DOCSLIB.ORG

Summary of Approved Tmdls in Colorado

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Summary of Approved Tmdls in Colorado Summary of TMDL Approvals in Colorado Number of 303(d)(1) TMDL’s approved: 293 APPROVED POINT SOURCE TMDLs Waterbody Name TMDL Parameter/ Section Section Point Source Approval Date Pollutant 303(d)(1) 303(d)(3) TMDL TMDL Ryan Gulch Zn X HP Company 11/12/96 (Trib to Big Loveland Thompson) CO0044300 COSPBT04 South Platte River TRC X Excel Corp. “ (Seg 2/ ammonia X Ft. Morgan L. S. Platte River) CO0044270 COSPLS02 Dry Creek Cr III X American Atlas #1 LTD “ (Seg 4/ Cr VI X CO0042447 L. Colorado River) COLCLC04 Wetlands Trib to Fecal Coli X Aspen Glen W & S District “ Roaring Fork River TRC X CO0044750 COUCRF03 Ammonia X Leyden Creek ammonia X Public Service Co. of Colorado; 12/03/96 (Seg 18a/Clear boron X Leyden Gas Storage Plant Creek/S. Platte) chloride X CO0001279 (Listed as "Barbara TRC X Gulch" on 1996 303(d) cyanide X list) fecal coli X fluoride X COSPCL18A nitrate X nitrite X sulfate X sulfide X antimony X arsenic X barium X beryllium X cadmium X chromium (tri) X chromium (hex) X copper X iron X lead X manganese X mercury X Leyden Creek cont. nickel X Public Service Co. of Colorado; 12/03/96 radium 226+228 X Leyden Gas Storage Plant selenium X CO0001279 silver X thallium X uranium X zinc X Cripple Creek* Mn X Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining 12/11/96 COARUA21 Cd X Company CO0024562 Cu X Pb X Zn X Hg X updated 08/28/00 Page 1 of 14 APPROVED POINT SOURCE TMDLs Waterbody Name TMDL Parameter/ Section Section Point Source Approval Date Pollutant 303(d)(1) 303(d)(3) TMDL TMDL South Platte River* fecal Coli X Lockheed Martin 12/11/96 COSPUS06L2 TRC X CO0001511 ammonia X Roxborough nitrite X Park As X (only fecal Cd X coli, ammonia, TRC, P) Cr(III) X CO0022942 Cr(VI) X CO0041645 Cu X CN X Fe X Pb X Mn X Hg X Ni X Se X Ag X Zn X phosphorus X Lightner Creek* fecal coli X Joe & Cheryl Amorelli 12/11/96 COSJAF14 TRC X CO0026468 ammonia X Clear Creek* ammonia X City of 12/11/96 COSPCL11 fecal coli X Idaho Springs TRC X CO0041068 Cu X Pb X Hg X Ag X Sand Creek* benzene X Chase Terminal Co. 12/11/96 COSPUS16 CO0043052 Conoco, Inc. South Platte CO0001147 River* Colorado Refining Co. COSPUS15 CO0001210 Phillips Pertroleum Co. CO0043362 Diamond Shamrock CO0043842 Chemical Sales Co. Wetlands Trib to fecal coli X Aspen Glen W&S 12/11/96 Roaring Fork River** TRC X District COUCRF03 ammonia X CO0044750 West Fork of Clear cadmium X Climax Molybdenum 02/03/97 Creek* manganese X CO0041467 (Seg. 7) zinc X COSPCL07 chromium VI X copper X Woods Creek* iron X (Seg. 5) lead X COSPCL05 mercury X nickel X silver X chromium III X uranium X TRC X updated 08/28/00 Page 2 of 14 APPROVED POINT SOURCE TMDLs Waterbody Name TMDL Parameter/ Section Section Point Source Approval Date Pollutant 303(d)(1) 303(d)(3) TMDL TMDL Troublesome Creek** cyanide X West Jefferson County Metro Dist. 02/03/97 (Seg. 5) TRC X CO0020915 ammonia X COSPBE05 arsenic X cadmium X chromium III X chromium VI X copper X iron X lead X manganese X mercury X nickel X selenium X silver X zinc X fecal coli X Bear Creek* fecal coli X Evergreen Metro Dist. 02/03/97 (Seg. 1a) TRC X CO0031429 ammonia X Kittredge San. and Water Dist. COSPBE01A mercury X CO0023841 arsenic X Genessee Water and San. Dist. cadmium X CO0022951 chromium III X West Jefferson County Metro Dist. chromium VI X CO0020915 copper X iron X lead X manganese X mercury X nickel X selenium X silver X zinc X cyanide X Arkansas River fecal coli X Salida 02/03/97 (Seg. 3) TRC X CO0040339 ammonia X COARUA03 cyanide X mercury X nickel X selenium X silver X zinc X South Platte River fecal coli X Sterling 02/03/97 (Seg. 1/ TRC X CO0026247 Lower S. Platte) cyanide X ammonia X COSPLS01 arsenic X cadmium X chromium III X chromium VI X copper X iron X lead X manganese X mercury X nickel X selenium X silver X zinc X Boulder Creek* manganese X Boulder 02/03/97 (Seg. 9) CO0024147 COSPBO09 updated 08/28/00 Page 3 of 14 APPROVED POINT SOURCE TMDLs Waterbody Name TMDL Parameter/ Section Section Point Source Approval Date Pollutant 303(d)(1) 303(d)(3) TMDL TMDL South Platte River fecal coli X Sterling 02/06/97 (Seg. 1/Lower S. TRC X CO0026247 Platte)* cyanide X ammonia X COSPLS01 mercury X nickel X selenium X silver X zinc X arsenic X cadmium X chromium III X chromium VI X copper X iron X lead X manganese X Arkansas River fecal coli X Salida 02/06/97 (Seg. 3) TRC X CO0040339 ammonia X COARUA03 cyanide X mercury X nickel X selenium X silver X zinc X arsenic X cadmium X chromium III X chromium VI X copper X iron X lead X Clear Creek* fecal coli X CDOT Eisenhower 04/02/97 (Seg. 1) TRC X Tunnel CO0026069 COSPCL01 ammonia X West Fork of Clear fecal coli X Town of Empire 04/02/97 Creek* TRC X WWTF CO0020575 (Seg. 5) ammonia X COSPCL05 Fountain Creek Chromium (TR) X Martin 05/06/97 (Seg. 2) Copper (PD) X Drake Power Iron(TR) X Plant COARFO02 Iron (PD) X CO0000850 Zinc (PD) X TRC X Turkey Creek* TRC X Tiny Town 05/06/97 (Seg. 5) ammonia X CO0036129 COSPUS05 fecal coli X updated 08/28/00 Page 4 of 14 APPROVED POINT SOURCE TMDLs Waterbody Name TMDL Parameter/ Section Section Point Source Approval Date Pollutant 303(d)(1) 303(d)(3) TMDL TMDL Unnamed Tributary of Arsenic(TR) X Bradley Environmental Services 05/06/97 Coal Creek Cadmium(PD) X CO0045039 (Seg. 15 and 16) Chrom. III(TR) X Chrom.VI (Total) X COSPUS16 Copper(PD) X Iron(TR) X Lead(PD) X Manganese(TR) X Mercury(Total) X Selenium(PD) X Zinc(PD) X Benzene X Trichloroethene X Tetrachloroethene X Naphthalene X Nitrate X Nitrite X Sulfate X Fish Creek* Iron (TR) X Seneca Coal Company 06/02/97 (Seg. 13b of Yampa CO0000221 River) COUCYA13B Little Thompson* TRC X Town of Johnstown 06/02/97 (Seg. 9 of Big ammonia X CO0021156 Thompson) fecal coli X COSPBT09 Cripple Creek* (Seg. Cadmium X Cresson Project (Cripple Creek & 07/31/97 21 of Upper Arkansas Copper X Victor Gold Mining Co) Sub-basin of Arkansas Iron X CO0045225 River) Lead X COARUA21 Zinc X Cherry Creek* Fecal Coliform X City of Glendale WWTF 07/31/97 (Segment 3, Cherry TRC X CO0020095 Creek Sub-basin of Total Ammonia X the South Platte) Cyanide (WAD) X Total Mercury X COSPCH03 Arsenic X Cadmium X Chromium (tri) X Chromium (hex) X Copper X Iron X Lead X Manganese X Nickel X Selenium X Silver X Zinc X Lake Fork of the TRC X Lake City WWTF 07/31/97 Gunnison River* Fecal Coliform X CO0040673 (Segment 30 of the Total Ammonia X Upper Gunnison River Sub-basin of the Gunnison and Lower Dolores River Basins) COGUUG30 updated 08/28/00 Page 5 of 14 APPROVED POINT SOURCE TMDLs Waterbody Name TMDL Parameter/ Section Section Point Source Approval Date Pollutant 303(d)(1) 303(d)(3) TMDL TMDL Monument Creek TRC X Tri-Lakes 07/31/97 (Segment 6 of Ammonia X WWTF Fountain Creek Sub- Fecal Coliform X CO0020435 basin of the Arkansas Cyanide(WAD) X River Basin) Arsenic X COARFO06 & 7 Cadmium X Chromium (tri) X Chromium (hex) X Copper X Iron X Lead X Manganese X Mercury X Nickel X Selenium X Silver X Zinc X Clear Creek* TRC X Denver Water-Moffat Water 08/20/97 (Seg. 15); Lena Gulch Treatment Plant (Seg. 16); S. Boulder CO0020524 Diversion Conduit (Seg. 17) of Clear Creek Sub-basin COSPCL15,16 & 17 Crystal River* (Seg. 8 TRC X Redstone Water and Sanitation 08/20/97 or Roaring Fork) ammonia X District COUCRF08 fecal coli X CO0023922 Tenmile Creek* Ammonia X Climax Mine 09/30/97 (Seg. 13, Blue River Boron (Total) X (Outfall 001) Subbasin, Upper TRC X CO0000248 Colorado River Basin) Free Cyanide X Nitrite X COUCBL13 Sulfide X Arsenic (PD) X Cadmium (PD) X Chromium +3 X Chromium +6 X Copper (PD) X Iron (TR) X Lead (PD) X Manganese (TR) X Mercury (Total) X Nickel (PD) X Selenium (PD) X Silver (PD) X Zinc (PD) X Michigan River (Seg 5, Fecal Coliform X City of Walden WWTF 09/30/97 of North Platte Basin) TRC X CO0020788 COUCNP05 Total Ammonia X Clear Creek*, TRC X Georgetown WWTF 09/30/97 (Segment 2 of Clear Fecal Coliform X CO0027961 Creek Sub-Basin of S. Total Ammonia X Platte River Basin) COSPCL02 Coon Trail Creek* Cadmium (PD) X Hendricks Mining Co.; 09/30/97 (Segment 3; Boulder Copper (PD) X Cross and Caribou Mines Creek) Lead (PD) X CO0032751 COSPBO03 Mercury (total) X Silver (PD) X Zinc (PD) X South Platte River* Ammonia X Sterling WWTF 09/30/97 (Segment 1) CO0026247 COSPLS01 updated 08/28/00 Page 6 of 14 APPROVED POINT SOURCE TMDLs Waterbody Name TMDL Parameter/ Section Section Point Source Approval Date Pollutant 303(d)(1) 303(d)(3) TMDL TMDL Alamosa River* Arsenic X Miser Mine 11/05/97 (Segment 3b of Cadmium X CO0045101 Alamosa River/La Jara Trivalent Cr X Creek/Conejos River Hexavalent Cr X sub-basin of the Rio Lead X Grande River Basin) Manganese X Total Mercury X CORGRG03B Nickel X Silver X South Platte* (Seg.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FINAL Bear Creek Watershed Assessment
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pike and San Isabel National Forests, Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands Pikes Peak Ranger District FINAL Bear Creek Watershed Assessment August 2013 DRAFT Bear Creek Watershed Assessment Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Regulatory Basis ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Step 1: Setting Up the Analysis .................................................................................................................... 5 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Scope and Scale ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Analysis Plan ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Interdisciplinary Team Members .............................................................................................................. 7 Information Sources .................................................................................................................................. 8 Step 2: Describing the Situation.................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Watershed Plan Is Born
    Keywords: watershed plan, water quality A Watershed Plan is Born Contact Information: Rachel Hansgen. Groundwork Denver Setting [email protected] The Lower Bear Creek is an 8.2 mile stretch of creek that 303-455-5600 flows through the City of Lakewood in Jefferson County, the City and County of Denver, and the City of Sheridan in Karl Hermann. EPA Region 8 Arapahoe County. Land uses around the Creek include low [email protected] and high-density residential areas, open spaces, and 303-312-6084 business developments. Lucia Machado. Colorado Department of Lower Bear Creek is a place where residents can recreate, Public Health and Environment host family gatherings, and enjoy the outdoors. The Creek [email protected] 303-692-3585 begins as a trickle on top of Mount Evans which is Denver’s nearest 14,000ft peak. The creek travels through forests, Alan Ragins. National Parks Service unaffected by urban pollution until it reaches the suburbs Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance west of Denver. Here the water quality of Bear Creek [email protected] changes dramatically. 303-969-2855 In 2010 the Lower Bear Creek, between Kipling About the Organization: Parkway and the Groundwork Denver was created in confluence with the response to a feasibility study that found South Platte River, was while much of the City of Denver is known listed as impaired by the for its parks and well-maintained Colorado Department of streetscapes, there are neighborhoods without the resources to develop this level Public Health and of infrastructure. The mission of Environment (CDPHE) Groundwork Denver is to bring about the because of elevated sustained improvement of the physical levels of the bacterium environment and promote health and well Escherichia coli (E.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Colorado's 303(D) List of Impaired Waters
    COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 5 CCR 1002-93 REGULATION #93 COLORADO'S SECTION 303(D) LIST OF IMPAIRED WATERS AND MONITORING AND EVALUATION LIST 93.1 Authority These regulations are promulgated pursuant to section 25-8-101 et seq C.R.S. as amended, and in particular, 25-8-202 (1) (a), (b), (i), (2) and (6); 25-8-203 and 25-8-204. 93.2 Purpose This regulation establishes Colorado’s Lists of Impaired Waters. These waters include Water- Quality-Limited Segments Requiring Total Maximum Daily Loads (“TMDLs”), impaired waters that do not require a TMDL, and Colorado’s Monitoring and Evaluation List: (1) The list of Water-Quality-Limited Segments Requiring TMDLs fulfills requirements of section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act which requires that states submit to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a list of those waters for which technology-based effluent limitations and other required controls are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards. These segments are included in Section 93.3 with parameters included in the Clean Water Section 303(d) Impairment column. (2) Colorado’s Monitoring and Evaluation List identifies water bodies where there is reason to suspect water quality problems, but there is also uncertainty regarding one or more factors, such as the representative nature of the data. Water bodies that are impaired, but it is unclear whether the cause of impairment is attributable to pollutants as opposed to pollution, are also placed on the Monitoring and Evaluation List. This Monitoring and Evaluation list is a state-only document that is not subject to EPA approval.
    [Show full text]
  • Pursuant to C.R.S., §37-92-302 , As Amended, You Are Notified That the Following Pages Comprise a Resume of the Applications An
    PURSUANT TO C.R.S., §37-92-302 , AS AMENDED, YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE FOLLOWING PAGES COMPRISE A RESUME OF THE APPLICATIONS AND AMENDED APPLICATIONS FILED WITH THE WATER CLERK FOR WATER DIVISION 5 DURING THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2000. 1. 00CW138 1. Grand County Water & Sanitation District No. 1, c/o Bruce Hutchins, P.O. Box 3077, Winter Park, CO 80482, (970)726-5583. 2. Stanley W. Cazier, Baker, Cazier and McGowan, P.O. Box 500, Granby, CO, 80446, (970)887-3376. 3. Grand County Water and Sanitation District No. 1 Reservoir. 4. APPLICATION FOR FINDING OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE. 5. Fraser River. 6. Location: NE1/4SW1/4 of Section 28, T1S, R75W of the 6th P.M. The initial point of survey is located at a point on the North line of said NE1/4SW1/4, 200 feet East of the Northwest corner of said NE1/4SW1/4. 7. Domestic and municipal. 8. Reservoir. 9. 8 acre-feet. 10. The Reservoir is constructed, but the Districts has not applied the water to beneficial use. Additionally, the Applicant has engaged in those activities described on attached Exhibit A in pursuing putting this water right to beneficial use. 11. The application contains a detailed outline of the work performed during the diligence period. (4 pages) 2. 00CW139 GARFIELD COUNTY – THREE MILE CREEK, ROARING FORK RIVER. Anthony and Sandra Threinen; P.O. Box 1213; Eagle, CO 81631 970-328-6885. Sue’s Spring – Application for Water Rights (Surface). Location: the point of diversion is located in the SE¼SW¼ Sec. 20, T.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish and Drought DON't MIX
    February 12, 2019 Drought and Fish: https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ Overview of CPW’s 2018 Aquatic Experiences David Graf and Lori M. Martin, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Grand Junction State of CO Policy and CPW Mission • It is the policy of the state of Colorado that the wildlife and their environment are to be protected, preserved, enhanced, and managed for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people of the state and its visitors. C.R.S. 33-1-101 (1) • Our mission is to perpetuate the wildlife resources of the state, to provide a quality state parks system, and to provide enjoyable and sustainable outdoor recreation opportunities that educate and inspire current and future generations to serve as active stewards of Colorado's natural resources. CPW Regions NW Aquatics Team Areas of Responsibility Dave Graf - NW Region Water Specialist NW REGIONBill Atkinson AQUATIC BIOLOGISTS Tory Eyre Jon Ewert Jenn Logan Lori Martin - NW Senior Aquatic Biologist Kendall Bakich Ben Felt U.S. Drought Monitor for Colorado, 2018 Jan. 23, 2018 Feb. 20, 2018 Mar. 20, 2018 Apr. 24, 2018 May 22, 2018 June 21, 2018 July 24, 2018 Aug. 21, 2018 Sep. 18, 2018 Oct. 23, 2018 Nov. 20, 2018 Dec. 18, 2018 https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ Drought and Fish (Toward a better understanding of freshwater fish responses to an increasingly drought-stricken world; Lennox et al. 2019 Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries) • How does drought affect fish habitat? • What are drought refuges for fishes? • How does drought influence fisheries? • What is drought tolerance in fishes? • What kills fish during drought? • What is the nature of species succession in drought-stricken waters? • What are the long-term consequences of drought to fishes? • How does climate change affect drought-fish interactions? River Continuum Concept (Vannote et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Philanthropic Advisor Packet
    COLORADO WATER TRUST Driven by a mission to restore flow to Colorado’s rivers in need The Colorado River runs through the heart of my family ranch near Kremmling, where I live and work and which supports our family ranch and fly-fishing business. The river is my family’s livelihood, just as it is for thousands of ranchers and farmers, and recreation business owners on other rivers across the state. Colorado Water Trust helps our rivers and water users find solutions, and for this reason, they are some of the most effective river stewards in our state. Paul Bruchez, Board Member of Colorado Water Trust 3264 Larimer Street, Suite D | Denver, Colorado 80205 720.570.2897 | www.coloradowatertrust.org Dear Philanthropic Advisor, Thank you for taking the time to learn about Colorado Water Trust. Here’s what you should know: WHO WE ARE Colorado Water Trust works within Colorado’s complex system of water rights, to maintain the integrity of our rivers and streams. We pay fair market value for water while offering voluntary solutions for water users to contribute some of their water to rivers in need, all the while protecting their water rights from injury. Our Board of Directors is comprised of a diverse group of accomplished water professionals including ranchers, water attorneys, water engineers, municipal representatives, and more. We are all committed to preserving Colorado’s way of life, as well as our environment. WHY IT’S IMPORTANT These are challenging times for Colorado’s rivers and the local economies that depend on them. With increasing population and demands on rivers, and the reduction in flows due to climate change, more of our rivers and streams are being stressed.
    [Show full text]
  • C O L O R a D O Colorado Water
    C O L O R A D O Colorado Water Conservation Board Department of Natural Resources DIRECTOR’S REPORT May 2020 Interstate Compact Compliance • Watershed Protection • Flood Planning & Mitigation • Stream & Lake Protection Water Project Loans & Grants • Water Modeling • Conservation & Drought Planning • Water Supply Planning STATE OF COLORADO TO: Colorado Water Conservation Board Members FROM: Rebecca Mitchell Alana Holdren DATE: May 20-21, 2020 SUBJECT: Agenda Item 5d, May 2020 CWCB Board Meeting Director’s Report ~TABLE OF CONTENTS~ Pg. 3 – STATEWIDE CWCB Small Feasibility Grant Fund Update Pg. 3 – COLORADO RIVER BASIN Colorado River Water Use Pg. 4 – COLORADO RIVER BASIN Demand Management Update Pg. 5- GUNNISON RIVER BASIN Recently Decreed ISF Water Rights On Coal Creek Pg. 5- ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN Recently Decreed ISF Water Rights On Bonnett Creek Recently Decreed ISF Water Rights On Stout Creek Pg. 6- WATER CONSERVATION AND DROUGHT PLANNING UPDATES CWCB Water Efficiency Grant Fund Program (WEGF) Update Pg. 8- WATERSHED AND FLOOD UPDATES Community Assistance Program/NFIP Coordinator Pg. 9 – WATERSHED AND FLOOD UPDATES 1 Community Assistance Program/NFIP Coordinator Flood Section Welcomes New Staff Member, Part Deux Pg. 10- WATERSHED AND FLOOD UPDATES Risk MAP Project Updates by Major Water Basin Pg. 15 – AGENCY UPDATES 2020 Legislation Involving The Instream Flow Program And Other Water-Related Matters Pg. 17 – INSTREAM FLOW ATTACHMENTS Instream Flow and Natural Lake Level Program Summary of Resolved Opposition Cases Pg. 17 - LOAN PROGRAM ATTACHMENTS 01- Water Project Loan Program Interest Rates 02- Prequalified Project List and Loan Prospect Summary 03 -Design and Construction Status Report 04- Loan Repayment Delinquency Report 2 ~STATEWIDE~ CWCB SMALL FEASIBILITY STUDY GRANT FUND UPDATE: New grant applications approved: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado 2 East 14Th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203
    Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch’s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association’s homepage at http://www.cobar.org. ADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE July 1, 2019 2019 CO 68 No. 16SA291, City & Cty. of Denver v. Consol. Ditches of Water Dist. No. 2—Water Law—Priorities—Exchange and Substitution Operations. Under a 1940 water use agreement, Denver agreed, in lieu of making releases from certain streambed reservoirs to replace seepage and evaporation losses, not to reuse or successively use return flows from water imported from the western slope. Earlier litigation established that this reuse prohibition in the 1940 agreement applies only to return flows derived from decreed water rights from Colorado River sources with appropriation dates before May 1, 1940; Denver may therefore use return flows derived from sources that were appropriated or acquired after that date. The question in this appeal is whether the 1940 agreement prohibits Denver from using return flows from water imported from the Blue River system under exchange and substitution operations decreed in 1955 and administered under a 1946 priority date using water stored in the Williams Fork Reservoir under a 1935 priority as a substitute supply. Because the water imported through the Roberts Tunnel under Blue River exchange and substitution operations is a source acquired by Denver after May 1, 1940, the supreme court concludes that the resulting return flows are not subject to the 1940 Agreement and Denver may reuse and successively use them.
    [Show full text]