|
|
Saturday, March 29, 2008
|
|
| |
Coyote Gulch turns six years old today. Thanks to all our readers. Thanks to the water movers and shakers in Colorado for keeping it interesting.
11:40:11 AM 
|
|
From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel: "The federal government may be too confident in its assumption that there's enough water to accommodate oil shale development, the Colorado River Water Conservation District believes. The Glenwood Springs-based district has submitted comments to the BLM about its draft study on oil shale development. The district questions the BLM's conclusion that the interstate compact governing use of Colorado River water would provide ample water for oil shale projects. "Considering vagaries of climate and climate change and full use of existing water supply and delivery systems, that may not be the case," the district said. The district also raises concerns about existing agricultural and instream flow uses being converted to oil shale uses if energy companies take advantage of their existing conditional water rights."
Category: 2008 Presidential Election
10:42:03 AM
|
|
The Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District is arguing that Fryingpan-Arkansas facilities should not be used to move Arkansas Basin water out of basin. They're suing Reclamation over the Aurora long-term contract signed last year. Here's an update from The Pueblo Chieftain. They write:
The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District contends that a federal agency's legal position would allow the federal government to export unlimited native water out of the Arkansas River Basin. "This could ultimately leave the Arkansas River Basin with less water than it had before the (Fryingpan-Arkansas) Project, a paradoxical result that Congress clearly did not intend," the water district contends. The district's allegation that the agency, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, is subverting the project is in a new U.S. District Court filing.
It is in response to requests by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and by Aurora for a judge to throw out the district's lawsuit intended to keep basin water for the valley. "The central issue of this case is whether the (Bureau of Reclamation has) jurisdiction to use Fryingpan-Arkansas Project water for purposes directly contrary to Congress' authorization," the district argues in the 42-page response. The district contends the bureau's reading of the 1962 act of Congress authorizing the water project ignores the fundamental purpose of the act, to construct, operate and maintain water facilities, such as reservoirs, for the benefit of the Arkansas Valley. "Congress clearly intended the project to increase the water supply in the Arkansas Valley and, by doing so, to increase the economic activity" of the valley, the Lower Arkansas district argues. "Congress specifically incorporated provisions that require the project to be 'operated in such a manner as to secure the greatest benefit for the use and reuse of project waters with the project boundaries,'" the district said. "Such boundaries do not extend to the city of Aurora."
The requests to throw out the suit argue that the district does not have standing because it has not shown it has suffered actual or threatened injury as a result of the contract. The district's response alleges the bureau seeks "to evade (its) subversion of the Fry-Ark Project by claiming that - so long as Project water is delivered - Project beneficiaries like (the district) have no standing to challenge how Project facilities are used...If adopted by the court, this reasoning would allow the United States to use the Project to export unlimited native water out of the Arkansas River Basin," the district argues. The United States and the bureau are both defendants. The district said the Aurora contract "alone will result in the export of 14,000 acre-feet of native water - equivalent to a quarter of the 55,000 acre-feet of water imported" by the Project...
Lower Ark contends it has standing to sue because:
It is injured by the loss of the use of water that would be exchanged and exported.
It is injured by reduced agricultural production and economic activity.
It is injured by reduced property taxes.
The injuries "are particular and imminent, and not conjectural or hypothetical."
The injuries "are not a matter of state water law, but are fairly traceable to" the Bureau of Reclamation.
The district also contends its case is within the "zone of interests" of reclamation law and of the National Environmental Policy Act. Lower Ark further contends the Reclamation Projects Act of 1939 does not allow the bureau the discretion to change the purposes of projects. The district argues that Congress would have to modify the statutory purposes of the Fry-Ark Project in order for the contract to be legal. The Lower Ark's court filing is signed by attorney Peter Nichols of a Denver law firm that represents the district.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
10:26:50 AM
|
|
We missed this story about Peter Binney moving on from Aurora. From the article:
Peter Binney, the director of Aurora Water, is resigning, leaving the city without its point man as construction continues on the $800 million Prairie Waters Project, a wastewater-recycling program he conceived and developed. Binney is leaving to become global director for a sustainable-water planning company, he said. He was hired by Aurora six years ago, just as the region was heading into severe drought conditions. He has been lauded for making the city's water system nearly drought-resistant. Those who know Binney say he almost single-handedly devised the plan for and implemented the Prairie Waters Project, knowing that communities would have to develop innovative ways of recycling used water instead of finding new sources, which are dwindling by the day.
Mr. Binney was a speaker and panel member a fews years ago during Mayor Hickenlooper's series Wringing Water from the Rocks.
Category: Colorado Water
10:07:31 AM
|
|
Here's an update on the South Platte River from The Denver Post. From the article:
Yet another wave of storm clouds pouring across the South Platte River Basin placed a blustery exclamation point on what is shaping up as a season of revival for Colorado's most troubled, and important, trout stream. More snow, more water, more potential healing for a stream still choked from the residue of the deadly 2002 fire season. With the upper South Platte system brimming from a snowpack measuring 108 percent of normal, eager anglers and the Division of Wildlife biologist watching over the river's revival have every reason to hope that this, finally, could be the big one. Major reservoirs already have reached, or are nearing, capacity, giving promise that all that moisture now will cascade down in the form of flushing flows to remove the burden of ash, sand and gravel that has strangled the river from Cheesman Reservoir downstream. Dave Bennett, water resource planner with Denver Water, reports both Antero and Elevenmile reservoirs are full and Cheesman has reached 92 percent. "We're trying to fill it and spill it," he said of what almost certainly will be an epic cascade of water over the Cheesman Dam to highlight a coordinated effort with DOW. "We're looking for a big flushing flow. Hopefully, this will be the year."[...]
Essentially, this is a tale of two rivers -- one reach upstream from the hamlet of Deckers, the other below. Upstream receives less sediment loading; a steeper
gradient keeps debris moving. Downstream suffered the devastating effect of the 2006 Horse Creek blowout; its soft meadow segments also catch sand and gravel washing down from above. "Last year we moved a lot of sediment. It benefited one part of the river, but degraded the other," said Jeff Spohn, the biologist charged with sorting out the mess.
Category: Colorado Water
9:56:14 AM
|
|
From The Denver Post: "A Lake County commissioner who pushed the federal government to drain a blocked mine tunnel in Leadville wants $20,000 to bury on his property a pipeline rerouting the contaminated water. Ken Olsen told the Environmental Protection Agency that he wants to be paid for granting a right of way across the path of his tourist train, the Leadville, Colorado & Southern Railroad. 'We hope they'll change their mind,' said Jennifer Lane, community-involvement officer for the federal agency. 'We plan to work with the owners to address their concerns, short of paying money, and we will ensure the land is restored after installation is complete.'"
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
Here's a look at groundwater and springs around California Gulch from The Leadville Chronicle. They write:
Why the concern about new springs on the southeast side of Leadville? Unless you've spent the last eight years studying the California Gulch Superfund Site or obtaining an advanced degree in hydrogeology, you may be watching the activity around the Gaw Shaft in puzzlement. Why, you may be wondering, are seeps, springs and flowing wells--and the rising groundwater that has created them--something to worry about? After all, it's hardly as if springs in California Gulch are a new development. In 1887, for example, Henry Gaw located his famous Gaw's Brewery in the gulch because of an abundance of excellent spring water. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) remedial project manager Stan Christensen says that the area around the Gaw Shaft is a natural groundwater discharge point--there are a number of faults that run through the area, there is little natural soil covering the bedrock, and it is an easy place for water to spring out of the ground, he explains. Even today, most of the water coming out of these springs is good water, says SourceWater Consulting, LLC president Jord Gertson, who has done much of the water sampling in the area, for the EPA. Contrary to popular perceptions, the water that rises out of the ground from the so-called "mine pool" (a spongelike mixture of water and filled mine voids and earth underneath the east side of town) is not laced with significant amounts of heavy metals or other contaminants, he says. In May of 2004, Gertson was intrigued enough by rising groundwater to put $6,500 of his own money into purchasing transducers that could monitor the water in wells. Shortly thereafter, he convinced Frontier Environmental Services, Inc. and the EPA to contribute $6,500 each toward more transducers. The result has been four years of very accurate data on rising groundwater in California Gulch. Unlike humans, who might only be able to measure data once a week, transducers can measure data every 15 minutes, giving 96 measurements a day. Why should anyone care that much about groundwater springing out in California Gulch? The answer, as it turns out, depends on who you ask.
The million dollar questions are these: where is the water coming from, and at what groundwater level--if any--should officials be concerned? There isn't any conclusive evidence that explains why groundwater is rising, says Gertson. But in a Jan. 30, 2008 report sent to state and federal agencies, he states that groundwater increases have coincided with a decrease in water flowing from the Canterbury Tunnel, located north of Leadville off Hwy 91. Collapses in the Canterbury have dramatically decreased flow from the tunnel in recent years--and that water must be going elsewhere. Christensen, however, says that there are probably several reasons that groundwater is rising--including the fact that Leadville has seen more precipitation in the last several years. He doesn't rule out the possibility that Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel blockages are adding to the rising groundwater, however. Gareth Davies, who performed dye tracing tests for the EPA and was recently retained by the county as an expert, suggests, in a March 19 estimate (for further dye tracing studies with the LMDT) that hydraulic head data shows that water "could" still flow from the LMDT down a gradient toward California Gulch in certain conditions. There are many workings and faults that could provide pathways, he writes, and he notes that historical information indicates there is a connection. But in a conference call on March 17, Christensen noted that the dye tracing tests already performed by Davies have only found trace amounts of dye--if any--traveling from wells in the LMDT to California Gulch. As for the question of the safety of rising groundwater, the Lake County Commissioners say they recently asked officials in the Bureau of Reclamation and EPA to identify "safe" and "unsafe" groundwater levels. They hope to have an answer soon, they say. In the meantime, the EPA plans to start pumping water from behind the blockage in the LMDT by May 15.
More on the pipeline though Commissioner Olsen's business from 9News.com. They write:
The plan to install a new pump into a Leadville mountain may have hit a snag. Lake County Commissioner Ken Olsen and his wife, Stephanie Olsen, want the EPA to pay them $20,000 to run a pipe under train tracks on a narrow piece of land they own. "If someone wanted to run an easement through your front yard or house, one would expect something," said Ken Olsen...
"They are just absurd in what they are wanting to do," said Stephanie Olsen who co-owns the tourist train, Leadville, Colorado & Southern Railroad, with her husband. "This is taking property without just compensation...Do you think I can come and dig a ditch across your property if I want to?" asked Stephanie Olsen in a phone interview with 9Wants to Know.
The EPA says it cannot and will not pay for the use of the land. "We're not aware of any circumstances in this situation that would require us to pay," said Sonya Pennock with EPA public affairs. "Secondly, you can imagine that this would get us into situations where people knowing that we needed access to cleanup could try to get a lot of money from us...We have a responsibility to the taxpayers in the way we spend money," said Pennock. Pennock says if an agreement cannot be reached with the Olsens, the pumping of the LMDT could be delayed. "We really hope they will reconsider and we will work with them in every way we can short of paying money," said Pennock.
Category: Colorado Water
9:18:32 AM
|
|
So what methods work in cleaning up the mess left by abandoned mines? Here's an article about a new USGS Report from Web Wire. From the article:
Researchers with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have evaluated what different geologic, hydrologic, and biologic studies are most effective in cleaning up the watersheds affected by mining in southwest Colorado, and recently published their findings on-line and in print. USGS Professional Paper 1651, "Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining in the Animas River Watershed, San Juan County, Colorado"[...]
Application of the watershed approach has shown that it provides a cost-effective method for selecting abandoned mines for cleanup and restoration that can be applied by Federal, State, and local stakeholders groups and private entities. This study demonstrates that a complete understanding of the nature and extent of hydrothermal alteration associated with the mineral deposits and the effect this alteration has, or had in the past, on water quality and native habitat must be carefully evaluated prior to initiation of remedial actions. The presence of extensive hydrothermal alteration exposed at the surface in the watershed limits the amount of biological recovery that reasonably can be expected and dictates the methods and costs of remediation projects.
The USGS report describes multidisciplinary studies of the geology and geochemistry of rock and sediment, the hydrology and water chemistry of streams and ground water, and the diversity and health of aquatic and terrestrial organisms in the Animas River watershed. The studies inventoried historical mines; defined geologic, structural, and geomorphological conditions that control acidity and release of potentially toxic trace elements; assessed fish distribution and habitat; collected and chemically analyzed hundreds of water, sediment, and mine- and mill-waste samples; conducted toxicity tests; analyzed macroinvertebrate and trout populations and biofilm to evaluate ecosystem health; defined hydrological regimes; evaluated plausible sources of trace elements to streams; and provided all data and maps in digital formats.
Studies in the 1,096-page report were conducted by USGS researchers as part of the Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) Initiative over a course of five fiscal years, 1997 to 2001. The AML was designed to provide technical assistance in support of Federal Land Management Agency (FLMA) actions to remediate contamination associated with abandoned hard rock mining activities and was part of a larger strategy by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to coordinate activities for the cleanup of federal lands affected by AML. The strategy employed a watershed approach, in which contaminated sites were identified and remediated based on their effect on the water and ecosystem quality of a targeted watershed.
9:13:54 AM
|
|
Coyote Gulch is a big fan of science education in the field. Here's a recap of a recent trip up on the South Platte for Denver Public Schools kids from The Denver Post. They write:
The South Platte River, which supplies 80 percent of Denver's drinking water, is healthy and clean again, according to a bunch of middle school kids who determined the water quality by counting the number of aquatic bugs underwater on rocks and stones today. The kids were celebrating World Water Day, which the United Nations started more than a decade ago to spotlight the biggest health problem in the world -- not enough clean water. They are members of the non-profit group Environmental Learning for Kids (ELK), who were hosted by the U.S. Forest Service, the Colorado Forest Service and the Denver Water Department as they learned how to determine the condition of a river...
ELK founders Scott and Stacie Gilmore have been taking minority kids into the woods for 12 years, educating about 17,000 kids a year through classes, fishing trips and camping overnight. Their goal is to encourage the kids to consider careers in the environment or with wildlife. Scott's day job is being the Colorado Division of Wildlife youth fishing coordinator. Using ELK kids as paid staff, his group takes some 20,000 young kids statewide fishing every summer. With funds from GOCO and the Colorado Lottery, he handed out 16,000 fishing rods last year. This year's trips are booked, but parents can call him for next year at (303) 291-7512. Accompanying the group today was Sally Collins, No. 2 in the U.S. Forest Service in Washington, D.C., who first donned fishing waders when she worked for the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado a few years ago...
Denny Bohon, the USFS wildlife biologist for the South Platte drainage and the real expert on aquatic bugs, said the river shows a lot of good bugs,rather than worms and borers that show up in mud. She's worried about the amount of sediment in the river, producing numerous sand bars and shallow riffles. "But it's very high quality water flowing through here," she said.
Category: Colorado Water
9:04:27 AM
|
|
From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel: "The Tamarisk Coalition has been battling the water-guzzling river plant for years in western Colorado, but on April 5 and 6, it is bringing in reinforcements. The Tamarisk Coalition is teaming with Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado, with assistance from Williams Energy and the Colorado Water Conservation Board, for a special tamarisk eradication project at the Island Acres section of the James M. Robb Colorado River State Park. The groups hope to attract 150 volunteers from the Grand Valley and around the state to remove and treat an estimated 1.5 miles of tamarisk along the river. They want to plant 550 native trees and shrubs, wild rose, peachleaf willow, cottonwood and three-leaf sumac in its place...To volunteer, contact John Heideman of the Tamarisk Coalition at 256-7400 or 250-5206, or sign up online at www.voc.org."
Category: Colorado Water
8:52:34 AM
|
|
From The Fort Collins Coloradoan: "The Fort Collins Audubon Society announced Thursday its board of directors has voted unanimously to oppose development of the proposed Glade Reservoir northwest of Fort Collins...Tapping in to the Poudre River's high flows would harm its ecosystems and worsen water-quality problems, according to a statement. Stepped-up conservation efforts would help meet the water needs of growing cities, the society stated."
From The Fort Collins Coloradoan: "A panel discussion on the proposed Glade Reservoir and its potential impact on the Poudre River is scheduled from 6:30 to 9 p.m. April 7 at Front Range Community College in Fort Collins. The program will be conducted in the student center of the FRCC campus at Harmony Road and Shields Street. Free tickets will be available at the door 30 minutes before the program. Scheduled panelists include representatives of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, which is proposing the reservoir, and opponents of the project from the Save the Poudre Coalition."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
Category: Colorado Water
8:07:25 AM
|
|
From Fort Collins Now: "A bill that would strengthen state oversight of uranium mining operations got an initial nod from the Colorado House of Representatives Friday. House Bill 1161, by Fort Collins Democratic Reps. Randy Fischer and John Kefalas, faces a final vote before it can head to the Senate, where it is being sponsored by Fort Collins Sens. Bob Bacon, a Democrat, and Steve Johnson, a Republican. Several other lawmakers representing Northern Colorado criticized the bill and tried to amend it to remove references to conventional uranium mining. They also hoped to put a year-long moratorium on all uranium mining in the state and send the bill to a review committee over the summer, but Fischer and Kefalas opposed that."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: 2008 Presidential Election
7:57:52 AM
|
|
Here's a look at the potential runoff in the Colorado River this year, from The Aspen Times (free registration required). From the article:
Water experts at the Colorado River Water Conser vation District bet each year to see who can most closely predict peak river flows. With extra snowpack this year, water resource specialist Mike Eytel's guessing the Colorado River's peak flow near Glenwood Springs could come in at 20,000 cubic feet per second or more. That's more than two times the normal 6,000 to 9,000 cfs peaks the river sees in the middle or end of June, he said...
The Upper Colorado River Basin currently has about 119 percent of the normal water content in its snow-pack, compared to a 30-year average. The Bureau of Reclamation has pre dicted runoff this year will raise Lake Powell by 30 feet or more. On Thursday, the Colorado River near Glenwood was flowing at around 2,200 cfs, slightly above aver age...
Ken Murphy, general manager of Rock Gardens Rafting, said, "The biggest bonus out of the whole issue is our season will run longer. Right now we know that we'll be rafting through September." Even if flows come in very high during the early season and shut down the Shoshone rapids, he said, the Rock Gardens Rafting business wouldn't be negatively affected because it uses the Roaring Fork River during the early season. Plus, he added, most commercial rafting busi ness comes between June 15 and Aug. 15, mostly after peak flows have subsided.
Here's a look at potential flooding along the Roaring Fork and a look at the monster snowfall and its potential effects on summer recreation from The Aspen Times Weekly (free registration required).
The Forest Service has decided to put a cap on commercial boat trips in Glenwood Canyon according to The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article:
The Forest Service announced a decision Thursday to limit capacity to 71,500 service days for commercial rafting companies and 750 service days for commercial kayaking outfits. Another 1,100 days are allocated for temporary use as requested by institutional-type users, such as colleges. A service day is defined as one person on a guided trip for any part of a day. The decision marks the first time the government has instituted a cap on total capacity on the Colorado River through Glenwood Canyon. However, the decision essentially formalizes the level of activity that has been occurring in the canyon over many years, said Ken Murphy, general manager of Rock Gardens Rafting in No Name, near Glenwood Springs. "What it does is it puts on paper where we are. It looks at history of use and says, this is a fair and equitable number of users of Shoshone," Murphy said. The popular Shoshone put-in allows access to a two-mile stretch of heavier rapids on the river. Forest Service officials could not be reached for comment Friday about the decision. The action also includes re-issuance of 13 10-year outfitter guide permits, and three one-year ones...
Murphy said the Forest Service decision includes an option for outfitters to exceed the limit by up to 10 percent when needed. This helps accommodate drought situations that can force outfitters in Vail and Aspen off lower-flow rivers closer to home, and onto the Colorado River in the canyon, for more of the year...Any appeals to the Forest Service decision must be filed within 45 days.
From: KJCT8 News: "Experts say water flows could reach a 10-year high on the Upper Arkansas River this summer. Arkansas Headwaters senior ranger Stew Pappenfort says the volume of water in the river this year could be more than twice what it was last year. He's expecting flows of 6,000 cubic feet per second, up from 2,400 cubic feet per second last year."
From The Lake Powell Chronicle: "With snowpack in the upper Colorado basin currently at 129 percent of average for this time of year, Reclamation officials are projecting a runoff of 10.2 million acre feet between April and July, the traditional runoff season, said Reclamation information officer Barry Wirth. 'So we're still on track to see Lake Powell come up approximately 50 feet,' he said. He cautioned that, until that snow has melted and is actually in the river system, it isn't certain that all of the accumulations will result in runoff.
"Of all the drainages in the upper basin, only the Green River is below average at 90 percent, according to Reclamation data. At the other end of the spectrum, the San Juan River in southwest Colorado and northwest New Mexico is at 142 percent of average. Lake Powell currently stands at nearly 3,589 feet above sea level, which represents 44 percent of its capacity. It was last considered full in 1999, when it reached 3,697 feet. Its lowest elevation was in April 2005 at 3,557 feet."
Category: Colorado Water
7:34:50 AM
|
|
Here's the final part of The Pueblo Chieftain's series about Colorado Springs proposed Southern Delivery System. From the article:
There would be numerous strings attached to any contract the Bureau of Reclamation would grant for the Southern Delivery System. Keeping track of them all would probably provide several full-time jobs, as Reclamation attempted to account for impacts during construction and for the eventual water project itself under seven alternatives. The mitigation measures also attempt to tie in ongoing efforts on Fountain Creek, as well as the Upper Arkansas voluntary flow agreement the Pueblo flow program created by intergovernmental agreements in 2004. Beyond those formalities are a web of conceptual plans, adaptive management plans and one programmatic agreement for cultural resources which attempt to anticipate for anything that could happen during SDS operation and construction. Mitigation, as defined by dictionaries, doesn't make problems go away. It only makes them less harsh, hostile, severe or painful.
By that definition, there are many potentially harsh, hostile, severe or painful elements to SDS. Mitigation measures are discussed in 25 separate parts of the draft Environmental Impact Statement, as well as six appendices, according to a list compiled by Reclamation at the request of The Pueblo Chieftain. Each of those sections contains multiple mitigation measures for specific purposes. The list will be available to the public at upcoming open houses that begin next week in six communities. The draft EIS also talks about past impacts on the Arkansas River and Fountain Creek by water projects, as well as identifying impacts from other likely projects that would develop over the 40-year span of SDS. It does not talk about the combined impacts of the Arkansas Valley Conduit or Preferred Storage Options Plan, because both would require federal legislation, independent environmental review and funding...
Much of the mitigation centers on activities during construction of the 43-mile pipeline - give or take a few miles depending on where it begins under each of the seven alternatives. During construction, an inventory of soils, plants and animals would have to be taken. Land would have to be revegetated following construction. Roads, ditches and power lines that would have to be crossed would have to be rerouted during construction and replaced, to the standards of those who own them, following construction. The two biggest concerns of impacts from the project from comments made during meetings in 2005 are flow and flood control on Fountain Creek and water quality. Ongoing efforts on Fountain Creek, including the Army Corps of Engineers study and a stormwater enterprise formed in 2005 by Colorado Springs, figure heavily into flood control and channelization measures. While the draft EIS says peak flows and floodplains are expected to increase, it does not attribute these to SDS, but to development within the floodplain. Water quality impacts from SDS are considered to be small, according to the draft EIS, and concerns are expected to be met through continued monitoring, conceptual plans and adaptive management, which is described in an appendix as a feedback loop aimed at "continuous improvement" through endless policies, planning and monitoring. There is no specific information about how an environment management system envisioned in that part of the report would be set up, or who would be involved, but a more complete format is promised by the final EIS.
Here's Part VI of The Pueblo Chieftain's series on Colorado Springs' proposed Southern Delivery System. From the article:
Jaci Gould, area resources manager for the Bureau of Reclamation, says the technical reports accompanying the draft environmental impact statement for Southern Delivery System would create a stack of paper the height of a small child. One that only an engineer could love. The details in the reports backstop information contained in the draft EIS, and were developed over the past five years by MWH Engineering, a contractor paid by Colorado Springs, but taking directions from the bureau...
There are 20 separate reports with 2,300 pages of information in the EIS supporting the documents section on the SDS Web site. They released the reports a month ahead of the draft EIS in order to give the public time to study them. Actually, the appendices filled with maps, charts and tables included with the reports swell the size of the reports to a somewhat taller child. A count of all the pages, reflected in the totals below, shows there actually are 3,288 pages...
Three reports still are not available. Two of the reports look at simulations of the project on Lake Pueblo in the past (1986-87 and 2000-02) and future (2046). They are not available. They will be posted on the U.S. Geological Survey Web site when they are finalized. The cultural resources technical report is not available because the National Historic Preservation Act prohibits access. For those without a high-speed Internet connection, tons of electronic memory or patience, here's a brief description of the documents:
- Water resources technical report: The 649-page report contains data collected over a century of observations of the Arkansas River and its tributaries. For the purposes of the EIS, only the most recent period, 1982-2004, for evaluating alternatives.
- Hydrological model documentation report: The 49-page report describes how a computer model that predicted effects of SDS alternatives on the Arkansas River was developed.
- Surface water hydrology effects analysis: The 214-page report details the effects shown by computer model that each of seven alternatives would have on rivers, streams and lakes.
- Alluvial ground water effects analysis: The 71-page report looks at effects of SDS on alluvial aquifers from increased pumping by Fountain and Security.
- Denver basin ground water modeling: The 142-page report looks at impacts from Colorado Springs pumping more wells in the Denver Basin aquifers under the no-action alternative.
- Water resources effects analysis: The 220-page report describes the effects of SDS on peak flows, flood plains and streambed conditions.
- Water quality technical report: The 198-page report looks at the impact of SDS on water quality in streams and reservoirs.
- Water quality effects analysis approach technical memorandum: A 132-page memo from MWH that describes methods used to analyze potential effects of SDS alternatives.
- Water quality effects analysis: The 210-page document compares the analysis of water quality among the seven alternatives.
- Aquatic resources technical report: The 277-page report describes existing conditions for fish, invertebrates and habitat.
- Aquatic resources effects analysis: A 307-page report looks at direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of SDS on fish and their habitat.
- Wetlands, waters, and riparian resources technical report: A 220-page report describes existing conditions for wetlands.
- Riparian vegetation effects analysis: A 65-page report analyzes the impact of SDS alternatives on plants. - Vegetation resources technical report: An 85-page report describes rare, threatened or endangered plant species and communities within the study area.
- Bird aircraft strike hazard: A 39-page report looks at the potential danger of creating wetlands near an airport. - Wildlife resources technical report: The 77-page report summarizes wildlife found in the project area.
- Recreation resources technical report: The 38-page report looks at recreation impacts in Lake, Chaffee, Fremont, El Paso Pueblo and Crowley counties.
- Socioeconomic resources technical report: The 97-page report describes tourism, agriculture and business conditions within the project area, based on public comments received during scoping.
- Socioeconomic effects analysis: The 177-page report looks at the impact of the project on ratepayers in Colorado Springs, Fountain, Security and Pueblo West, as well as for communities which could be affected by the project. It contains a section on environmental justice.
- Hazardous materials assessment: A 28-page report looks at hazardous materials from pipelines, power lines or landfills which might be found at three proposed reservoir sites in El Paso County.
Here's Part V of The Pueblo Chieftains's series on Colorado Springs' proposed Southern Delivery System. From the article:
The mold for the Bureau of Reclamation's draft environmental impact statement on Southern Delivery System came from meetings in 2003, shortly after Colorado Springs requested long-term water contracts. The bureau hosted five scoping meetings in five Arkansas Valley communities in September 2003 to gather ideas for significant environmental areas that could be affected by a water project of the magnitude of SDS. A "Top 10" of sorts was developed from those early efforts, identifying key areas that would be included in the final EIS.
Considering that the region was in the midst of a two-year drought unlike any the region had seen at the time, it might not be too surprising that flooding was not included on the list, which was finalized in 2004. In September 2005, flood control was introduced into the EIS process as a big issue by Pueblo County, whose land-use consultant Ray Petros recommended incorporating flood control and water reuse into a Fountain Creek reservoir. While the bureau considered the idea, even contacting the Army Corps of Engineers to review a 1970 study of potential Fountain Creek dam sites, flood control was not seen as a primary purpose or need as proposed by Colorado Springs, so it never was elevated to the status of an alternative, or even as a benchmark by which to measure alternatives. Colorado Springs Utilities officials went so far as to contact the Corps in 2006 to confirm its opinion that a dam on Fountain Creek was too expensive to pursue, a position the Corps later backed off from. The bureau also was made aware of the Fountain Creek Watershed Plan, a Corps project that began after floods in 1999.
Here are the 10 criteria by which all the criteria are evaluated in the draft EIS:
- Surface water flow: How flows are increased or decreased on Monument Creek, Fountain Creek, Jimmy Camp Creek, Williams Creek or the Arkansas River.
- Surface water quality: How water diversions or wastewater return flows will affect water quality on those streams and rivers.
- Channel stability and morphology: How changes in water timing will affect erosion, deposits and transport of sediment.
- Sedimentation: How the sediment load in streams is affected.
- Water rights: The effects of the participants' full use of water rights on other water rights in the basin.
- Fish and aquatic life: How the project will affect the fish population, food chain and habitat.
- Wetlands and waterways: How flow changes will impact wetlands.
- Wildlife: Threatened, endangered and rare wildlife species could be affected.
- Socioeconomic conditions: The impact of the project on conditions in El Paso, Pueblo and Fremont counties was considered.
- Recreation resources: Recreational opportunities in the region could be impacted by flows.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
7:25:59 AM
|
|
The disinfection of Alamosa's water supply is moving along. Some residents will get to use the water for short showers now, according to The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
High-level doses of chlorine meant to disinfect the city's salmonella-tainted water made it through the last of the system's pipes Friday night. That means some residents may get to use their city water for something other than flushing toilets, once yellow notices are hung on their door. Jacki Kelley, public information officer for the emergency operations center, said she anticipated that noticing for stage two, which will feature lower levels of chlorine and allow most adults to take brief showers, will start in some sections of the city today. She did not know, however, which sections of the city would be first to transition, or how long it would take the entire city to reach stage two. Many residences and businesses are expected to remain in stage one Saturday and continue with the restrictions that bans all uses of tap water with the exception of flushing toilets, she said.
The flush, which started Tuesday, is expected to clear the city's water system of the salmonella bacteria that's sickened 293 people in the last three weeks and resulted in 12 hospitalizations. Alicia Cronquist, a food borne and intestinal disease epidemiologist with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment said health officials believe the number of cases have peaked.
From KJCT8.com: "State health officials say the salmonella that has contaminated Alamosa's municipal water supply and sickened nearly 300 people, is the same strain found in birds, deer and other warm-blooded animals. Officials are investigating whether bird or animal droppings might have contaminated the water."
The lawsuit phase of Alamosa's salmonella outbreak has started, according to The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The city of Alamosa received notice Wednesday from a family seeking damages over their son's salmonella case and may see more claims, according to the family's attorney. Seattle lawyer William Marler, who specializes in salmonella and food-poisoning cases, filed notice on behalf of Alamosa residents Raymond and Jennifer Cook and their son, Jordan, claiming the city's drinking water was the cause of the child's illness. Marler said Thursday that 50 others had contacted his office with possible claims, although the attorney said those had yet to be verified...
The Cooks are seeking unspecified costs for their son's past and future medical care and all lost wages they suffered during his illness. The claim also seeks a minimum of $150,000 for past and future pain and suffering and any physical impairment or disfigurement caused by his illness. Alamosa City Attorney Eric Schwiesow said Thursday there was not enough information in the notice to comment on the family's claim. Should future notices come against the city, Colorado law would limit what the city would have to pay at $150,000 per person or $600,000 for the whole outbreak, Marler said. Marler said he hoped the city would be willing to pay for families' medical bills and lost wages for the victims of the outbreak, which now totals 286 cases. "Three hundred people dividing $600,000 is not going to be adequate compensation for what these folks go through," he said.
More on the source of the outbreak from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The source of the salmonella contamination in the city's water system may never be discovered, according to the state official leading the response to the outbreak. "We may never be able to tell you what actually happened," said Robin Koons, the emergency response coordinator for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. "That's very difficult to do."[...]
Koons told the city council late Wednesday that health and water quality experts have looked at three theories for the contamination, including cross-contamination by another water source. Experts from Denver Water are still investigating that possibility. Koons said contamination of the city's water storage facilities was being investigated as another possibility. She said the third theory was that a potential crack in one of the water lines allowed for contamination to enter when low pressure occurred. City Public Works Director Don Koskelin didn't rule that possibility out, but said he believed a pressure drop in a system as small as Alamosa's would have been noticed quickly...
Koons emphasized, however, that the contamination did not come from the groundwater, which city wells draw from the confined or deeper of the two aquifers that run beneath much of the San Luis Valley. "I want to make it clear it was not your well," she said. Koons said the pressure of the artesian water was great enough coming up from the ground that bacteria would not be able to make it down into aquifer. She added, however, that the temperature of the water drawn from the wells - between 70 degrees and 80 degrees - aided the salmonella bacteria once the water entered into the distribution system.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
7:18:24 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2008
John Orr.
Last update:
4/1/08; 8:17:32 AM.
|
|
|
