Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Telluride Daily Planet - Local news <br /> <br />Page 2 of2 <br /> <br />The San Miguel is celebrated as a relatively intact river which means all <br />riverine systems are present and performing reasonably well. An <br />impressive body of work is currently in process or in place to protect, <br />restore or enhance some aspect of the health of this sy;stem. Examples <br />include the Idarado Mine clean-up, UMETCO Mine c~ean-up, Telski <br />wetland restoration, Down Valley Park (riparian enhll!lcement), BLM <br />designation as Area of Critical Environmental Concern and Area of <br />Special Management for Recreation, Town of Telluride urban run-off <br />management and river restoration, The Nature Conservancy Preserves, <br />education and outreach programs such as Living Classrooms and <br />Telluride Institute's Greenbucks program, San Miguel County's <br />watershed protection legislation and the San Miguel River Ranger and <br />Leave No Trace efforts ... to name a few off the top of my head. <br /> <br />Filing for instream flow is the most efficient way to protect the above <br />listed "investments." ' <br /> <br />This is the deal. The Bureau ofLand Management (Qennis Murphy) in <br />conjunction with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (Jay Skinner) spent <br />three years developing the science on these particulati recommendations <br />for our particular location. (Do you have any idea hoW hard it is to get <br />real information about our particular place?) These recommendations are <br />"outside the box" - the lingo is "phabsim." Don't you love that word: p- <br />hab-sim, or physical habitat simulation. Rest assured it ain't no sister to <br />R2Cross. "R2Cross" is the CWCB's tried and true method upon which <br />instream flow decisions are made. My point is, this stuffis designed to <br />bore you to death on a lovely early summer's eve. Do not fall for it. The <br />absolute destiny ofthe San Miguel River is at stake. ~ome to this <br />meeting. There may be three years of excellent scien~e behind these <br />recommendations, but it could" go down" on three letters of opposition, <br />those letters being one from Montrose County, one from Town of <br />Norwood, and one from Southwestern Conservancy District. <br /> <br />I am confident that this proposal will (1) benefit Moi).trose County and <br />(2) will not hurt Norwood. I don't know why the So~thwest Conservancy <br />District is concerned, but my guess is it has to do wifu the San Miguel <br />Project, a 40-year-old proposal that in its latest form!proposes to divert <br />200 cfs out ofthe Fall Creek drainage. Will diverting 200 cfs out of Fall <br />Creek affect Fall Creek and the main stem of the San Miguel? Yes. Will <br />the proposed instream flow recommendation affect t)1e 40-year San <br />Miguel Project proposal? No, not if their water right~ are as old as their <br />proposal. <br /> <br />Much has been accomplished on the San Miguel in ~e last 15 years. But <br />without instream flow protection, there is no way we can maintain the <br />status quo. If you can't attend, please express your s\lpport by submitting <br />a letter to: Colorado Water Conservation Board, attn: Dan Merriman or <br />Mark Uppendahl, 1313 Sherman Street, Room 721, Denver, CO 80203. <br /> <br />http://www.telluridegateway.comlarchive/200 1_ archive/Q6060 1 dp.html <br />; <br /> <br />07/10/2001 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br />