On Nov. 10, The Board of County Commissioners met to review the Gunnison Regional Airport master plan’s forecasts and engagement processes and Colorado’s Instream Flow update.
The Gunnison Regional Airport master plan, presented by Project Manager Hilary Fletcher and Greg Atkin of Atkin Aviation Consulting, is a 20-year infrastructure roadmap intended to guide capital improvements and help Gunnison compete for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funding. It is not an air-service, marketing, or business plan. The team has completed its inventory of airport facilities and is assessing what improvements may be needed as activity grows.
The team’s forecasts covered based aircraft, airport operations, and passenger enplanements. This includes airfield storage, maintenance and repairs, snow removal, air traffic control, terminal development and parking, and more. Based aircraft are projected to grow about 2.5% annually over a 20 year period. Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS-B) data shows that operations are higher than previously estimated. Enplanements have nearly doubled in a decade, from about 34,000 in 2015 to nearly 69,000 in 2025, and are expected to reach roughly 78,000 this year. Growth may come in sudden jumps and larger aircraft could increase facility demands.
“There’s no predetermined outcome of the master plan,” said Fletcher. “We revise and keep the integrity of the process and let it take its shape as we go through it.”
Growth and larger, longer aircraft could put pressure on the airport’s ramp, gates, jet bridges, and parking. As of now, the airport typically has about two aircraft on the ground at once, but the forecast suggests that it could rise to four. Existing parking positions may not be usable for larger wingspans, and different aircraft can require careful ramp arrangements for boarding and baggage handling. The team will assess these needs as it develops facility alternatives, noting that airlines’ choices about aircraft and flight frequency will shape actual demand.
The team is in the investigative stage, gathering input through stakeholder focus groups, surveys, a public comment portal, and the project website where draft chapters and presentations are posted. They aim to respond to public comments within 24 hours of their submission. Next, they will incorporate feedback, complete the forecast submission to the FAA, and develop facility alternatives with a high-level environment review and gap analysis. The team plans public open houses in Gunnison and the upper valley in the late spring, then return with recommendations, a capital improvement plan, and financial information.
Their separate leakage study will examine passenger demand and travel patterns such as where travelers live and which airports they use, to identify potential markets for air service development. It is distinct from the master plan’s facilities forecast, and results are expected in January.
The work session moved into review of Colorado's Instream Flow (ISF) program and several proposed protections in Gunnison County.
Colorado’s Instream Flow Program, administered by Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), uses water rights to protect minimum streamflows and lake levels that support natural environments. The rights are generally junior to existing water rights, so they do not override senior users during shortages. New proposals must show that a natural environment exists, water is available, and existing rights will not be injured. This program accomplishes acquisitions, legal and physical protection, and new appropriations.
The process typically takes at least three years, with recommendations and data reviewed by CWCB staff, opportunities for public input, and board consideration before a proposal can proceed to water court. Staff may use stream-gage records, temporary gages, modeling, field measurements, and information from water commissioners, landowners, and ditch or reservoir operators.
Flow recommendations are developed by measuring streamflow and channel conditions in the field, often at riffles, which are shallow, fast-flowing sections where turbulent water ripples. Then, they use the R2Cross model, a standard hydraulic methodology and decision support tool, to estimate the flow needed to maintain habitat criteria such as water depth, velocity, and wetted perimeter. Recommenders may propose different flows for seasons with different habitat needs. CWCB staff then assess whether enough water is physically available using stream-gage records or temporary gages and modeling, and consider existing water rights and input from water users before bringing a recommendation to the board.
Western Resource Advocates (WRA), represented by Laura Belanger and Jay Skinner, proposed two seasonal ISF protections.
On the Taylor River, where an existing year-round right is 12 cubic feet per second (cfs), WRA recommended retaining 12 cfs in winter, increasing the summer flow to 20 cfs, and setting a 16 cfs fall flow to support trout spawning. The recommendation followed field measurements in a reach supporting brook and brown trout.
On Big Blue Creek, WRA proposed 1.3 cfs in winter and 9.2 cfs in summer to address gaps in existing instream flow protections. Because the basin has no historical gauge record and includes private diversions and storage rights, the CWCB installed a temporary gauge to collect data for its water-availability analysis.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), represented by Katie Birch, proposed protections for four tributaries in the Clear Fork of the Muddy River watershed, where they are working to establish a connected population of Colorado River cutthroat trout. Birch described maintaining a fish barrier, removing non-native trout, and restoring cutthroat in tributaries as part of that effort. The mainstem Clear Fork already has an instream-flow right, the tributaries do not.
“We’re really trying to secure a long-term protective measure,” said Birch. “In our mind, the best is an instream flow water right held by the CWCB.”
The recommended biological flow rates are 1.5 and 2.7 cfs for Rock Creek, 0.6 and 4 cfs for North Twin Creek, 0.6 and 3.4 cfs for South Twin Creek, and 1.2 and 2.7 cfs for Twin Creek. The base-flow amounts for North and South Twin were reduced to reflect physical water availability.
No formal decisions were made on these proposals during the meeting, though the commissioners voiced no concerns. Commissioner Jonathan Houck voiced that he thinks the goals of protection are worthwhile and he supports them.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here