Aspinall Unit update: 350 cfs in Black Canyon

October 22, 2014
Blue Mesa Reservoir

Blue Mesa Reservoir

From email from Reclamation (Erik Knight):

Releases from Crystal Dam will be decreased from 1150 cfs to 1050 cfs on Wednesday, October 22nd at 10:00 AM. The Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association will be decreasing diversions to the Gunnison Tunnel Wednesday morning. Flows in the lower Gunnison River are currently above the baseflow target of 1050 cfs. River flows are expected to stay above the October baseflow target for the foreseeable future.

Pursuant to the Aspinall Unit Operations Record of Decision (ROD), the baseflow target in the lower Gunnison River, as measured at the Whitewater gage, is 1050 cfs for September through December.

Currently, diversions into the Gunnison Tunnel are around 800 cfs and flows in the Gunnison River through the Black Canyon are around 350 cfs. After this release change Gunnison Tunnel diversions will be around 700 cfs and flows in the Gunnison River through the Black Canyon will still be around 350 cfs. Current flow information is obtained from provisional data that may undergo revision subsequent to review.

More Aspinall Unit coverage here.


Arkansas Valley Conduit update

October 22, 2014
Preferred route for the Arkansas Valley Conduit via Reclamation

Preferred route for the Arkansas Valley Conduit via Reclamation

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

A regional water conservation plan already is opening doors for participants in the Arkansas Valley Conduit. The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District has worked with the communities to develop strategies to improve water systems in advance of the conduit’s construction. Benefits include measuring how water is used, plugging leaks and managing pressure.

“The need is the infrastructure, and that’s what we’re trying to focus on,” said Jean Van Pelt, project coordinator for the Southeastern district. “When the conduit is completed, we don’t want it to connect to aging systems with leaking pipes.”

The conduit will take clean drinking water 130 miles from Pueblo Dam to Lamar and Eads. Along the way, 40 small communities are expected to tap into the line to bring water to 50,000 people. The $400 million project is at least a decade away from completion.

The district also is seeking a master contract for storage in Lake Pueblo for conduit participants and other water users in the Southeastern district.

One of the requirements placed on the communities by the Bureau of Reclamation is to ensure that water is not wasted, so conservation plans are needed.

“We went out and interviewed all of the conduit participants and we are in the process of integrating the master contract participants as well,” Van Pelt said.

Large utilities have more resources to employ strategies like rate structures, leak detection, metering, system audits and consumer education.

The Southeastern district also offers a tool box on its website where communities can pick and choose from ideas for reducing water waste in their systems.

The regional conservation plan also gives a leg up to private water companies seeking grants to improve their water supply, which require both conservation plans and governmental structure to administer the grant.

“The plan needs to be in place,” Van Pelt said.

The conservation plan and tool box have been under development since 2011 at a cost of $50,000-$60,000 per year using grants from Reclamation and the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

More Arkansas Valley Conduit coverage here.


“If I have 24 hours of floodwater on the Colorado Canal, I’m going to take it. I need it” — Matt Heimerich

October 20, 2014
Fountain Creek Watershed

Fountain Creek Watershed

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

A district formed to improve Fountain Creek last week made an appeal for those with water rights to get involved in the early stages of a study to build flood control structures.

“Water rights protection is something we should do before we get into any other aspect of flood control on Fountain Creek,” Larry Small, executive director of the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District told ditch company board members Friday.

Small spoke during the annual meeting of the winter water storage program, bringing experts in to talk about the issue of public safety vs. water rights.

“We’re not working in a vacuum,” said Mark Pifher, who represents the Arkansas River basin on the state Water Quality Control Commission.

Denver’s regional Urban Drainage Authority and the city of Aspen have raised questions with the Colorado Division of Water Resources over how floodwater detention rules work in the state, Pifher explained.

State Engineer Dick Wolfe has adopted policies that say that single-site developments can hold water for 72 hours, but that regional floodwater control projects must augment any water detained with equivalent releases under a substitute water supply plan. That same principle was applied to Fountain Creek when the city of Pueblo built a detention pond behind the North Side Walmart as part of a demonstration project. The city learned it needed an augmentation plan after the project was well underway. Urban Drainage and Aspen officials are not pleased with the policy and are looking at potential state legislation to force a change in that policy, Pifher said.

Short of a blanket change that would allow the 72-hour rule to apply, the Fountain Creek district wants to study whose rights would be affected by holding back a large flood.

A study by the U.S.

Geological Survey completed last year provided solid numbers about how much water dams or detention ponds would hold back at certain points on Fountain Creek. That in turn can be applied to the flows at the Avondale gauge on the Arkansas River, which is upstream from every major ditch except the Bessemer below Pueblo Dam.

Flood stage

After Pueblo Dam went into operation 40 years ago, it was determined that flood stage at Avondale was 6,000 cubic feet per second. Floods upstream of Pueblo Dam are contained by curtailing releases to that level.

The last time flood control protection from that type of event was in 1999. Flows on Fountain Creek are measured and Pueblo Dam can be cut back to prevent that flooding from affecting Avondale as well, said Bill Tyner, assistant division engineer.

“You can have those huge flashy flows on Fountain Creek and find ways to cut back at Pueblo Dam to protect downstream communities,” Tyner said.

Reservoirs on Fountain Creek would have to perform differently, because there would not be Bureau of Reclamation staff on hand to open or shut release gates, he said.

Quenching all thirst

Several storm events that occurred in the past four years caused the Avondale gauge to top 6,000 cfs for several hours.

“Those spot events did not satisfy everyone’s needs downstream,” Tyner said.

That doesn’t matter if you’re a farmer.

“If I have 24 hours of floodwater on the Colorado Canal, I’m going to take it. I need it,” said Matt Heimerich of Crowley County.

“Those floods are the only way we get water in storage,” said Donny Hansen, president of the Holbrook Canal.

The direct rights downstream from Avondale and above John Martin Reservoir can be met with about 4,115 cfs, but storage rights on the canals total 3,631 cfs, he explained. Water rights below John Martin require another 1,534 cfs to be met.

So, all water rights below Avondale on the Arkansas River total about 9,282 cfs.

The 6,000 cfs at Avondale might be enough to satisfy all those rights, since the return flows of one ditch are reused downstream, a factor of about 1.5 times, he said.

But the envisioned dams on Fountain Creek are aimed at stopping monster 100-year floods — the type where heavy rain falls for several days. In the USGS study, a large dam or series of dams upstream of the Fountain Creek confluence would cut in half the peak flow of a 100-year flood — 44,000 cfs, or five times the amount of water needed to fulfill all downstream water rights.

The 100-year flood flow at Avondale, coincidentally, is 44,000 cfs, according to the USGS.

Moving ahead

The Fountain Creek district is not the only agency working at flood control in the Pueblo area. The Pueblo Conservancy District, in the headlines recently for its plan to rebuild the Arkansas River levee through Pueblo, also is responsible for the flood plain from Pueblo to the Otero County line.

“The high flows on Fountain Creek are a source of erosion that affects the land in our district down below,” said Bud O’Hara, a retired water engineer who is on the Pueblo Conservancy District board.

O’Hara showed graphs that point out about a dozen smaller events this year that created the potential for minor erosion events.

Farmers, on the other hand, generally like the erosion on Fountain Creek because it is part of the process that carries sediment downstream to help seal ditches. Many still grumble about the “clear water” that resulted from the construction of Pueblo Dam. In effect, it meant the erosive properties of the river were transferred downstream as more erosion occurred within ditch systems.

Abby Ortega, an engineer for Colorado Springs Utilities working with the Fountain Creek district, asked the farmers to provide suggestions for consultants to study the issue.

“We’re looking at how to build structures and not injure water rights,” she said. “We’re asking for your input.”

“I think the model we should use is the irrigation efficiency rules that was hosted by Dick Wolfe,” Heimerich responded. In that process, farmers and others affected by proposed rules guiding ditch improvements met for 18 months and were able to give immediate feedback. “It’s just too important not to do it right.”

More Fountain Creek coverage here.


Lower Fryingpan River “relatively healthy” — Roaring Fork Conservancy

October 16, 2014

Didymosphenia

Didymosphenia


From The Aspen Times (Scott Condon):

The lower Fryingpan River ecosystem is relatively healthy even though an algae with the notorious nickname “rock snot” has taken hold, according to preliminary results of a study commissioned by the Roaring Fork Conservancy.

Muck from the stream bottom was scooped up from three sites last fall to get a count of macroinvertebrates — bugs that can’t leave the river. An analysis over the winter showed the numbers were in line with results from a similar study in 2003, according to Heather Tattersall Lewin, watershed action director for the nonprofit organization.

“That was good for us to see,” she told the Basalt Town Council on Tuesday night in a briefing about the preliminary results. Macroinvertebrates provide food for the fish in the river.

Populations of the American dipper bird, an important indicator species for river health, were also promising, according to Tattersall Lewin. A consultant found 28 mating pairs and observed that 23 of them were successful in producing young.

Constant monitoring of water temperatures since October 2013 also didn’t produce any red flags…

The Roaring Fork Conservancy’s study didn’t produce all good news. Rock snot, formally known as Didymosphenia geminate and often called Didymo, appears here to stay.

The conservancy hired students from Colorado Mountain College in Leadville to monitor the river periodically for rock snot. They searched for the specific algae in the spring and after peak runoff at 20 sites. They found the coverage was in fewer places after runoff and that it wasn’t as dense in places where it was still found, Tattersall Lewin said.

The CMC students will search for the algae again this weekend to see if it surged back after the lower flows of summer.

Tattersall Lewin said rock snot isn’t your typical, slippery algae. It grows in clumps in a consistency she compared to coarse toilet paper. It appears to collect more easily on the flat, angular rocks of the Fryingpan than the rounded cobble of the Roaring Fork River, she said.

The effects of rock snot on the ecosystem aren’t certain. International studies show Didymo is proliferating even in the healthiest streams, according to Tattersall Lewin. Studies are examining whether the growth is related to climate change.

Rick Lofaro, the conservancy’s executive director, said two management policies by the reclamation bureau, which controls water flows from the dam, appear capable of reducing rock snot. First, maintaining a higher minimum flow during winters and dry times could avoid the buildup. Second, high, sustained water releases during spring runoff would help flush the river and benefit it in numerous ways. The rock snot would disintegrate.

More Fryingpan River watershed coverage here.


Reclamation Releases the Final Environmental Assessment for Two Salinity Control Projects

October 15, 2014

Uncompahgre River Valley looking south

Uncompahgre River Valley looking south


Here’s the release from the US Bureau of Reclamation (Terry Stroh/Justyn Hock):

Reclamation announced today that it has released a final environmental assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for two proposed salinity control projects. The documents assessed and addressed the potential effects of the Bostwick Park Water Conservancy District’s Siphon Lateral Salinity Control Project in Montrose County, Colorado and the Forked Tongue/Holman Ditch Company’s Salinity Control Project located in Delta County, Colorado.

The Bostwick Park Project will pipe 1.76 miles of existing earthen ditch and will result in an annual reduction of 413 tons of salt contributions to the Colorado River. The Forked Tongue/Holman Ditch Project will pipe 1.89 miles of existing earthen ditch and will result in an annual reduction of 412 tons of salt contributions to the Colorado River. The purpose of both projects is to improve the efficiency of water delivery to canal users and reduce salinity loading in the Colorado River Basin.


Aspinall Unit update: 350 cfs in Black Canyon

October 14, 2014
Aspinall Unit

Aspinall Unit

From email from Reclamation (Erik Knight):

Releases from Crystal Dam will be decreased from 1250 cfs to 1150 cfs on Wednesday, October 15th at 8:00 AM. Releases are being decreased to time with the brown trout spawn. Flows in the lower Gunnison River are currently above the baseflow target of 1050 cfs. River flows have remained relatively high due to the September rains and flows are expected to stay above the October baseflow target for the foreseeable future.

Pursuant to the Aspinall Unit Operations Record of Decision (ROD), the baseflow target in the lower Gunnison River, as measured at the Whitewater gage, is 1050 cfs for September through December.

Currently, diversions into the Gunnison Tunnel are around 800 cfs and flows in the Gunnison River through the Black Canyon are around 450 cfs. After this release change Gunnison Tunnel diversions will still be around 800 cfs and flows in the Gunnison River through the Black Canyon will be around 350 cfs. Current flow information is obtained from provisional data that may undergo revision subsequent to review.


Reclamation: Check it out! Two Reclamation employees perform a rope inspection of Granby Spillway #ColoradoRiver

October 12, 2014


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,047 other followers

%d bloggers like this: