Stakeholders in Strand bridge kerfuffle looking at big picture

Bridge likely to be removed before the snow flies

By Mark Reaman

The foot and bike bridge that was placed over the canal at the base of Strand Hill in 2019—and then removed by a neighboring rancher last year and then replaced this spring—will be removed again, probably within the next two weeks.

The issue came to a boil again at last week’s Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District (UGRWCD) board meeting when the board expressed displeasure with the issue after hearing from the local ranchers who own the water in the canal as they complained about the impacts of the bridge on the canal.

The parties involved in the bridge kerfuffle want to make clear the issue is not one of recreationists versus ranching, but rather about getting the issue solved in a manner comfortable to everyone involved. While the idea of the bridge is a small matter unto itself, the issue of cooperation and maintaining good relationships that will be needed in the future to deal with similar problems remains paramount for the stakeholders.

“Sometimes the best step forward is to take a step backward,” explained Gunnison Forest Service district ranger Matt McCombs. “It seems that that CBMBA [Crested Butte Mountain Bike Association] took some heat at the UGRWCD meeting last week over this, but ultimately it was my responsibility. It is a Forest Service project on Forest Service property and CBMBA was a facilitator. The communication should have been better and that is on me. So now we need to figure out how to move this forward and maintain the relationships that are so important in this valley.”

McCombs said he would be proposing that Forest Service remove the bridge before the snow flies and store it for the winter. He then wants to use winter to figure out a plan that the stakeholders can implement this spring.

“We have to figure out a solution that people can live with,” he said. “These types of issues, whether it is the bridge or something like increased use of e-bikes, are going to keep coming and present challenges. We need to go after the issues and not each other.”

UGRWCD general manager Sonja Chavez indicated that ranchers Michele Veltri and Bill Trampe expressed dissatisfaction to her and board member Stacy McPhail with both where the bridge was installed and how it was constructed.

She said they conveyed that it had narrowed the ditch width, causing irrigation water to back-up in the system resulting in a concerning cliffside bank leak. Fearing that the canal would blow out, they were not able to take their full water right this year. They also said the bridge location and channel narrowing prohibits them from moving equipment up and down the channel to properly maintain the canal upstream of the bridge.

Chavez agreed that fixing the problems and keeping relationships intact were priorities. “This is not an ag versus rec issue,” she said. “We want to protect all water users and those who recreate around water. It is still a good project but we just need to do it right. My board feels the need to be part of the solution.”

The UGRWCD had contributed $3,475 to CBMBA as a grant to help fund the project. When hearing about the leak and other issues associated with the bridge, they decided to raise the issue at its board meeting. Chavez said their first priority this fall was to work with the Forest Service to address the leak in the embankment in order to ensure that there would not be an issue with water delivery next spring. Then she said they would be working with the Forest Service and other parties to find an alternative that meets all user needs, including potentially relocating the bridge closer to the historical crossing.

It was at that crossing that some hikers apparently would place rocks or logs in the canal and use them as stepping stones to keep their feet dry. But that impedes water flow, causes water levels to rise and overtop the canal and ranchers to lose some of their water as a result.

Hence, the idea for the bridge that hasn’t yet worked out.

“We’ll get this right but it will take better communication, better public education and probably more resources,” said Chavez.

CBMBA executive director Dave Ochs said the CBMBA board would listen to any solution offered and would have no issue moving ahead to make it better for the ranchers and the recreationists. He said the issue with placing a bridge at the historical crossing is that it will probably have to be a longer, more complex bridge that entails more public process and a longer timeline to get completed.

“We thought we had it figured out and everyone on board this year,” Ochs said. “Apparently that wasn’t the case. We too want to preserve the long-term relationships that will be needed to deal with larger issues in the future.”

McCombs reiterated the importance of maintaining those relationships. “We all want to solve the original problem of people putting rocks in the canal that impeded the water,” he said. “That’s the thing to stay focused on in this particular case. Ranchers brought up legitimate concerns after the bridge went in so we’ll take it out and think about how to move ahead in the spring.

“This may seem a small issue but it is an indicator of the importance of good relationships and good communication,” McCombs continued. “Communication and personalities are part of the process. There will be a lot of things we have to face together as more people come here to recreate and come into conflict with some of the traditional uses on this land. I hope CBMBA and the Upper Gunnison realize there is room to work together going forward. These types of issues will be at the forefront coming up and this is one of the symbiotic relationships across the landscape we need to protect.”

So McCombs said he plans to talk to the local stakeholders in the coming weeks, and begin the process of removing the bridge while the weather remains nice. “It was very clear to me we need to take a step back. We as the Forest Service could have done a better job of communicating. CBMBA was trying to help solve a problem by implementing the solution we decided. This was a Forest Service issue and still is. We’ll take a breath and keep figuring it out.”