Southeastern District Diligence on West Slope Conditional Water Rights April 19, 2018 Diligence Questions • Can any conditional rights be made absolute? • Are there constraints to making remaining  conditional rights absolute? • How can project contemplated yield be  increased? • What is the takeaway from diligence efforts? • What additional analysis is required? 2 uzv Lg kw?f?l North Fort River near Noni: Steam Glue EAGLE pouju'rv m: lDd?s ,n . ?20mm INN: B7 [3 d: mas: 2 d: W: 1nd: mud: mum c-rtar Car-dun an Mme: 5cm Side 1W of Rueai Rm . Reserve" COUNTY . I'm?Emma: Homatake alum-212:1. .. WE: HERV- Bryan: 2 d5 mam liver 15F: 3 M1: in ['15 mvromnum "wanna: Thu ks my: mama: . Fryingpan River ISF: 5? ll. mnnin?um Tunnel Apr: 100 Capacity: 220 cf! Jun: 200 d: Aug! 75 529165 6'5 Nana, n. MWPIM ct Name: Unnamed mum in . 0 Del Mar. 30 cf: unnmm mm awnMai-nu: Mnhne antnmaut aluminium Tunlni 3 cup-myHome I candy: 3w an 9mm Ga MAP LEGEN pan-Arkansas Prujact . Dollec?on imam Alignment . . Diversion mare . l. .. THNIUOISE - mm (Approx. Location) Reservoir Wuhan-Iliad Divide a Fryingpan River . .. mun-mu Ohmic USDA FEIS Alt. 2 Road? Arias r- mm mm?. y/4 mien Areas - cup-city: 945 eh i Upper Tier mall magi? oi Wild-mm Arn- Bypass: as I Hmr-Frv'nppan anti Huliy Cross County mam-?52River- and ISF um i Rlvers and Stems CWCB BF Reich Dusk-Ivanhoe Diversion ED mm LAKE COUNTY Hm: No None 056? Marie: am: a; as; man a; AmtFryingpan-Arkansas Project Vicinity Map 17'2?? Pitkil'l County, Eagle County, and Lake County, Fllei'lame: fry-ark Fryingpan-Arkansas West Slope Water Rights and Facility Schematic Lime Ck Lime Ck Cond: 50 Unnamed Trih to Slim?sGulnh Cond: 85 Lime Ck near Thomasvill- Slim's Gulch Ruedi RES [ZUGQ?Present} 5r 1' in an R.at Meridth gp Cond: 85 [196T?Present} FryingEan R. near 5. Thomasville l1975-Pl Last Chance Ck Last Chance Ck Concl: 135 S. Intent Last Chance Ck Cond: 10 Last Chance Ck at Norrie [EGGS?Present} N. Intent N. Fork Fr_yi gEan R. Cond: 10 S. lntcEt N. Fork Carter Ck Abs: 8? Cond: 13 Bypass:2 Carter Conduit Cap:130 :55 f? I North Fork [Savage Lake! I Abs: 3O I Bypass: 1 cf N. Fork Fryingpan Mormon Ck Abs: 60 Bypass: 2 R. Ck Oct?Mar: 30 i. N. Fk Fryingpan near Fork Fryingpan I ormon . Di\.r Structure for Absolute Water Right April: 100 Cf5 Norrie [1948?Present} . Mormon Tunnel May: 150 Cunnln haml Cunnin harn Ck Cap: 190 of: . DIyStructure for Water June: 200 Intent Abs: 30 Current Streamflow Gage July:100 54" Cond: 15 Cf Ck - :ug.-7655cf: N. Cunningham Tunnel ept. 3- Cap: 220 cf: Abs: 50 5 BypassUnnamedTrib to S. SCunninghaka am Cunningham Ck Abs: 20 Tunnel Cond: 3O . Cap: 270 51:55 Fryingpan Watershed 0 Roarlng ForkWatershed . I Ck Ivanhoe ck van oe Ivanhoe Ck Canal #39150 $90? Cond: 30 BypassG?ranlte Ck Granite Si hon Abs:50cfs r? Hunter Tunnel Bypass: 0 I Cap: 2N cf: In an 2 Canal Abs: 40 Cond: 10 I Nast Tunnel 1, 2, 3 Bypass:0cfs I Cap: 360 cf: Sawyer Ck Lil Pad Ck I f. Abs: 35 I Sawyer Conduit Bypass: Cap: 40 cf: Lilyr Pad Ck 5. Fork Fryinggan Chapman Tunnel Abs: 250 South Fork Tunnel I in an River Marten Ck Cap: 300 Bypass: 6 1 No Name Ck Midway Ck Chapman Ck Abs: 85 Cond: 10 Abs: 35 Abs: 300 Hunter Ck Abs: 140 Bypass: 12 Midway Ck Bypass: 4cfs Bypass: 5 Bypass: 3 No Name Ck Chapman Gulch S. Fork Fryingpan R. Cap: 450 of: Abs: 395 Cond: 5 Granite Ck Bypass: 12 Marten Ck Can Conditional Rights be made Absolute? • Hunter Creek Subsystem – No Name Creek, 10 cfs Conditional (85 cfs decreed absolute) – Diverted 86 cfs on June 6, 2010 – Recommend claim 1 cfs additional absolute • Fryingpan River Subsystem – Marten Creek, 5 cfs Conditional (395 cfs decreed absolute) – Diverted 406 cfs on June 6, 2010 – Recommend claim 5 cfs additional absolute • North Fork Subsystem – Carter Creek, 13 cfs Conditional (87 cfs decreed absolute) – Did not divert greater than 87 cfs during diligence period 5 Are there constraints on remaining conditional rights? • Project volumetric limitation through Boustead Tunnel  is not a constraint Project Volumetric Limitation = 69,200 af/yr (over 34 years) 1985‐2016 Average = 55,000 af 2010‐2015 Average = 63,600 af 6 Are there constraints on remaining conditional rights? • North Fork Subsystem Conditional rights – Carter Creek – 13 cfs conditional (87 cfs decreed absolute) • Point‐Flow Model Analysis indicates water is physically and legally  available* in excess of 87 cfs • Diversion and conveyance facilities exist *Physical and Legal Water Availability: ─ ─ ─ ─ Estimated or measured physical streamflow at diversion locations Limited by decreed water right Limited by conveyance (tunnel) capacity  Limited by bypass requirement or minimum flow requirement at  Thomasville gage ─ Limited to total 900 cfs through Boustead Tunnel when required 7 Are there constraints on remaining conditional rights? • North Fork Subsystem Conditional rights – – – – – – Lime Creek ‐ 50 cfs Unnamed Tributary to Slim’s Gulch – 85 cfs Slim’s Gulch – 85 cfs Last Chance – 135 cfs  South Side Intercept of Last Chance – 10 cfs North Side Intercept of Last Chance – 10 cfs • Analysis indicates water is available to satisfy full water  rights on Lime Creek and South Side Intercept of Last  Chance Creek • Contemplated Facilities have not been constructed • Original Points of Diversion are in Holy Cross Wilderness 8 Are there constraints on remaining conditional rights? • Mormon Creek Subsystem – South Side Intercept of N. Fork Fryingpan – 15 cfs • Cunningham Creek Subsystem – North Cunningham Creek Intercept – 15 cfs – Unnamed Tributary to S. Fork Cunningham Creek – 30  cfs • Analysis indicates water is available to satisfy full  water rights on the North Cunningham Creek  Intercept • Diversions and feeder tunnels have not been  constructed, but main tunnels exist 9 Are there constraints on remaining conditional rights? • Ivanhoe Creek Subsystem – Ivanhoe Creek Intercept – 30 cfs – Fryingpan Intercept Canal – 10 cfs • Diversions and feeder tunnels have not  been constructed, but main tunnels exist 10 How Can Project Yield be Increased? 1. Increase yield from absolute water rights through more  automated/optimized facility operations 2. Construct diversions and feeder tunnels for conditional  water rights outside the Holy Cross Wilderness 3. Change conditional water rights in the Holy Cross  Wilderness to diversion or storage outside of  wilderness – Construct feeder tunnels to pump water to Boustead Tunnel – Store water and release to meet Thomasville  4. Construct diversion‐site storage to capture diurnal flow  fluctuations for diversion during lower flow periods 11 How Can Project Yield be Increased? 1. Increase yield from absolute water rights through  more automated/optimized facility operations • Point‐flow model analysis indicates that water available  under absolute water rights could provide contemplated  project yield – confirming conclusion from 1975 FEIS  analysis • Project operators believe improvements would optimize  operations and increase yield including: • Upgraded radial gate actuators • Lighter aluminum standardized headgates  • Updated software used to remotely adjust gates 12 How Can Project Yield be Increased? • Reclamation authorized replacement and upgrades  for some of the recommended improvements from  recent O&M Study: Improvement Construction  Cost Replace radial gate actuators at 14 diversions FY 2018 – FY 2019 $1.15M Clean/Re‐drill Boustead Tunnel weep drains FY 2012 – FY 2021 $1.15M Cunningham Tunnel invert repairs FY 2018 – FY 2020 $1.835M Replace Microwave Repeater Radios at 2 sites FY 2018 $0.715M 13 How Can Project Yield be Increased? 2. Construct diversions for conditional water  rights not located in the Holy Cross Wilderness – Construct river diversions, canals/tunnels, and  pump stations to convey diverted water to existing  tunnels  – Could provide average of 1,500 af/yr additional  yield 14 How Can Project Yield be Increased? 3. Move conditional water rights located in the Holy  Cross Wilderness and construct diversions and  feeder tunnels – File change of location for water rights on same  tributary but downstream of Wilderness area – Construct river diversions, pump stations, and pipeline  to deliver to Boustead Tunnel – Could provide average of 5,000 af/yr additional yield  (range from 1,700 to 9,000 af/yr) – Cost per acre‐feet yield is likely prohibitive 15 How Can Project Yield be Increased? 3. Move conditional water rights located in the Holy  Cross Wilderness and construct new storage – Reservoir site identified near Fryingpan River, South Fork  Fryingpan river, and Ivanhoe Creek confluences – File change of location for water rights on same tributary but  downstream of Wilderness area – Construct river diversions and canals/tunnels to convey  diverted water, by gravity, to reservoir site – Release water from reservoir to meet Thomasville gage flow  requirements, allowing increased diversion under existing  facilities  16 How Can Project Yield be Increased? • Construct storage for conditional water rights  outside the Holy Cross Wilderness – Reservoir capacity of 6,500 af could increase project  yield by an average of 3,250 af/year 17 How Can Project Yield be Increased? 4. Construct diversion‐site storage to capture diurnal  flow fluctuations for diversion during lower flow  periods – Analysis compare maximum potential diversion to  actual diversion based on hourly data for 2011 through  2015 for larger diversion locations – On‐site storage could increase project yield by average  125 af/yr (ranges from 0 af/yr in 2012 to 452 af/yr in  2011) – Site visit confirmed no clear opportunities for on‐site  storage at those locations 18 What is the Takeaway from Diligence Efforts? • Analysis indicates water is physically and legally  available at existing facilities to meet contemplated  project yield – as concluded in the 1975 FEIS • Analysis indicates contemplated project yield could be  met through existing infrastructure and software  upgrades • Reclamation has initiated facility upgrades and project  operators believe upgrades will improve project yield • Although costly, options exist to increase yield by  building infrastructure for conditional rights or through  on‐site storage to capture diurnal flows 19 What is the Takeaway from Diligence Efforts? • Recommend continue diligence on conditional                   water rights for six years to monitor enhanced yield  from existing structures/water rights 20