DOCSLIB.ORG

Re-Evaluation of Western Slope Hydrologic

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Re-Evaluation of Western Slope Hydrologic July 31, 2015 Submitted via electronic mail To: John Hranac Water Quality Control Division 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80246 RE: Moffat Collection System/Gross Reservoir Expansion Project –401 Draft Certification Comments Dear Dear Mr. Hranac, The following white paper, submitted on behalf of TEG (The Environmental Group) and Save the Colorado, evaluates technical aspects of the FEIS that pertain both to the 404 permit and the 401 draft certification applications for the Moffat Collection System/Gross Reservoir Expansion Project proposed by Denver Water. Comments on the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts for the 404 permit, presented in Sections 3 and 4 below, pertain directly to comments provided in Section 5 on the 401 certification application and in Section 6 concerning proposed mitigation actions for both permit reviews. This paper discusses: The important concepts of firm yield, mean versus median statistics, and various baselines used in this discussion and the FEIS. How the current conditions baseline, modeled using the PACSM model and used to bound cumulative impacts analysis in the FEIS, is inflated by higher than measured average water demand and Moffat Tunnel diversions in the model. The resultant modeled stream flows are lower in the current conditions baseline than average stream flows measured at USGS streamflow gages on the mainstem of the Fraser and Williams Fork Rivers. An independent firm yield analysis which provides evidence that the historical baseline more accurately defines impacts of the proposed project. Stream flow depletions in the Fraser, Williams Fork, and Upper Colorado Rivers will be much greater than presented in the FEIS. How data collected under existing hydrological conditions do not represent the modeled current conditions baseline and so affect loading calculations and estimates of future concentrations, stream temperatures and health of aquatic eco-systems presented in the 401 draft certification application. How mitigation plans primarily provide money to the impacted upper basins but do not provide any details on how mitigation will assure that water quality and present use classifications in the Fraser, Williams Fork, and the Upper Colorado River basins will be protected. The state needs to take this analysis and these findings into account. Before making decisions on additional diversions and depletions, it needs to address and resolve the material issues raised in these and other comments. Current information, based on flawed PACSM and other models, does not support approval of the proposed Moffat Project. Approval or certification must be contingent on providing accurate data, baselines, and projections – to allow informed public comment and provide for an informed decision based on good science that complies with applicable legal standards. The State's review and decision must be guided by the Clean Water Act, the purpose of which was clearly stated by Congress in 1972: "The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." 33 U.S.C. 1251. The Act further provides that “it is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983[.]" Id. at 1251(a)(2). In 2015, neither the national nor interim goals are being attained for the West Slope streams impacted by the proposed Moffat Project, as established in the following Report. Certification cannot issue at this time. The analysis provided in the FEIS and the draft 401 certification is fatally flawed and must be redone in order to comply with the state's duty to implement the Clean Water Act and to comply with state law and stream classifications implementing the Act and otherwise addressing water quality. Existing information fails to establish that a permit would be consistent with CWA requirements, EPA-approved water quality standards, or applicable state law. Appendices attached to this report provide electronic copies of documents used in this analysis. Appendix E contains my resume to document my technical background. Two additional e-mails provide two attachments with electronic copies of Excel spreadsheets of data and references used in this analysis. Sincerely, Lisa Buchanan, Chris Garre, Gary Wockner, Scientist/Engineer The Environmental Group Save the Colorado -Evaluat West Sl olog Impact t M at R t u ing t l t- n Basel uly , Lisa R u hanan;S i ist/En in Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 Description of North and South Water Systems 8 1.1 North System Description 8 1.2 Typical Operations of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System in the Fraser River Basin 10 1.3 Colorado River 11 1.4 South System Description 12 2.0 Proposed Project 12 2.1 Purpose and Need Statement 12 2.2 Proposed Project Description 13 2.3 Pertinent Regulations 14 2.3.1 Water Quality Control Commission: Colorado Regulation 31, 33, and 93 14 2.3.2 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 16 3.0 Important Concepts 17 3.1 Firm Yield 17 3.2 Description of Various Baselines 18 3.3 Mean Versus Median Central Tendency Statistics 19 4.0 FEIS Under-states Impacts to Upper Colorado Basins 19 4.1 Impacts of Historical Transbasin Diversions Misrepresented in FEIS 19 4.2 Current Conditions Baseline Inflated 22 4.3 Independent Firm Yield Analysis Shows Project Purpose Not Achieved Under FEIS Full Use or Current Condition Baselines 24 4.4 Re-evaluation of Cumulative and Project Impacts to the Upper Colorado Basins 28 4.5 Inflated Current Conditions and Full Use Baselines Under- and Over-state Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Proposed Project 32 5.0 Application for State 401 Certification: Impacts on Water Quality Under-Estimated 37 5.1 401 Certification Evaluation Methods 38 5.2 Mitigation Plans 40 5.3 The Proposed Project is Not the Least Environmentally Damaging Project Alternative (LEDPA) 47 List of Tables Table 4-1: Fraser and Colorado River Historical Streamflow Depletions 22 Table 4-2: Incremental Increases in Transbasin Diversions through the Moffat and Roberts Tunnels Using the PACSM Model Scenarios and Historical Diversion Data 24 Table 4-3: Re-Evaluation of Cumulative and Project Impacts in the Upper Colorado Basins 29 Table 4-4: Total Impact of Historical post-Moffat and Proposed Project Diversions on Pre-Diversion Flows 31 Table 4-5: Number of Dry Years: Annual Flows Below 25th Percentile 34 Table 4-6: Comparison of Average Peak Flows : Modeled versus Historical Post Diversion Peak Flows 35 Appendix A: TEG Comments to the Moffat FFEIS 48 Appendix B: Table B-1: Treated and Non-Potable Water Delivered by Denver Water 2000-2014 48 Appendix C: Independent Firm Yield Analysis 48 Appendix D: Attachment Q of the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement 48 Appendix E: Resume of Lisa R Buchanan 48 LR Buchanan Consultant Page 1 Executive Summary State anti-degradation rules protect classified uses and water quality. Water quality is integrally linked to water quantity as are all other stream functions from hydraulic through biological functions in the hierarchy aptly described in the EPA guidance for mitigation of aquatic eco-systems. The only way that water quality and the classification, Aquatic Wildlife Cold Water Class 1, can be protected is to assure that sufficient stream flows remain in source streams. Here, there appears to be tension between state water law provisions that might allow diversions that exceed biological requirements to maintain functional aquatic ecosystems, and stream standards promulgated under state law and the federal Clean Water Act. The Moffat/Gross Reservoir project, or “proposed project,” would increase storage in Gross Reservoir by 72,000 acre-feet (AF) from the existing 41,800 AF capacity to a new, total storage capacity of 113,800 AF1. Additional storage would come primarily from increased diversions out of Denver Water’s western slope Moffat Collection system on the Fraser and Williams Fork river basins. Of particular concern is the quantity of additional diversions based on the size of the expanded reservoir. These new diversions would be over and above the existing 70 to 80 percent depletion of the Fraser River at Winter Park in the high flow late spring and early summer months of May, June, and July, months targeted for additional diversions in average and wet years. Yet, Section 5 of the FEIS repeatedly states that effects of the proposed project are insignificant because “impacts would occur before the proposed Action would be implemented,” (FEIS page 5-108) or “the Proposed Action is not anticipated to have any additional effect on stream [function] beyond the effects of Full Use of the Existing System”, FEIS page 5- 104 (See TEG Comments to FEIS page 85, Appendix A). This paper reviewed fully vetted public historical stream flow data at USGS gages in the western slope basins as well as diversion and reservoir levels collected by Denver Water, both accessed through the Colorado Decision Support System (cdss) database, to evaluate the analyses presented in the FEIS. The hydrologic evaluations, initially conducted for comment to the 404 permit, pertain directly to state 401 certification and protection of classified uses of the Fraser, Williams Fork, and upper Colorado Rivers. The FEIS under-states impacts to the upper Colorado source streams caused by past, present and proposed future transbasin diversions. I conclude that it appears some of the potential impacts may have been unacknowledged or misrepresented. As a result, the impacts analysis is inaccurate and the conclusions are misleading. First, the FEIS misrepresents impacts of past and present diversions by using calculated native flows, select time periods, annual instead of monthly flows, and averages instead of the more accurate median flows to describe the central tendency of historical stream flow data (Section 4.1 of this report).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dolores River Restoration Partnership: a Private/Public Collaboration Dolores River Restoration Partnership
    DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP: A PRIVATE/PUBLIC COLLABORATION DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP • TIMELINE OF PARTNERSHIP • VISION AND GOALS OF PARTNERSHIP • WHY HAS THE DRRP BEEN SUCH A SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP? • WHY THIS PARTNERSHIP HAS BEEN IMPORTANT TO THE BLM ORIGINS AND HISTORY OF DRRP • INITIAL RIPARIAN WORK ON SAN MIGUEL RIVER IN EARLY 2000’S – LED BY TNC, PRECURSOR TO THE DRRP. • 2009 – TNC AWARDED CONTRACT TO TAMARISK COALITION TO DEVELOP A STRATEGY FOR THE DOLORES RIVER (DR-RAP) • 2010 - DR-RAP FINALIZED • 2010 - FIRST MOU SIGNED • 2010 – FIRST BLM ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT • 2012 – AGO BLUE RIVERS DESIGNATION • 2015 – TRANSITION PLAN FINALIZED • 2015 – DOLORES RIVER HEALTHY LANDS FOCAL AREA • 2015 – SECOND MOU SIGNED • 2016 – SECOND BLM ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT DOLORES RIVER RESTORATION ACTION PLAN (DR-RAP) 1. IDENTIFIED A VISION: “A THRIVING DOLORES RIVER SYSTEM THAT IS ECOLOGICALLY, SOCIALLY, AND ECONOMICALLY SUSTAINABLE IN A MULTIUSE CONTEXT.” “A DOLORES RIVER WATERSHED DOMINATED BY NATIVE VEGETATION, WHERE THE THREATS FROM TAMARISK AND OTHER ASSOCIATED INVASIVE SPECIES HAVE BEEN MITIGATED AND THE RIPARIAN AREAS OF THE WATERSHED CONTINUE TO BECOME MORE NATURALLY FUNCTIONING, SELF-SUSTAINING, DIVERSE, AND RESILIENT OVER TIME.” DRRP MANAGEMENT GOALS Significantly increase the number of sustainable, healthy riparian plant Ecologic communities while reducing those dominated by tamarisk and other invasive, non-native plant species. Develop a professional, competitive, and efficient work force; improve Social aesthetic enjoyment;
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 12B-01. Mountainous Volcanic Region
    108°W 106°W F Ancestral ron t Rang LARIMER Uinta Sand Upl e ift Little Snake River Wash Ba North Platte River MOFFAT s Yampa River in JACKSON Park-Gore Range Axial ROUTT Ba s in Up li h ft rc as A ek e Dougl Cr White River GRAND 40°N Whi EXPLANATION RIO BLANCO 40°N te Ri Neogene Volcanics ver Upli Neogene Sediments ft Paleogene Volcanics Eagle River Blue River Paleocene-Cretaceous Intrusives Piceance Basin Roaring ForkCentral River Colorado TroughEAGLE Cretaceous Seaway Sediment GARFIELD Eagle River Sawatch Range Aquifers SUMMIT Mesozoic Sediment Aquifers Ancestral Rockies Basins Colorado River Precambrian Basement PITKIN Arkansas River East Muddy Creek Mountainous Region MESA LAKE PARK Unc Mountainous Valleys ompa ghre Up Colorado Plateaus Region lif DELTA t Laramide Basin Outlines Laramide Uplift Axis Uncompaghre Uplift G un Taylor River CHAFFEE nison Laramide Basin Axis GUNNISON Upl Ancestral Rockies Uplift Axis Uncompahgre River South Arkansas River ift Ancestral Rockies Basin Axis Paradox Basin FREMONT MONTROSE San Lui CUSTER s OURAY Up San Miguel River li ft 38°N SAN MIGUEL SAGUACHE 38°N Animas River HINSDALE DOLORES SAN JUAN Rio Grande MINERAL ag Dolores River n S West Dolores River ua J RIO GRANDE ALAMOSA e San MONTEZUMA n Dom Jua Archuleta Anticlinorium San Los Pinos River LA PLATA COSTILLA San Juan Piedra River Basin CONEJOS Tusas Uplift COSTILLA ARCHULETA COSTILLA 108°W 106°W 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Geology modified from Tweto (1979); structural features from Hemborg (1996). 0 10 20 30 40 50 Kilometers Figure 12b-01.
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River
    Volume 1 | Issue 2 | Summer 2015 Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River Inside this issue: With a fish exclusion barrier in place and a marked decline of catfish, the time was #TRENDINGNOW ................. 2 right for stocking Roundtail Chub into a remote eastern Arizona stream. New Initiative Launched for Southwest Native Trout.......... 2 On April 30, 2015, the Reclamation, and Marsh and Blue River. A total of 222 AZ 6-Species Conservation Department stocked 876 Associates LLC embarked on a Roundtail Chub were Agreement Renewal .............. 2 juvenile Roundtail Chub from mission to find, collect and stocked into the Blue River. IN THE FIELD ........................ 3 ARCC into the Blue River near bring into captivity some During annual monitoring, Recent and Upcoming AZGFD- the Juan Miller Crossing. Roundtail Chub for captive led Activities ........................... 3 five months later, Additional augmentation propagation from the nearest- Department staff captured Spikedace Stocked into Spring stockings to enhance the genetic neighbor population in Eagle Creek ..................................... 3 42 of the stocked chub, representation of the Blue River Creek. The Aquatic Research some of which had travelled BACK AT THE PONDS .......... 4 Roundtail Chub will be and Conservation Center as far as seven miles Native Fish Identification performed later this year. (ARCC) held and raised the upstream from the stocking Workshop at ARCC................ 4 offspring of those chub for Stockings will continue for the location. future stocking into the Blue next several years until that River. population is established in the Department biologists conducted annual Blue River and genetically In 2012, the partners delivered monitoring in subsequent mimics the wild source captive-raised juvenile years, capturing three chub population.
    [Show full text]
  • WATER USE Flow Regimes for In-Basin Water Users Are Reviewed
    Water Users and Recreation Appendix D WATER USE Flow regimes for in-basin water users are reviewed in this appendix. Water users include irrigators, municipalities and industry, and recreationalists. Flows include a wide range of parameters, affected by a wide range of uses and in some cases, such as recreation, may be somewhat subjective. The following sections include parameters, and approaches or methods to estimate these flow requirements. Much of the information presented herein was developed and presented in the Upper Colorado River Basin Study, Phase II, Final Report, May 29, (HRC 2003), herein referred to as the ‘UPCO Report’. WATER USE BY MUNICIPALITIES, INDUSTRY AND IRRIGATORS Water use as a parameter for this analysis and in terms of stream flow management focuses on two issues. The first is the physical limitations associated with stream flow that may affect the ability of a local water user to retrieve or use water. The second issue is the water user’s impact on flows in the stream relative to maintaining recommended flows. These issues are discussed in the following sections. Physical Limitations Irrigators: In general, most users are experiencing some difficulty in retrieving or using water, especially during the recent drought years. Many irrigators are constructing make-shift cobble dams to divert flows. In 2002 it was reported that the KB ditch was shut down voluntarily because the diversion was taking the majority of flows out of the Colorado River, leaving it in a dewatered condition. Pumping for irrigation is also limited by the available supply as well as by nuisance clogging from algae growth.
    [Show full text]
  • FIXING the UPPER COLORADO RIVER Paul Bruchez, Reeder
    FIXING THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER Paul Bruchez, Reeder Creek Ranch Mely Whiting, Colorado Counsel, Trout Unlimited Lurline Curran, former Grand County manager Grand County’s most famous tourist was President Dwight Eisenhower, who in the 1950s spent summer vacations snagging trout from the Fraser River. That river even then was significantly depleted by diversion to Denver. Nearby, at Grand Lake, the Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) had begun a massive withdrawal of water from the Colorado River. Later, in the 1980s, came another major disruption to the local water-dependent ecosystems, a dam on the Colorado River near Windy Gap, where it is joined by the Fraser. It all adds up to what rancher and fishing guide Paul Bruchez described as death by a thousand cuts. The full extent of the problems became apparent in the 2002 drought and its aftermath. In old days, before all the diversions began, ranchers in the Kremmling area had just relied upon springtime snowmelt flooding by the river to deliver water to their hay fields. Because of the C-BT diversions, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation had installed pumps along the river, to ensure ranchers could get water into the fields. As river flows receded in the 21st century, those pumps had become inadequate even as Denver Water and Northern Water (beneficiary of the C-BT) pushed long-standing plans for further diversions. The net result: 80 percent of native flows in the Colorado River would be diverted across the Continental Divide. This could have gotten ugly, but Grand County instead chose a different approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Source Water Protection Plan Grand County, Colorado
    TOWN OF FRASER RESOLUTION 2018-05-03 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FRASER RIVER PARTNERSHIP SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PLAN WHEREAS, A Source Water Protection Plan identifies a Source Water Protection Area (SWPA), lists potential contaminant sources, and outlines best management practices (BMPs) to reduce risks to the water source. WHEREAS, The Fraser River Source Water Protection Partnership (FRSWPP) was established to provide a framework for public water systems in the Fraser River Valley to collaborate on the protection of their drinking water sources from all potential sources of contamination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO THAT: The Town Board hereby adopts the attached Fraser River Partnership Source Water Protection Plan. DULY MOVED, SECONDED AND ADOPTED THIS 2ND DAY OF MAY 2018. Votes in favor: ___ BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE Votes opposed: ___ TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO Abstained: ___ Absent: ___ BY: Mayor ATTEST: (S E A L) Town Clerk Fraser River Source Water Protection Partnership Source Water Protection Plan Grand County, Colorado June 28, 2017 Written by: Ryan Lokteff Fraser River Source Water Protection Partnership Fraser River Source Water Protection Partnership Source Water Protection Plan Contents WATER SYSTEM CONTACT LIST ..................................................................................................................... 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Stakeholders Finalize Management Plan for Upper Colorado River
    News Release BLM Colorado, Colorado River Valley Field Office, Kremmling Field Office U.S. Forest Service, White River National Forest July 20, 2020 Contacts: Roy Smith, Bureau of Land Management, (303) 239-3940 Kay Hopkins, White River National Forest (970) 945-3265 Stakeholders finalize management plan for Upper Colorado River GLENWOOD SPRINGS, Colo. – The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service have formally accepted the final plan from a group of Upper Colorado River stakeholders that seeks to protect recreational fishing- and boating-related values along the Upper Colorado River from Gore Canyon to lower Glenwood Canyon. The Upper Colorado River Wild and Scenic Stakeholder Group Management Plan represents more than twelve years of work by 26 entities with diverse interests on the Upper Colorado River, from municipal water providers to recreationists. “This diverse group, with seemingly different views for managing the Upper Colorado River, rolled up their sleeves and developed a plan that balances protection of the river with flexibility for water users. The work of this group serves as a model for other flow management efforts across the state,” said White River National Forest Supervisor, Scott Fitzwilliams. “The final plan addresses an arena where federal agencies have very limited authority,” said Larry Sandoval, Colorado River Valley Field Office Manager. “When our federal land management authorities are combined with this cooperative flow management effort, all of the important natural and social values in the river corridor are proactively managed.” In 2008, the stakeholder group formed as the BLM was revising its land use plans to include studies that determined which stretches of the Colorado River had specific values that make them “eligible” for protection under the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Classifications and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin and North Platte River
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. November 12, 2020 Regulation No. 33 - Classifications and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin and North Platte River Effective March 12, 2020 The following provisions are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes with these few exceptions: EPA has taken no action on: • All segment-specific total phosphorus (TP) numeric standards based on the interim value for river/stream segments with a cold water aquatic life classification (0.11 mg/L TP) or a warm water aquatic life classification (0.17 mg/L TP) • All segment-specific TP numeric standards based on the interim value for lake/reservoir segments with a warm water aquatic life classification (0.083 mg/L TP) Code of Colorado Regulations Secretary of State State of Colorado DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Water Quality Control Commission REGULATION NO. 33 - CLASSIFICATIONS AND NUMERIC STANDARDS FOR UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN AND NORTH PLATTE RIVER (PLANNING REGION 12) 5 CCR 1002-33 [Editor’s Notes follow the text of the rules at the end of this CCR Document.] 33.1 AUTHORITY These regulations are promulgated pursuant to section 25-8-101 et seq. C.R.S., as amended, and in particular, 25-8-203 and 25-8-204.
    [Show full text]
  • Report No. REC-ERC-90-L, “Compilation Report on the Effects
    REC-ERC-SO-1 January 1990 Denver Office U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation 7-2090 (4-81) Bureau of Reclamation TECHNICAL REEPORT STANDARD TITLE PAG 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG ~0. 5. REPORT DATE Compilation Report on the Effects January 1990 of Reservoir Releases on 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE Downstream Ecosystems D-3742 7. AUTHOR(S) 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION E. Cheslak REPORT NO. J. Carpenter REC-ERC-90-1 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Bureau of Reclamation Denver Office 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. Denver CO 80225 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS Same 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE DIBR 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Microfiche and/or hard copy available at the Denver Office, Denver, Colorado. Ed: RDM 16. ABSTRACT Most of the dams built by the Bureau of Reclamation were completed before environmental regulations such as the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Protection Act, or Toxic Substances Control Act existed. The management and operation of dams was instituted under conditions where the ecology of the downstream habitat was unknown and largely ignored. Changing or modifying structures, flow regimes, and land use patterns are some of the efforts being pursued by the Bureau to reconcile or mitigate the effects of impoundment to comply with these environmental policies and to maximize the potential for recreation, fisheries, and water quality in tailwater habitats for the water resource users. The purpose of this report is to provide a reference document intended to aid in the management, compliance, and problem solving processes necessary to accomplish these goals in Bureau tailwater habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Mountain Reservoir Substitution and Power Interference Agreements Final EA
    Green Mountain Reservoir Substitution and Power Interference Agreements Final EA Table of Contents Acronyms...................................................................................................................................... vi 1.0 Purpose and Need .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project Purpose and Need .................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Study Area........................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Background.......................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4.1 Prior Appropriation System .....................................................................1-2 1.4.2 Reclamation and Green Mountain Reservoir...........................................1-2 1.4.3 Western Area Power Administration.......................................................1-4 1.4.4 Springs Utilities’ Collection Systems and Customers .............................1-4 1.4.5 Blue River Decree....................................................................................1-7 1.4.6 Substitution Year Operations...................................................................1-8 1.4.7 Substitution Memorandums of Agreement............................................1-10
    [Show full text]
  • Blue River Watershed Water Efficiency Plan
    Cover Blue River Watershed Regional Water Efficiency Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 4 2 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. 3 3 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Why a water efficiency plan? ........................................................................................................ 5 3.2 The Planning Process .................................................................................................................... 5 3.3 Our Water Vision ........................................................................................................................... 6 4 Related Studies ..................................................................................................................................... 8 5 About the Blue River Watershed ........................................................................................................ 12 5.1 Climate ........................................................................................................................................ 13 5.2 Population ................................................................................................................................... 13 5.3
    [Show full text]
  • TROUT HABITAT FLOW ANALYSIS Reach Selection the Relationships
    Environmental Flows, Methods for Determination Appendix A TROUT HABITAT FLOW ANALYSIS Reach Selection The relationships between available trout habitat and streamflow were investigated during the 2007 field season in 11 of the 27 Grand County stream reaches using the PHABSIM (Physical Habitat Simulation) system (Bovee 1997; USGS 2001). The 11 reaches were selected for study based on several criteria, including streamflow magnitude, history of hydrologic alteration, location within the county’s river drainage network, relative importance for recreational and other water uses and, in most cases, the lack of previous detailed instream flow studies. These reaches and the study sites sampled are described in Table A1. Eight additional PHABSIM sites were selected and sampled in 2008 and in 2009 as described in Table A2 and A3. Table A1. Site Details for the 10 Reaches Selected for PHABSIM Surveys and Modeling in 2007 Streamflow (cfs) Location Site Dates Sampled Number of Transects High Medium Low Vasquez Ck F-VC 9 102 63 8 Jun 24 Jul 5 Jul 30 St Louis Ck F-StL 11 58 30 12 Jun 22 Jun 24 Aug 2 Fraser River F6 10 233 45 18 Jul 5 Jul 30 Oct 25 @ WWTP Fraser River @ Granby F9 11 219 75 52 Jul 2 Jul 31 Oct 25 Ranch Colorado R. @ Miller CR3 9 109 52 36 Jul 4 Aug 1 Oct 27 Ranch Colorado R. u/s K-B CR5 7 547 269 217 Jul 4 Aug 1 Oct 27 ditch Colorado R. d/s K-B CR6 8 518 267 191 Jul 3 Aug 1 Oct 27 ditch Colorado R.
    [Show full text]