especially aquatic species. Summit County wants to prohibit the process because of its environmental pitfalls. Backers of the ban say the open-pit process is too risky, with the potential for pollution to reach streams and lakes. The mining industry claims it can minimize risks by using the latest containment technology. A ruling isn't expected for a few months, said Summit County attorney Jeff Huntley. The case is being closely watched statewide for its potentially far-reaching effects. Colorado Counties Inc. filed a brief in support of Summit County's ban. Other counties could pass similar rules if the Supreme Court validates Summit County's regulations.
The mining industry claims the county rules encroach on state authority.
"We're trying to uphold state law against an effort to balkanize the regulation of mining," said Colorado Mining Association president Stuart
Sanderson. The Summit County prohibition would impose a pre-emptive ban on a practice that is lawful and fully regulated by the state, he said...
Summit County enacted the ban in 2004 as part of a wider mining regulation update. The Colorado Mining Association won its initial challenge to the regulations in Summit County District Court in 2005, arguing that state law adequately regulates mining. The Colorado Court of Appeals overturned that decision in 2007, upholding Summit County's ban. The appeals court ruling pointed out that a 1993 amendment to state mining laws specifically requires mining operators to "comply with city, town, county, or city and county land use regulations." The mining industry argued that counties can't ban activities in which the state has a compelling interest, but the appeals court said Summit County's regulations fall "far short" of a complete ban...
Parsons said state lawmakers are also watching the issue carefully. The Colorado Legislature considered a law last year that would spell out local control over mining practices. But when the Supreme Court decided to hear the Summit County case, the proposed law was put on hold. "They wanted to wait for the ruling," Parsons said. Parsons said he anticipates a "fierce reaction" from lawmakers if the Summit County regulations are overturned. "It's a water protection and a local economy issue," Parsons said, explaining that tourism-reliant counties like Summit can't afford the pollution risks associated with cyanide heap-leach mining...
Sanderson said the local regs are a threat to mining in general and a possible first step to more restrictions. Sanderson said his group's challenge to the cyanide ban was not aimed at questioning Summit County's land use authority, but narrowly at the ban itself. Parsons said several small gold mines have started up operations since the Summit County ban was adopted, showing that the rules don't aim to block mining in general.
The mining industry touts modern safeguards against mining accidents, but
environmental activists insist that cyanide heap leach mining remains very
risky. As recently as July 2007, a big rainstorm in Costa Rica led to
concerns about potential water pollution at a cyanide heap-leach operation
run by a Canadian mining company. Mudslides resulted in damage to the
heap-leach pads used to contain ore on the site.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here and here.
Category: Colorado Water
5:53:59 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2008
John Orr.
Last update:
10/1/08; 6:34:54 AM.
|
|
|
