Friday, March 30, 2007

Bayfield treatment plant options Bayfield is still hurting for treatment capacity, according to the Pine River Times. From the article, "Bayfield Sanitation District board members debated options last week on ways to keep the Bayfield sewage plant in compliance with state permit limits for the next year and a half, while a new plant is built. Engineer Greg Woodward described the options - most of them expensive. Removing sludge from the second and third lagoons will cost $100,000 to $110,000. The sewer board has already committed to do that. Installing a second baffle and addition of a chemical polymer in the third lagoon could improve settling out of treated sewage before it is discharged into the river. The cost estimate for that is $54,000, according to sewer board chairman Ed Morlan. The board committed to that last week. "Anaerobic pre-treatment reduces organic loading of sewage as it comes into the first lagoon. The plant's most vexing permit violation has been excess organic loading coming in. In optimum conditions, this can reduce organic loading 40 to 50 percent, Woodward said. In the Bayfield plant, the reduction could be 20 percent, he said. It will take four to six months to get it cranked up and operating if all goes well, and six to nine months if it doesn't, he said. Morlan listed the cost at $68,000, or $138,000 if this compartment is covered to keep down potentially strong odors... "The next lagoon improvement option is the most expensive short of installing package treatment units for around $500,000. A sand filtration bed would be installed at the end of the process to further clean effluent before it goes into the river. It would cost around $315,000, Morlan said. During the March 19 discussion, board members indicated they considered that a last option. But Southern Ute Tribal Utilities representative Jerry Thomas advised at the March 21 meeting, 'The package plants can take a portion of your loading, but they don't insure the quality of your effluent. The sand filtration would be good assurance of quality effluent. We got the feeling that's the kind of assurance the tribe is looking for.' The tribe gets its drinking water out of the river just over a mile below where the Bayfield sewage plant discharges. It was instrumental in pressing the state to issue a cease and desist order and building permit moratorium on the district and town one year ago... "Woodward described sequencing batch reactor (sbr) [pdf], fixed film, and membrane bio-reactor (mbr) package plants. The mbr is the system the board chose for the new plant. He advised that mbr systems like consistent loading, not the erratic spikes that have plagued the Bayfield system. Plant operator Ron Saba warned the package plant will need more employees to operate it." Category: Colorado Water 6:08:51 AM     Elk Creek water for Tanglewood a water grab? Here's a report on the meeting held Wednesday on the proposed use of Elk Creek water for the Tanglewood subdivision, from CBS4Denver.com. From the article, "There was a large turnout Wednesday by people in Jefferson County worried about their water supply. Residents are afraid they'll be the victims of any negative impacts of what they call a 'water grab' in a neighboring county. The new Tanglewood subdivision in Park County has plans to divert water from South Elk Creek. Opposition is coming from people living in Jefferson County all the way south to the town of Pine. It's up to Park County commissioners to decide if the water diversion can be done without harming people or the environment... "The developer owns the water rights. They've hired consultants to resolve critical concerns, but the opponents have their own experts. 'The fisheries, the aquatic impacts, that was not studied at all in the original application,' opposition water expert James Cullchia said... "But working recently with the Division of Wildlife, the developer's consultant, William Logan, proposed a compromise. He said in times of drought, the diversions will be restricted, and if necessary, completely stopped... "Even the developer agrees there is a way to preserve the stream environment. That's to build a reservoir. Water stored in the reservoir could to be used to always maintain a minimum flow. However, that is not part of the developer's plan, and even considering a reservoir is impossible because of a new lawsuit filed by a resident along South Elk Creek. Another meeting is scheduled to take place April 11." More Coyote Gulch coverage here. Category: Colorado Water 5:57:39 AM     Snowpack Here's a look at the snowpack up around Vail, from the Vail Daily News (free registration required). They write, "The snowpack at Vail Mountain is way below average, according to weekly reports from the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. Overall, Colorado's snowpack is melting earlier and quicker than usual and is currently at 77 percent of its 30-year average...Homestake Reservoir, which is at the top of the Eagle River Watershed in southern Eagle County, is about full." More snowpack news from the Rocky Mountain News. They write, "The 4 to 6 inches of snow that fell on Colorado slowed the rapid runoff but did little to replenish the basins or the reservoirs. 'The statewide snowpack is 76 percent of average, down considerably from March 1, when it was 92 percent statewide,' said Mike Gillespie, snow survey supervisor with the Natural Resources Conservation Service... "Normally, the metro area gets about 11.7 inches of snow in March, but this year only 6 inches have fallen. As for precipitation, this month should have about 1.18 inches, but as of Thursday, only 0.54 of an inch had been recorded... "Right now, the snowpack in the South Platte basin, which supplies the Denver area, is at 99 percent of average and the reservoir storage is at 86 percent... "The snowpack in the San Juan/Animas/Dolores basin is 59 percent of average, while the Yampa/White basin is at 69 percent. The Gunnison is at 71 percent, while the Rio Grande is at 76 percent. The Colorado basin reports 83 percent of average while the Arkansas is topping out at 95 percent." Category: Colorado Water 5:46:32 AM     Fry-Ark space for Aurora? U.S. Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave is in favor of a full EIS for the Aurora Long Term Contract between the Bureau of Reclamation and Aurora, according to the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article, "A third member of Congress is calling on the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a full environmental impact statement on a contract that would allow Aurora to store and exchange water in Lake Pueblo for 40 years. U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., has written a letter to Reclamation Commissioner Robert Johnson asking for the more rigorous environmental review for the project. 'I request that a full-scale EIS be authorized that will clearly determine and state the impact of these long-term storage agreements on communities, farmers and ranchers in the Arkansas River basin,' Musgrave said... "Musgrave said she is concerned the conclusion that the contract would not have a significant impact on the Arkansas Valley could damage an already fragile agricultural economy.' As farmers and ranchers in the basin are hurting as a result of years of drought, as well as communities drying up due to lack of clean and affordable drinking water, the bureau needs to consider the effects of the long-term contracts on the Lower Arkansas Valley,' Musgrave said. 'The Arkansas Valley needs clean drinking water and adequate irrigation water.' Musgrave said more time is needed to better understand long-term effects... "Under the proposed contract, Aurora would lease up to 10,000 acre-feet of excess-capacity space in Lake Pueblo, which could be emptied and filled as needed to physically exchange water upstream. Aurora also is asking to make a paper trade of up to 10,000 acre-feet of water per year of its water in Lake Pueblo to Turquoise and Twin Lakes. Aurora intends to move water it gained from purchase of water rights on the Rocky Ford Ditch and Colorado Canal, as well as water from future leases. If Lake Pueblo were to fill, Aurora's water would be the first to spill. Other entities within the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District would have priority if they sought similar exchanges. Aurora, a city of 300,000 east of Denver, moves water from Twin Lakes to its reservoirs in the South Platte basin through the Otero Pumping Station in Chaffee County." Here's an opinion piece about the contract from the Pueblo Chiefain. Money quote from U.S. Congressman John Salazar, "'I can't understand why people are sweeping things under the rug,' the San Luis Valley Democrat complained. 'How can they say there's not going to be an economic impact on the Arkansas Valley by taking water out of it?'". The Chieftain editorial board adds, 'It's time to take the gloves off and fight Reclamation and Aurora. The very future of the Lower Arkansas Valley - including Pueblo - is at stake. We can't let them shove this outrageous contract down our throats." More Coyote Gulch coverage here. Category: Colorado Water 5:34:07 AM     Wild and Scenic designation for Glenwood Canyon? Here's a report on possible Wild and Scenic designation for four areas near Glenwood Springs, from the Glenwood Springs Post Independent. From the article, "A Bureau of Land Management report issued this week has identified Glenwood Canyon and several streams in the region as eligible for wild and scenic river designation. Like wilderness areas, free-flowing wild and scenic rivers have special federal protection... "Currently, a portion of the Cache la Poudre River near Fort Collins is the only river section in the state to be designated as wild and scenic, said BLM spokesman David Boyd. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 established a federal system for protecting free-flowing waters. In its study, BLM found 11 areas that meet the eligibility criteria, including scenic, geological, historic, recreation and fishery values. Among the areas found to have significant values were Glenwood Canyon and portions of No Name, Mitchell and Thompson creeks. Although most of Glenwood Canyon is within the White River National Forest, some is on BLM land, Boyd said. The report identified as eligible three miles of the Colorado that flows through BLM land. "According to the report, Glenwood Canyon 'is the largest canyon of its kind on the Upper Colorado River. The canyon is widely considered one of the most scenic natural features on the Interstate Highway System of the United States.' It also has outstanding geological values. Its 1,000-foot walls reveal the full range of earth's geologic eras from the very earliest Precambrian period beginning 4,500 million years ago. Also identified as eligible for wild and scenic river designation was No Name Creek for its historic flume and aqueduct that were part of an early twentieth century water system that powered one of the earliest hydroelectric plants in the country in Glenwood Springs. A part of Mitchell Creek was also recognized for its population of genetically pure cutthroat trout, which, along with other trout species, has been decimated by whirling disease elsewhere throughout the state. BLM considered Thompson Creek south of Carbondale as having special geologic values for its colorful sandstone 'fins' and the proximity of the historic Aspen and Western Railroad which served the early coal mines between Carbondale and Crystal City." Category: Colorado Water 5:20:53 AM

© Copyright 2007 John Orr. Last update: 4/1/07; 9:54:05 AM.