Energy policy — hydroelectric: The Pitkin County Healthy Rivers Fund board is ponying up $15,000 for mediation around Aspen’s proposed hydroelectric plan

From the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (Aaron Hedge):

The board wants to bring in independent contractors to find a middle ground between the city and a number of Pitkin County residents who have voiced concerns that the project will have deleterious effects on Castle and Maroon creeks, where flows would be reduced to feed the hydropower plant…

Ruthie Brown, chairwoman of the Healthy Rivers and Streams Board, said the mediation will bring in a “whole crew of experts in the field.” She declined Tuesday to talk in further detail about the personnel involved in the initiative because the board is still negotiating with contractors. “In three or four days, we will have a lot more information that we can go public with,” she said.

A county memo regarding the $15,000 expenditure says the “review process would be in conjunction with valley nonprofits and other public citizen boards.” The memo also indicates the expenditure will allow an independent review of the hydrology and other information the city has used regarding the project’s impacts on Castle and Maroon creeks.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Energy policy — hydroelectric: The Aspen City Council has put off the decision about the Castle Creek hydroelectric plant until October 12

From The Aspen Times (Aaron Hedge):

The decision to extend the conversation comes after the city received a significant amount of feedback from residents who live along the stream saying the project will have disastrous effects on the ecosystem there…

Mayor Mick Ireland decided to postpone the vote after the City Council visited the site of the proposed hydropower building on Thursday. “There’s several people … who have approached us about having a stakeholder’s process” to find a middle ground between the city and residents who are opposed to the initiative, Ireland said. The city’s utilities department drew Maroon Creek down to 14 cubic feet per second (cfs) on Tuesday, which is the level Castle Creek will run at for about six months of the year if the project is approved. The average level the stream runs at currently is about 50 cfs, but it plummets to about 14 cfs for the months of February and March. At peak runoff, it holds up to 975 cfs…

Aspen officials say the health of the stream will remain intact, citing a city-commissioned environmental impact study of Castle Creek done by Bill Miller, of Miller Environmental Consultants. The study concluded that the stream would remain healthy as long as it doesn’t go below 13.3 cfs…

The project would take 25 cfs from 2 1/2 miles of Castle Creek and 27 cfs from Maroon Creek. All that water would return to Castle Creek about 300 feet above its merging point with the Roaring Fork River.

More coverage from The Aspen Times (Aaron Hedge):

The main incentive the city cites in building the hydropower plant is that it would save the city from paying energy fees to a Nebraska power authority. The project, they say, would localize Aspen’s energy economy and move it closer to its goal of becoming completely carbon-neutral. But City Manager Steve Barwick said if the city were to divert less water from Castle Creek than originally planned — not letting it go below 19 cfs — the project would still have a huge economic benefit. The city has already spent about $400,000 on the project, building a drainline from Thomas Reservoir that would feed the power turbines, as well as purchasing the turbines for the power plant, which would be located under the Highway 82 bridge that spans Castle Creek on Power Plant Road.

More coverage from the Aspen Daily News (Curtis Wackerle):

What the city hasn’t put off is developing infrastructure for the project, which still requires a permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, as well as land use approval by the City Council.

The penstock — a steel reinforced pipe that would carry water from Thomas Reservoir to the hydro plant’s turbine — has been under construction all summer. City officials maintain, however, that the pipe also serves as an emergency drainline for Thomas Reservoir, which has more water coming into it than could be drained if something happened to the dam. That project is costing the city $2.3 million.

In addition, the city already has ordered the turbine which would generate the power at the yet-to-be-approved “Castle Creek Energy Center,” public works director Phil Overeynder told council at Monday’s meeting. He has said previously that the turbine costs $1.4 million, which includes a pressure releasing valve.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Energy policy — hydroelectric: Aspen Planners to draw down Maroon Creek as demonstration project for proposed hydroelectric plant

From the Aspen Daily News (Curtis Wackerle):

Water levels in Maroon Creek will be drawn down from the current flow of about 50 cubic feet per second to 14 cfs on Tuesday and Thursday this week as the city of Aspen demonstrates the “look and feel” of a stream running near the minimum rate associated with the proposed Castle Creek hydropower project. The demonstrations are technically site visits with Aspen City Council members, and thus are public meetings…

Maroon Creek has a state-mandated minimum instream flow of 14 cfs. The site visit is intended to allow council members to observe the “look and feel of a stream at those levels,” Hornbacher said.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Energy policy — hydroelectric: Governor Ritter Announces Acceleration Of Small Hydro Projects in Colorado

From The Aspen Times (Aaron Hedge):

It’s too early to tell, however, if that would be a good route for Aspen and its proposed Castle Creek hydroelectric plant, for which the city utilities department plans to seek an exemption from the agency. City spokeswoman Sally Spaulding said the pilot program announced by Gov. Bill Ritter, which would establish a partnership with the federal government, would probably not accommodate the timeline the city is pursuing with the project…

Exemptions are available for projects that would generate five or more megawatts of power or projects that utilize existing pipelines that feed other water usage, such as Aspen’s Thomas Reservoir, which provides residents with drinking water…

Any projects in Ritter’s new program will have to be implemented via existing infrastructure, according to the MOU [between Colorado and FERC]…

City Council indicated earlier this month that it would support the exemption, but asked for more information on how the health of the stream would be maintained after the project is built. David Hornbacher, project director, said the city would conduct yearly studies modeled from a baseline Colorado Division of Wildlife review of the stream after the plant starts operating. The investigation would determine whether the project will damage the stream. The hydropower project would divert 25 cubic feet per second through an existing pipeline from water-intake facilities on Castle and Maroon creeks to Thomas Reservoir. The water would all return to Castle Creek about 300 feet above its confluence with the Roaring Fork River. To qualify for FERC exemption, a hydropower project must allow the water to return to the body it came from or be used again for non-hydropower purposes. Spaulding said that, either way, the water all eventually runs into the Roaring Fork River.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Energy policy — hydroelectric: How will Aspen’s proposed hydroelectric plant on Castle Creek effect streamflow?

From The Aspen Times (Aaron Hedge):

Now, with a deal pending to build a new hydropower plant on the same property that would take 52 cubic feet per second (cfs) from both streams, environmentalists and property owners along the affected shoreline say there’s no way to be certain the streams will sustain fish populations and thus remain healthy. If the City Council approves the project, the city plans to divert 25 cfs from Castle Creek, and 27 cfs from Maroon Creek…

As part of the city’s Canary Initiative — an ambitious effort to become carbon-neutral by 2020 — the hydro project is expected in the next decade to save the city $41,000 a year in energy that it would no longer have to purchase from other power authorities. After that decade, when the $3.92 million in bonds for the project are paid off, the city would save twice that amount, said project director David Hornbacher…

Currently, Castle Creek stays at about 14 cfs in February and March, before starting to rise in the spring. The plant would shut down during winter to maintain the minimum flow, and other power resources, including the Ruedi Reservoir hydropower plant and electricity Aspen buys from a Nebraska power authority, would pick up the load. During other times of the year, Castle Creek typically runs between 50 and 70 cfs. But if the project is implemented, the diversions could extend Castle Creek’s low-water period by four months, calling into question how long the stream can sustain itself, and sustain all the creatures that depend on it, at that level…

The city has yet to apply for permission from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which requires an environmental impact study, to construct the line. In a statement to the City Council this month, project staff recommended that the city not apply for a FERC license because, “Preparation of a an EIS would … delay the project, add to the cost of the project, and jeopardize the project economics.”

More coverage from The Aspen Times (Aaron Hedge). From the article:

City funding for a drainage line from Thomas Reservoir to Castle Creek could go away for the second phase of the construction next year if the Aspen City Council denies the proposed Castle Creek hydropower project, said Phil Overeynder, the city’s public works director. The approximate $2.3 million for the line comes partially from $5.5 million in bonds the city applied for after voters approved the construction of the hydropower plant in 2007. Approximately $126,700 of that money will come from utilities department coffers. The project’s total cost is nearly $6.2 million. The remaining funds will come from a grant of $400,000 and various other sources, Overeynder said. There is no guarantee that the project will stay within that budget, but about $800,000 has been added to it for unforeseen expenditures, according to the City Council application…

The city would have to buy less coal energy from a Nebraska power authority if the plant is approved, project manager David Hornbacher said last week. If the project is not approved, the line will simply empty into Castle Creek just below the Power Plant Road bridge. Efforts to finish the drain line have to wait on approval of the hydropower project because if it is approved, the end of the drain will undergo a completely different construction process, Overeynder said. Either way, the water returns to the stream, through the Penstock drain line if the project is struck down, or through a square concrete tube from the plant to Castle Creek if it is approved. None of the water taken from Maroon Creek will return to it. The hydropower plant is part of the city’s Canary Initiative, a goal to reduce carbon emissions from the city’s energy consumption to zero by 2020. It would draw 52 cubic feet per second from Castle and Maroon creeks. But the drain line will be completed either way, Overeynder said, because the Thomas Reservoir dam poses a threat to the Twin Ridge residential development just down the hill from it. A safety study of the dam, conducted in 1989, said the reservoir posed no public hazard. The Twin Ridge development was not yet built.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Energy policy — hydroelectric: Aspen city council approves $2.3 million for Castle Creek hydropower project

From The Aspen Times (Carolyn Sackariason):

The council approved a contract with Denver-based Western Summit Constructors to build a pipeline that will deliver water from Castle Creek via the Thomas Reservoir to the plant, which will be located below the Castle Creek bridge.

The city plans to circumvent a full-blown environmental analysis and instead apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for what’s called a “conduit exemption” to build the hydroelectric plant once the pipeline is under construction. Officials say by delivering water from the reservoir to the plant, the city can take advantage of water for hydropower while providing needed flood protection to properties downhill of the Thomas Reservoir, such as the hospital.

The council also approved a $48,400 contract with Miller Ecological Associates to conduct an aquatic biology study to determine the effects of taking water from the creek. The study was requested by the Colorado Division of Wildlife to evaluate the effect of stream-flow changes between the point of diversion and the point of return in the creek…

Several people said they were concerned about a decreased flow in Castle and Maroon creeks because water will be drained out of both to generate power. Under an agreement with the state, the city of Aspen would never go below 12 cfs in Castle Creek and 14 cfs in Maroon Creek…

If approved, the water would travel down a 42-inch pipe, supplying the hydro plant with approximately 25 cubic feet per second (cfs) coming from Castle Creek and 60 cfs out of Maroon Creek. The city diverts water from both creeks for the primary purpose of supplying municipal water and maintains the in-stream flow of 12 and 14 cfs. The third priority would be for hydroelectricity, but if there isn’t enough water available in a dry year or during certain times of the year, it wouldn’t be diverted, officials have said. The project would utilize existing water rights, head gates and water storage of the original Castle Creek hydroelectric plant, which met all of Aspen’s electric power needs from 1892 through 1958, when the plant was decommissioned…

The electricity would be placed on the city’s grid and taken up to the water treatment campus to power those facilities, and to potentially produce hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen vehicles. When completed, the 1.05 mega-watt facility is expected to increase electric production by 5.5 million kilowatt hours annually. That power production will prevent more than 5,000 tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year, officials said. It would generate renewable energy for the city and increase its supplies by 8 percent over its current level of about 75 percent. City officials say that switching from primarily coal-fired energy purchases to hydroelectric power production would represent a 0.6 percent community-wide reduction in carbon emissions based on a 2004 greenhouse gas emission inventory.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Precedent-Setting Decision Made by Colorado Water Conservation Board; First-of-Its-Kind Relationship Built Between Board and Pitkin County for Local Streamflows

From The Aspen Times (Janet Urquhart):

The nine voting members of the Colorado Water Conservation Board approved a trust agreement with the county Monday in Denver after a four-and-a-half-hour hearing. “Everybody had smiles on their faces — except the opponents,” said John Ely, county attorney, in a telephone interview at the close of the proceedings. The CWCB staff, Pitkin County and representatives of Trout Unlimited and the Colorado Water Trust spoke in favor of the trust arrangement, as did the city of Aspen’s water counsel, Ely said.

Opponents included the Basalt Water Conservancy District, Starwood Metropolitan District, Willow-Herrick Ditch Co. and the Roaring Fork Land and Cattle Co., he said. All of the opponents expressed concern that the county’s plan to devote some of its water rights to in-stream flows in the Roaring Fork River would impact their own water transactions. The Basalt Water Conservancy District, for example, essentially capitalizes on lower flows on the Roaring Fork by selling water to users upstream of the Fryingpan River’s confluence with the Roaring Fork, according to Ely. The users take water from the upper Roaring Fork; it is replaced by water the district owns in Ruedi Reservoir, which is released into the Fryingpan and flows into the Roaring Fork at Basalt.

The trust agreement approved Monday will allow the county to donate 4.2 cubic feet per second of water rights it holds on Maroon Creek to the CWCB, the only the only entity in the state that may hold in-stream flow rights to protect the natural environment. Other water rights can be added to the trust agreement — the allocations must also be approved by the state water court — or withdrawn over time. Or, the trust can be revoked in its entirety. The county doesn’t lose its water rights, it simply donates them to boost river flows for whatever period of time it wants to, Ely said. “We’re not giving it away,” he said. “We still own it.”

More coverage from the Aspen Daily News (Brent Gardner-Smith). From the article:

“It is in the best interest of the state as a whole if the CWCB acquires the water right,” Susan Schneider, an assistant attorney general in the state’s Natural Resources and Environment department told the CWCB board Monday.

After a five-hour hearing, the board approved the proposal unanimously…

The ditch water comes out of Maroon Creek, which flows into the Roaring Fork River just to the west of the Aspen Meadows resort property. To put the 4.3 cfs of water into context, there was 114 cfs of water in the Roaring Fork River below Maroon Creek on Monday. It was the first such trust entered into by the CWCB since the passage last year of Colorado House Bill 1280, which strengthened the ability of the CWCB to protect water rights it is holding for minimum stream flow purposes. The bill was sponsored by state Sen. Gail Schwartz of Snowmass Village.

“This is a precedent setting transaction,” said Amy Beatie, executive director of the Colorado Water Trust. “The trust agreement provides a model for all other water users in the state that have water rights that are not currently being used, such as municipalities that have developed water supplies beyond their immediate needs.”[...]

The trust also includes a provision for the county to transfer another 34 different water rights, equal to about 20 cfs, that it owns into the trust arrangement with the CWCB. The county could also add water rights to the trust that it acquires through its Healthy Rivers and Streams fund…

The Stapleton Brothers Ditch water right owned by the county pre-dates the 1922 Colorado River water compact, which means that states downstream of Colorado, including Arizona, California and Nevada, could not demand that Colorado send the 4.3 cfs of water to them in a drought situation.

More coverage from The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka). From the article:

The water rights are owned by Pitkin County and were acquired partly for conservation purposes. However, under Colorado water law, only the CWCB can own an in-stream flow right. Traditionally, senior water rights not put to use would become part of the stream flow and available to junior appropriators. Under the 2008 law, the state may buy or lease those senior rights purely for conservation purposes. In January, Pitkin County asked the CWCB to approve the donation of rights through a revocable trust, the first test of 2008’s HB1280. The flow of 19 cubic feet per second comes on Maroon Creek through the Stapleton Ditch, which once served Aspen’s Airport. It is the first of 34 potential water rights in Pitkin County that eventually could be donated.

More HB 08-1280 coverage here.

CWCB: Hearing for water rights acquisition for instream flows in Maroon Creek

Here’s the link to the notices page at the Colorado Water Conservation Board. They’re gearing up for an, “acquisition via a long-term loan of certain water rights associated with the Stapleton Brothers Ditch to be used for instream flow purposes on Maroon Creek and the Roaring Fork River,” according email from Rob Viehl.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.