Evergreen
Shed a tear for Bear Creek. Better still, send a postcard.
This delightful little stream is in trouble. Has been for years. Whether anything can or will be done about it might depend a great deal upon what those who purport to love it have to say.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the sole governmental body to come to the creek’s aid, is conducting a public comment period relative to some form of safeguard.
Deadline for responding is June 20. Details later in this column.
At issue is a decline in water quality that threatens the ability to sustain trout in the dozen or so miles from Evergreen Lake downstream to Bear Creek Reservoir. The situation is most acute in the reach immediately below Evergreen, where super- heated water from the lake’s surface spills over the dam, raising summer temperature above the point tolerated by trout.
To the naked eye, nothing has changed much here since Evergreen Dam was built in 1928 to provide a recreational lake for Denver tourists – the same sparkling creek funneling snowmelt down from the broad flank of Mount Evans. But over the past few years, something drastic has occurred to push Bear Creek near the brink as a cold-water fishery.
“The margin of safety has been removed from this stream,” said John Haile, coordinator of a rescue initiative by Evergreen Trout Unlimited.
Haile believes the severe drought earlier this decade is at the root of the problem, along with recurring consequences related to waste treatment and sundry human abuse. Perhaps the aquifers that feed cool water into small spring seeps were depleted. Maybe the burden of humanity that seems to grow each year became too much.
Whatever the case, a small water course teetering on the edge got tipped the wrong way and needs help to recover.
That’s where this current EPA process comes into play, a posture that puts the federal agency at odds with the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. At risk of oversimplication, the facts are these:
The commission, responsible for setting the state’s water standards, in 2004 refused to recognize that Bear Creek had become impaired. The EPA examined the same evidence and begged to disagree, adding the creek to its list of Colorado’s troubled streams.
Then, during the next inspection cycle in 2006, the commission looked at new evidence for the same segment and again decided it could not rule Bear Creek to be impaired, though not as healthy as it might be.
“The EPA once again disagreed with that decision,” said George Parrish, who is directing the inquiry for the agency’s regional office based in Denver.
A critical determination is whether a stream that offers many miles of public access adjacent to a recreation-hungry metropolitan area can continue to support a viable trout population. Division of Wildlife samplings indicate a decline in trout numbers at key sites.
This current public comment period is part of the process by which the EPA will make its ultimate ruling. If it decides Bear Creek indeed is impaired, then the state must develop and execute a plan for remediation. The entire procedure could take a number of years.
aps may be submitted electronically to parrish.george@epa.gov. Mail should be addressed to George Parrish, Environmental Protection Agency, 999 18th St., Suite 300, Denver 80202.
Meanwhile, Trout Unlimited has opened new lines of dialogue with the Evergreen Metropolitan District, which manages wastewater in the region. An eventual solution might involve some form of siphon to pump lake water from a greater depth as a way to cool the creek.
But even more severe problems may be in store with the onset of summer’s heat. A badly depleted snowpack has squelched any hope for a meaningful runoff. On Monday, the flow at Morrison measured a shockingly low 14.2 cubic feet per second – about one-tenth of what might be expected during normal snow melt.
“The margin of safety for Bear Creek seems to have evaporated,” Haile said.
Whether it can be restored may depend on whether you send that postcard.
This story has been corrected in this online archive. Originally, due to a reporting error, it included a phone number for public comments. Comments can only be received by e-mail or by mail at the above addresses.
