Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan APRIL 17, 2015 COLORADO BASIN ROUNDTABLE Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan FOREWORD BY THE CHAIR OF THE COLORADO BASIN ROUNDTABLE “The Colorado Basin Roundtable’s Basin Implementation Plan takes a firm position that when it comes to the Colorado River, another big transmountain diversion of water from our basin to the Front Range of Colorado would damage the regional recreation-based economy and heap further impacts on the environment and agriculture. HERE’S WHY: Between 450,000 and 600,000 acre feet of Colorado River water already permanently leaves the basin annually through existing transmountain diversions. It’s 100 percent gone, none of it coming back into the system through return flows. What’s more, a number of the Roundtable’s constituents have signed or are working on prospective agreements that could move up to another 140,000 acre feet through various projects. In other words, we already face a transmountain-sized project. HERE’S THE WORRY: Existing streamflows are critical to sustaining the recreational economy in our basin, which is home to the state’s most popular ski resorts as well as robust rafting, fishing, and hunting industries and other sought after outdoor experiences. Agriculture in the basin, especially in the Grand Valley area, remains a vital pursuit of statewide interest that depends on water supply. Further degraded streamflows threaten higher levels of pollutants. HERE’S ANOTHER WORRY: If Colorado overdevelops the river system beyond Colorado River Compact of 1922 legal limits, curtailments loom for many water users, perhaps most significantly for current transmountain diverters. Colorado already knows this compact lesson from other instate basins: over development of a river ultimately means undevelopment of agriculture to deal with the legal consequences. For these and many more reasons spelled out in this document, we discourage the assertion that a transmountain diversion is in this state’s best interest. Still the Colorado Constitution does not permit the legal argument of “not one more drop.” So we make the case that Colorado should take immediate steps to best use the water it already has. Painful deliberations about per capita consumption, land use and landscaping lie ahead.” Jim Pokrandt, Colorado River Water Conservation District and Chair of the Colorado Basin Roundtable COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 2 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 8 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 8 DOCUMENT MAP.................................................................................................. 10 COLORADO BASIN VISION . ............................................................................... 11 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................. 12 THE COLORADO BASIN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN — INFLUENCED BY A GRASSROOTS PROCESS ............................................... 15 FUTURE WATER AVAILABILITY ........................................................................ 18 Section 1 — About the Basin................................................................................... 20 1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 20 1.2 WATERSHED & FOREST HEALTH ............................................................ 24 1.3 WATER QUALITY ......................................................................................... 25 1.4 COLORADO RIVER BASIN’S ECONOMY RELATIONSHIP TO WATER ....................................................................... 27 1.5 THE SWSI GAP ............................................................................................. 27 1.6 THE GAP SHORTFALLS .............................................................................. 30 Section 2 — Basin Implementation Plan Approach, Public Outreach, and Basinwide Themes.........................................................31 2.1 SUMMARY OF OUTREACH ......................................................................... 31 2.2 PUBLIC INPUT RESULTS AND METHODOLOGY .................................. 32 2.3 PUBLIC OUTREACH ACTION PLAN BEYOND 2014 ............................. 41 2.4 PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING THE SIX BASINWIDE THEMES .......... 42 Section 3 — Needs Analysis — Regional Information and Breakdown............................. 73 3.1 EVALUATION OF CONSUMPTIVE, AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND RECREATIONAL NEEDS . .................... 73 3.2 REGIONAL BREAKDOWN ......................................................................... 86 Section 4 — Basinwide Projects — Regionwide Top Projects .........................................125 Section 5 — Interbasin Reliance Report . ..............................................................................135 Next Steps .................................................................................................................................... 141 Acronyms .................................................................................................................................... 143 Citations/References ................................................................................................................ 145 COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 3 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Alan Martellaro BRT, Division of Water C Resources (DWR) Alice Nordloh Citizen Amy Willhite Xcel Energy Andrew Gilmore Reclamation CBRT, Bureau of Angelo Fernandez agle River Water E & Sanitation District (ERWSD) Angie Boyer SGM Team Angie Fowler SGM Team Art Bowles BRT, Basalt Water C Conservancy District Brett Jolley Citizen Bruce Hutchins BRT, Grand County C Municipal Rep, Grand County Water and Sanitation District #1 Carlyle Currier BRT, Interbasin C Compact Committee (IBCC) Rep Carol Peterson Citizen Caroline Bradford CBRT, Eagle County Rep Charles “Barney” White Petros & White, LLC Chris Geiger Balcom & Green Chris Sammons Citizen Chris Treese olorado River Water C Conservation District (CRWCD) Chuck Ogilby BRT, Eagle County C Municipal Rep Cindy Houben Pitkin County Dale Tooker BRT, At Large C Representative Dan Birch CRWCD Dan DeLaughter eonard Rice (for L ERWSD) Dave Graf BRT, Colorado Division C of Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Dave Johnson Town of Grand Lake Dave Kanzer CRWCD Dave Nixa itkin County Healthy P Rivers and Streams Dave Sammons Citizen Dave Sturges ity of Glenwood C Springs Council Brendon Langenhuizen SGM Team David Reinertson Clifton Water District Brent Newman olorado Water C Conservation Board (CWCB) Staff Dennis Davidson Bookcliff, South Side and Mount Sopris Conservation Districts Brent Uilenberg BRT, Bureau of C Reclamation Diane Johnson CBRT, At Large Representative Art Bruchez Reeder Creek Ranch Barb Smith Town of Red Cliff Bart Miller estern Resource W Advocates (WRA) Beorn Courtney ELEMENT Water Consulting Bill Lorah Wright Water Engineers Bill McCormick DWR Bill Thompson ancher, Irrigators of R Lands in the Vicinity of Kremmling (ILVK) Bob Pennington SGM Team Bob Rankin tate Representative, S District 57 Bob Weaver eonard Rice L Engineering (for ERWSD) Bob Zanella Boyd Bierbaum BRT, West Divide C Water Conservancy District Town of Basalt COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 4 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS [cont.] Dick Morgan Citizen Don Carlson CBRT, Non-Voting At Large Member Donald Chaplin itch and Reservoir D Company Alliance (DARCA) Drew Beckwith WRA Dusty Walls Town of Eagle Elizabeth Koebele CU Boulder Erin Wilson Wilson Water Group Fred Eggleston BRT, Industrial C Representative Gail Schwartz olorado State Senate C District 5 Gary Bumgarner BRT, At Large C Representative Jay Harrington Holland & Hart Jay Miller City of Rifle Jeff Hecksel ity of Glenwood C Springs Jeff Shroll Town of Gypsum Jeff Leigh esa Cortina Water & M Sanitation District Jeff Nieslanik Citizen Jeffrey Durbin Town of Fraser Jim Broderick BRT, Non-Voting At C Large Member Jim Campbell Citizen Jim Pokrandt CBRT Chair, CRWCD Jim Yust Citizen John Cathrall Citizen Gary Martinez Summit County John Currier CRWCD Gary Nordloh Citizen John Martin Gary Roberts Town of Breckenridge arfield County G Commissioner Gerry Knapp BRT, Non-Voting At C Large Member John Sanderson he Nature Conservancy T (TNC), SGM Team Glenn Porzak orzak Browning & P Bushong LLP (for ERWSD) Jon Stavney Town of Eagle Judy Sappington Citizen Karl Hanlon BRT, Karp Neu Hanlon, C PC Karn Stiegelmeier ummit County S Commissioner Glenn Vawter ational Oil Shale N Association Greg Johnson Wilson Water Group Greg Lanning City of Grand Junction Kate McIntire CWCB Hannah Holm olorado Mesa C University, SGM Team Kathleen Curry omichi Creek Natural T Beef, SGM Team Hannah Klausman City of Rifle Heather Tattersall oaring Fork R Conservancy (RFC) Kathy Chandler-Henry E agle County Commissioner Kelley Nichols Citizen Holly Loff agle River Watershed E Council (ERWC) Ken Baker BRT, Non-Voting At C Large Member Ilana Moir Mesa Land and Trust Ken Neubecker Jacob Bornstein CWCB Staff BRT Environmental C Representative Janice Kurbjun I ndependent Writing Consultant, SGM Team Ken Ransford BRT Secretary, C Recreational Representative COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 5 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS [cont.] Kendyll Vresilovic Magnolia Design Mark Hamilton Holland & Hart Kevin Reidy CWCB Mark Hermundstad Kim Albertson BRT, At Large C Representative BRT, Williams, Turner & C Holmes, Mesa Count Rep Mark O’Meara Town of Carbondale Kimberly Bullen City of Rifle Martha Cochran Aspen Valley Land Trust King Lloyd ity of Glenwood C Springs Martha Moore RWCD, Recovery C Program Kirby Wynn Garfield County Max Schmidt Kit Hamby nowmass Water and S Sanitation District (SWSD) rchard Mesa Irrigation O District (OMID) Meg White TNC, SGM Team Mel Rettig BRT, Agricultural C Representative Merrit Linke Citizen Michelle Garrison CWCB Mike Koenig Copper Mountain Resort Mike McDill BRT, City of Aspen C Utilities Kristin Moseley Lane Wyatt orzak Browning & P Bushong LLP (for ERWSD) BRT, Summit Muni, C Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) Larry Clever te Water Conservancy U District Mike Sayler ishop-Brogden B Associates, Inc. Larry Thompson Town of Basalt Mike Sampson Lauren Berent Citizen arfield County G Commissioner Lauren Nance Xcel Energy Mike Scanlon Town of Basalt Laurie Rink iddle Colorado M Watershed Council Mike Wageck Lee Leavenworth oyal E. Leavenworth, L PC BRT, Local Domestic C Water Suppliers Representative Mike Weinhold SDA/USFS Grand U Valley Ranger District SDA/USFS White River U Ranger District Morgan Hill Garfield County Linda Perkins CBRT, USDA/USFS Nathan Fey American Whitewater Linn Brooks ERWSD Nicole Rowan Louis Meyer BRT, Garfield County C Rep, SGM Team olorado Department C of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) Pamela Woods Town of Silt Pat Wells Large Member CBRT, Non-Voting At Paul Bruchez Reeder Creek Ranch Linda Bledsoe Lurline Underbrink-Curran CBRT, Grand County Maria Pastore Grand River Consulting Mark Fuller BRT, Ruedi Water C and Power Authority (RWAPA) COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 6 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS [cont.] Paula Belcher BRT, Bureau of Land C Management (BLM ) Pete Miller ERWSD Pete Peterson Citizen Peter Mueller TNC, SGM Team Phil Overeynder City of Aspen Utilities Rachel Richards Stan Cazier BRT, Middle Park Water C Conservancy District, IBCC Representative Stephen Hill nake River Water S District Stephen Jaouen BRT, Pitkin County C Rep, Pitkin County Commissioner atural Resources N Conservation Service (NRCS) Steve Child itkin County P Commissioner Ramsey Kropf atrick, Miller, Kropf, P Noto, PC Steve Ryken BRT, Ute Water C Conservancy District Randy Townsend Town of Kremmling Steve Skadron City of Aspen, Mayor Ray Merry Eagle County Steven Kirk SGM Team Richard Hart Citizen Suzanne Stewart SGM Team Richard Lofaro oaring Fork R Conservancy Tamra Allen Garfield County Terry Franklin City of Grand Junction Thad Porter Citizen Thomas Clark BRT, At Large C Representative Richard Vangytenbeek Trout Unlimited Rick Brinkman City of Grand Junction Rob Young Citizen Robert Buras Town of Dillon Tim Cain Town of New Castle Robin Millyard ity of Glenwood C Springs Tom Allender Vail Resorts Tom Jankovksy Russ George BRT, CWCB C Boardmember arfield County G Commissioner Torie Jarvis NWCCOG Sam Perry Sollos Energy, LLC Troy Wineland DWR Sandy Jackson Citizen Wes Mauz Sara Dunn Balcom & Green BRT, Silt Water C Conservancy District Scott Burgess Town of Red Cliff William Bates Scott Grosscup Balcom & Green BRT, Non-Voting At C Large Member Scott McGown CDPHE-WQCD William “Willy” Powell Town of Minturn Scott O’Brien Town of Dillon Zach Margolis Stacy Tellinghuisen WRA COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E Town of Silverthorne 7 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Colorado is facing significant water supply challenges to meet future demands. These challenges are driven by a growing population, agricultural needs, protecting and restoring river health, and a growing recreation economy. In response, Governor Hickenlooper issued an Executive Order (EO) in 2013 calling for the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) to work with the nine Basin Roundtables, the Inter Basin Compact Committee (IBCC), and other stakeholders to develop Colorado’s first Water Plan. Each of the nine Basin Roundtables were charged with (Figure 2) developing a Basin Implementation Plan (BIP), identifying how future municipal, industrial, agricultural, recreational and environmental water needs will be met through existing or new projects, policies, and processes to the year 2050. The Governor’s EO required that the Colorado Water Plan incorporate the following key water values: • A productive economy that supports vibrant and sustainable cities, viable and productive agriculture, and a robust skiing, recreation and tourism industry • Efficient and effective water infrastructure promoting smart land use • A strong environment that includes healthy watersheds, rivers and streams, and wildlife Initial drafts of the Basin Implementation Plan were due in July of 2014 with final drafts due in April 2015. What follows is the outgrowth of countless Roundtable meetings, robust public outreach including 45 community meetings reaching over 900 stakeholders and countless hours of work by consultants, Roundtable members and the public. Figure 2. Boundaries of the Nine Basin Roundtables COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 8 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction [cont.] The Colorado Basin Roundtable (CBRT) submits this Basin Implementation Plan (BIP) as its contribution to Colorado’s Water Plan. In Governor John Hickenlooper’s May 2013 Executive Order he called for the state to create a water plan that proposes water-supply solutions for Colorado’s growing population, which according to the State Demographer could double to 10 million people by 2050. The Colorado Water Plan will be the culmination of more than nine years of work by nine basin Roundtable across the state, including the Colorado Basin Roundtable. A primary objective of the BIP is to look inside the six counties for projects and processes that will define the mainstem Basin’s water supply future and environmental needs. This BIP does that and it is a first-time aggregation of the many and varied ideas, projects, conditional water rights and environmental concerns that exist across the Basin. It does not favor one project over another but focuses on the needs of consumptive and non-consumptive uses within the Basin. While focusing on intrabasin needs by necessity it also addresses other basins looking to the Colorado River system to help solve their water supply Gaps, by moving additional Western Colorado water across the Continental Divide to the Front Range. Current and future proposed projects by out of basin users are referred to as Transmountain Diversions, or TMDs within this BIP. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 9 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Document Map Following guidance from the CWCB the Colorado BIP sought to streamline all plan components for easy reconciliation into the CWP. The remainder of this document is organized by the following sections: Colorado Basin Vision Executive Summary Section 1 – About the Basin Section 2 – Public Outreach – Basinwide Themes Section 3 – Needs Analysis – Regional Information and Breakdown Section 4 – Basinwide Projects – Regional Tiering Section 5 – Interbasin Reliance Report Section 6 – Next Steps CWB Guidance Section CWB Guidance Section Description Colorado BIP Section(s) CWB Guidance Section CWB Guidance Section Description Colorado BIP Section(s) 1 Basin Goals and Measureable Outcomes Section 3 4.1 Education Participation and Outreach Section 2 2 Evaluate Consumptive and Nonconsumptive Needs Section 3.8 4.2 Watershed Health Section 1.2 2.1 Nonconsumptive Needs Section 3.8 4.3 Conservation Projects and Methods Section 3 Section 6 2.2 Consumptive Needs Section 3.8 4.4 New Multi-Purpose, Cooperative and Regional Projects and Methods Section 6 3 Evaluate Consumptive and Nonconsumptive Constraints and Opportunities Section 3 4.5 M & I Projects and Methods Section 4 Section 6 3.1 Current Basin Water Operations and Hydrology Section 3 4.6 Agricultural Projects and Methods Section 4 Section 6 3.2 Water Management and Water Administration Section 1 4.7 Nonconsumptive Projects and Methods Section 4 Section 6 3.3 Hydrologic Modeling (Optional) Section 5 4.8 Interbasin Projects and Methods Section 4 3.4 Shortages Analysis Section 5 5 Implementation Strategies for the Projects and Methods Section 5 4 Projects and Methods Section 4 6 How the Plan meets the Roundtable Goals and Measurable Outcomes Section 5 COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 10 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Colorado Basin Vision The Colorado River Basin Roundtable “envisions a Colorado River basin that is home to thriving communities benefiting from vibrant, healthy rivers and outstanding water quality that provides for all of the Colorado Basin’s needs. We acknowledge the interdependence of the varied Basin water users. Protecting the water and river flows that will ensure the future for all of us is a high priority. We also recognize that the influence of historic drought patterns, the uncertainty of climate change, population growth, energy development and Compact compliance are interwoven within this vision. Much of this vision’s success depends on how we collectively adapt to these forces” (CBRT, 2011). The Vision (CBRT, 2011) and the Western Slope Principles (NWCCOG, 2014a) have been incorporated into the Colorado River Basin’s White Paper (CBRT, 2014); a document developed and adopted by the Colorado Basin Roundtable members in an effort to articulate their perspective on how to approach the statewide water planning process. These documents (located in Exhibit B) serve as the foundation for this BIP, representing the collective values of the Basin’s citizens and stakeholders, their stories and how they are standing their ground, negotiating their positions, and educating their constituents, including their children and grandchildren. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 11 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview This document’s strongest finding is that another major transmountain diversion (TMD) of water from the Colorado mainstem to Eastern Colorado should be prevented as damaging to our recreational economy, environment and agriculture. Within Colorado, 15 major TMDs already move water from Western Colorado to the Front Range and Eastern Colorado. 450,000 to 600,000 acre-feet (AF) of water annually leaves the Colorado River system to support municipalities and farms east of the Divide. The Colorado Basin is the State’s primary “donor” basin. Another 120,000 to 140,000 acre-feet of water could be developed using existing infrastructure. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 12 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview [cont.] The Colorado River also supports cities and agriculture far beyond Colorado’s boarders. The seven states in the Basin and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) collaborated on the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study that was released in December 2012. The study concluded that water use in the Basin has begun to exceed supply, and the Gap between demand and water available to meet that demand will widen in the coming decades. Unless current trends change a shortage or Compact curtailment between now and the year 2050 appears likely. Lake Powell could fall below levels where it could generate electrical power. At Mead, low water levels threaten the ability to supply water to Las Vegas, southern California and the large agricultural demands downstream. Potential mitigation actions include voluntary demand management (conservation and agricultural fallowing). This crisis foreshadows circumstances and actions that could occur under a Compact curtailment. This concern is highlighted by the lessons of overuse and Compact actions that exist today in the Arkansas, Rio Grande and Republican basins. The message: over-development of the river means un-development of agriculture. The CBRT does not want to see Western Colorado agriculture disappear because of poor — or purposeful — water planning. Our recreational and agricultural sectors are linked. The recreational economy “floats” on senior agricultural water rights moving from the headwaters to the Grand Valley. POLICY FRAMEWORK At the core of the Policy Framework for the BIP is the CBRT Whitepaper adopted by the Roundtable at its December 2013 meeting and attached as Exhibit B. In addition, thirty local governments and special districts in the headwaters, seven counties in three different basins (Gunnison, Routt, Park, Pitkin, Eagle, Summit, and Grand Counties) endorsed the Western Slope Principles authored by the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) Water Quality/Quantity (QQ) Committee. The Grand Valley Water Users’ Principles (Exhibit B) also provides guidance and informs the BIP. The Western Slope Principles emphasize the importance of ensuring that the Colorado Water Plan does not threaten the Western Slope’s water-dependent economic cornerstones: agriculture, resource extraction, recreation and tourism (Holm, 2013). The CBRT White Paper focuses on the future vision of the Basin and the impacts that another TMD would have on the Basin. Similarly the Grand Valley Water Users’ Principles reinforce that another TMD is not an acceptable solution to the Grand Valley. All water activity in the Colorado Basin, and in the Western Slope as a whole, affects all of Colorado as well as all downstream users and agreements beyond the state line. The Colorado River Basin is a thriving and diverse economic and natural asset to the entire state. Analyses show that between anticipated development, existing and future basin demands, climate COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 13 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview [cont.] forecasts and historical water analysis, cumulative impacts to healthy rivers and streams, there is no real water available for reliable future water supply outside of the Basin. This BIP attempts to balance the clear policy objectives of a diverse user group while recognizing the strategic importance of the Colorado River to the future development and sustainability of the entire State. The CBRT 2013 White Paper provides a framework for addressing future demands by other basins on the Colorado Basin. This framework includes: • West Slope gap requirements are filled first, with as much reliability as can be provided without the threat of compact curtailment. • A well-defined quantification of current undeveloped conditional trans-mountain rights and IPPs must be made prior to considerations of any new projects. • The Front Range must be unequivocally prove that the water available for such diversion truly exists in a reliable and long term, sustainable measure without adversely affecting the West Slope economy and environment. • Serious and meaningful Basin of Origin protections must be incorporated. • There will be no further degradation or diminishment of West Slope stream and river ecosystems or recreational opportunity. • There will be neither diminishment of existing West Slope agricultural activity and production, nor unnecessary constraints on agricultural expansion. • Local control, land use regulation and policy, must be adhered to. • The Shoshone Power Plant water right and operations remain intact, with flows as recognized in Senate Document 80 recognized and maintained. The core principle is that a TMD should be the last not the first tool out of the box to deal with water supply shortages statewide. This principle is equally applicable to any basin, including the Colorado Basin where the focus is on meeting the needs of the Basin from resources within the Basin. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 14 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Colorado Basin Implementation Plan ­­— Influenced by a Grassroots Process The Colorado Basin Roundtable initiated an extensive Public Education and Outreach program in December of 2013. This effort included numerous Town Hall meetings, 20 Roundtable and project leadership team discussions, 30 one-on-one interviews with water providers, 45 public outreach presentations to City and Town Councils and several college forums. From Grand County to Mesa County the public emphasized the importance of not overusing the Colorado River beyond its sustainable carrying capacity and stressed the need to restore and protect the essential flows and water quality of the Colorado River. These outreach efforts were attended by more than 900 citizens across the seven regions of the Colorado River Basin, offering them the unique opportunity to voice their concerns and offer solutions on how to meet future water demands within Colorado River Basin well beyond 2050. The extensive public outreach process was unparalleled and resulted in a wealth of information regarding the needs, hopes and aspirations of the largest river basin in the State. The prior work of the CBRT over the last nine years also served to inform and guide the development of the BIP including most notably the CBRT White Paper and the CBRT Vision Statement. While diverse in both geographic locations and localized needs six themes emerged as the guiding principles for the Colorado Basin Implementation Plan. The six Themes are: • Ecosystem Health - Protect and Restore Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Riparian Areas • Agriculture – Sustain, Protect and Promote Agriculture • Safe Drinking Water – Secure and Protect drinking water for today and tomorrow • Conservation - Encourage a High Level of Basinwide Conservation across all uses • Land Use – Develop Water Conscious Land Use Strategies • Basin Administration - Ensure Reliable and Predictable Basin Administration A summary of the underlying importance of each theme is presented below. Additional detail regarding the development of these themes is provided in the Section 2. THEME 1 — ECOSYSTEM HEALTH PROTECT AND RESTORE STREAMS, RIVERS, LAKES AND RIPARIAN AREAS Biologically healthy rivers form the basis of a thriving Colorado Basin. Whether in support of tourism and recreation, agriculture, safe drinking water or meeting the River’s Compact requirements healthy rivers with adequate flows are critical. This is not only reflected in stream flows but also in how those stream flows are managed. One of the identified projects discussed in more detail below is the development of a Basinwide Stream Management Plan. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 15 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Colorado Basin Implementation Plan ­­— Influenced by a Grassroots Process [cont.] THEME 2 — AGRICULTURE SUSTAIN, PROTECT AND PROMOTE AGRICULTURE Local food production has always been part of the Basin and has historically been an important component of the Basin’s economy. Increasingly food production is not limited to local or even Statewide consumption. More than 50%, of the beef and much of the hay raised in the Basin is exported outside of the State and to other countries. Facing an annual average shortfall of 100,000 acre-feet agriculture within the Basin is the most pressured and vulnerable segment of our economy. Currently 584,000 acre-feet are used to irrigate 268,000 acres. However, there is an existing annual average shortfall of optimum cooperative usage of 100,000 acre-feet (CDM, 2011b).] Although cattle production remains the primary share of agricultural production in the Basin the lower Basin represents a surprising diversity including feed and cereal grains and a large variety of fruits, vegetables, wine grapes and many specialty crops (Currier, 2014a). Stream health, storage and protections against agricultural water transfers (while protecting private property rights) top the list of projects for this Theme. THEME 3 — SAFE DRINKING WATER SECURE AND PROTECT SAFE DRINKING WATER FOR TODAY AND TOMORROW The Basin believes that it is imperative to secure the needs of the growing domestic water demands by developing in-basin supplies, expanding current raw water storage supplies and developing new small scale multi use storage. The reservoir planning and construction process is costly, time intensive, complex and often met with local opposition. Despite these challenges the Basin recognizes that smaller reservoirs (several thousand acre-feet) above physical intakes (not just augmentation) can provide multiple benefits for drinking water, agriculture, environmental and recreational interests. In contrast during the public outreach process it became clear that new large scale storage projects have little or no support in the Basin. THEME 4 — ENCOURAGE A HIGH LEVEL OF BASINWIDE CONSERVATION In order to meet the Basin and state goals, concerted conservation efforts have to be made. Although many stakeholders within the Basin have begun to embrace the importance of conservation, more conservation, efficiency and reuse efforts are needed. The stakeholders within the Basin continue to develop and implement municipal conservation plans that support stronger, and in some instances, more aggressive best management practices (BMPs) such as tiered water rates, leak detection programs, water conscious land use practices, and restrictions on outdoor irrigation. Agriculture, as the major water user within the Basin, has opportunities to participate in both conservation and efficiency such as ditch lining programs, headgate improvements, conversion to more efficient irrigation practice and exploring alternative cropping. All of these are currently being implemented to varying degrees throughout the Basin. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 16 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Colorado Basin Implementation Plan ­­— Influenced by a Grassroots Process [cont.] THEME 5 — LAND USE DEVELOP LOCAL WATER CONSCIOUS LAND USE STRATEGIES The connection between land use and water supply must be made. Land use authorities must be willing to take on water management as an issue when planning for the future. The stakeholders of the Colorado River Basin respect the State’s effort to govern water planning for the benefit of all residents; however, there is a strong recognition of the vast diversity in the needs and desires of all regional management entities and the value of local control. Moving forward the planning horizon for land use and water supply should extend beyond 2050, working towards meeting our goal to protect and restore our environmental, agricultural and recreational settings through the use of high conservation and water efficiency practices. The State is also uncertain of the risks associated with a multi-year drought. It is critical that utilities, policy-makers, planners, officials and residents accept that we live in a high altitude arid region and be ready to change the way we use and allocate our water resources to appropriately live within the means of our climate. THEME 6 — BASIN ADMINISTRATION ASSURE DEPENDABLE BASIN ADMINISTRATION Protecting the senior Shoshone Hydroelectric water right, Grand Valley irrigators’ water rights (Cameo Call), and the 15-Mile Reach are vital to both our instream flows (ISF) and Basin water users. It is imperative that Basin and West Slope entities work together to ensure the Shoshone Hydroelectric water rights are maintained in and by Basin interests in perpetuity to make sure downstream water deliveries are made and protect headwater needs from excessive transmountain diversions. Further, Colorado is ill-prepared for a Lower Basin Compact call. The most immediate challenge is to avoid lowering the Lake Powell water levels below the “Power Pool” elevation, otherwise face large negative impacts to many federally funded programs the state of Colorado relies on within the Colorado River Basin. The means to protecting our valuable mainstem water rights, meeting our downstream obligations, including ISFs, will also require improvements to the state water court process from both a cost and timing perspective. Conservation and efficiency are key to Colorado’s water future; however, understanding the impacts of irrigation and the different methods of irrigation in a watershed is critical to understanding the future of Colorado River and its flows. Flood irrigation saturates the alluvial in a watershed. This water is then slowly released from the ground back into the River, creating higher late season flows and cooler water temperatures. Proper studies should be done to ensure that conservation and efficiency methods do not cause a negative impact to late season flows of the River and Downstream users. Flood irrigation is critical in portions of the River that have been greatly impacted by TMDs. Flood irrigation is a replacement of natural high flows of the river, helping to maintain the health of riparian areas as well as aquatic life that lives beyond the banks of the River in the floodplain. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 17 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Future Water Availability The old paradigm that increasing demands on the Front Range can always be met with a new supply from the Colorado River system is no longer valid. However, current level of water development, population growth and long term hydrology work against this as a viable solution. The CBRT Whitepaper lays out a policy that addresses the misplaced reliance on TMD by focusing on in basin solutions first. This policy supports the six themes that emerged from CBRT work and constituent comment. From a policy perspective, the CBRT advocates that TMDs should be the last “tool” considered as a water supply solution, once the many and complex questions are addressed over hydrology, Compact curtailment rules, risk to existing water users, impacts to the environment and more - and once everything that can be done to conserve and reuse water has been undertaken. This policy is supported by several documents, including the previously referenced Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study that concluded Colorado is overusing its Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948 allocation of 51.75 percent of Upper Basin water and is estimated at about 58 percent. It is estimated that there will likely be an average shortfall of 3.2 million acre-feet in the entire seven-state region by 2060 (BOR, 2012). Lake Powell is the “bank account” that allows Colorado and the Upper Basin to meet the 1922 Colorado River Compact obligations in lean snowmelt years and helps supply the electrical needs of 5.8 million people, including a significant number of people in Colorado. Revenue from hydroelectric generation is applied to several beneficial purposes in Colorado, including, but not limited to salinity control projects and the Endangered Fish Recovery Program. Long term drought that commenced in 1999 and a supply-demand imbalance in the Lower Basin (i.e. more uses than inflow), have caused Lake Powell and Lake Mead to approach critically low levels, below 50 percent of capacity. As a consequence 2014 was the first water year that water deliveries from Lake Powell to Lake Mead were reduced (8.23 million acre feet (MAF) to 7.48 million acre-feet) pursuant to the 2007 Interim Operating Guidelines (BOR, 2007). If long term drought continues and unless something is done in response to these conditions, Lake Powell’s elevation could drop below the level at which the reservoir can generate hydroelectric power (minimum power pool) (McClow, 2014). All Colorado River users need to assess in-basin solutions that use high conservation measures, reuse, land use and best-practice agricultural transfer methods before considering projects that increase diversions from the Colorado River Basin. Within the state of Colorado the Colorado River Basin is facing challenges related to water supply and water quality to support healthy ecosystems; promoting and sustaining strong agricultural and recreational economies; providing safe and reliable drinking water; and avoiding a looming Compact curtailment. One major factor contributing to these challenges is the 450,000 to 600,000 acre-feet of water currently being diverted to farms and cities of eastern Colorado through existing TMDs. The Colorado River Basin is the state’s major “donor” basin of water and is at-risk for losing even more water to the Front Range, as much as 120,000 to COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 18 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Future Water Availability [cont.] 140,000 acre-feet, to support projects identified to meet future demands including: • 50,000 to 70,000 acre-feet left for the full use of existing TMDs • 50,000 acre-feet in new depletions through Moffat and Windy Gap • Potential cooperative projects as contemplated by the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement (CRCA) • 20,000 acre-feet contemplated with the Eagle River Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to benefit Colorado Springs and Aurora Additional uncertainties include climate change, agricultural shortages, energy development, dust on snow and the widespread impact of beetle kill on Upper Colorado River watersheds. Undefined environmental and recreational needs and existing identified projects add to the complexity of the Basin’s challenges. On top of all this we have our own “gap” of water needs to fill. Given this it is difficult to see how the Colorado Basin or the West Slope at large can be expected to be a significant source of water for filling East Slope “gaps”. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 19 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 1 About the Basin The Colorado River Basin (Basin) encompasses approximately 9,830 square miles. It is among the largest watersheds in the state (Figure 4). The six counties within the Basin (Grand, Summit, Routt, Gunnison, Eagle, Pitkin, Garfield, and Mesa) have vastly different topography, climate conditions, land use characteristics, population growth, economic base and geology. All of these factors impact our water needs and the amount of water available in our streams, rivers, lakes and groundwater. Figure 4. Colorado River Basin Boundaries There is no certainty regarding the future climate of the Basin, except that normal climate variability, changes in average winter and summer temperatures, and increasing extremes due to climate change will continue to challenge the state in the 21st century. Due to the lack of certainty regarding future water availability it is difficult to plan for future growth and current needs based on hypothetically available water left to be developed within the Basin. As such the CBRT has taken the position that the reliance on a future TMD to meet the needs of other basins is not sound and should be undertaken only as a tool of last resort. 1.1 Background BASIN WATER ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT In Colorado, the complexity of water law reflects the scarcity of the resource. Due to our semiarid environment, managing water has become essential to water supply development both within the state and across the entire seven states region. Colorado employs a system of water administration known as the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation. Under this doctrine, the first user to put the water to beneficial use has a senior right to that water and that right must be satisfied before any rights junior to that can receive water. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 20 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 1 About the Basin [cont.] Water development in the Basin first started for mining followed by agriculture. The most senior major agricultural water right in the Basin is the Grand Valley Canal, and was first established in 1882 with an original water right for 520.81 cfs. The Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant, located in Glenwood Canyon started operation in 1909 with a water right for 1250 cfs. In 1922, the states relying on Colorado River water supply set up allocations that would govern the future of the Colorado River. The following years revealed that the river flow measurements on which the 1922 Colorado River Compact was based weren’t correct: • Hydrologic predictions were inaccurate • Climate change was unknown in 1922 In 1937 the Colorado River Water Conservation District was formed by the Colorado General Assembly to give Western Colorado a voice in the matter of negotiating transmountain diversions (TMD) with Eastern Colorado entities Northern Colorado Water Conservation District and Colorado Water Conservation Board. This was a direct result of the difficult negotiations in the early 1930s over the Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) Project, the first big TMD. One result of that negotiation was Green Mountain Reservoir, a project to compensate West Slope water users and provide for growth. In 1937 the Water Conservancy Act spelled out Basin of Origin mitigation for TMD projects created under the act. Cities were excluded from this requirement. But with Basin of Origin mitigation, the West Slope gained Green Mountain Reservoir from the C-BT and Ruedi Reservoir from the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, which benefits Southeastern Colorado. Other top TMDs in the Basin include Denver Water’s Moffat Tunnel Project and Blue River Project (Dillon Reservoir and Roberts Tunnel), Homestake Reservoir for Aurora and Colorado Springs and the Windy Gap Project for Northern Colorado entities. Other reservoirs include: Wolford Mountain Reservoir, a collaboration among the Colorado River District, Denver Water and Northern Water to benefit West Slope water use, and Denver Water’s Williams Fork Reservoir, which replaces out of priority diversions to provide for West Slope water rights. Water Administration is also impacted by the 15-Mile Reach Programmatic Biological Opinion for four species of Endangered fish in the Grand Valley area. Reservoir operators provide 10,825 acre-feet of water to enhance habitat flows in the 15-Mile Reach while cooperating on other measures with federal entities to enhance flows, propagate the species and create fish passages at dams. A snapshot of some of the important water rights features and water rights within the Basin are depicted in Figure 5, found on the following page. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 21 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 1 About the Basin [cont.] 2 3 4 1 5 7 6 Figure 5. Important Features and Water Rights in the Colorado River Basin (Mainstem in Colorado) 1. Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant Located in Glenwood Canyon along the Colorado River the Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant is an essential water right for the Colorado River Basin. The plant holds very senior water rights and has the ability to call for water year-round whenever the Colorado River is flowing below 1,250 cfs. Placing a call mandates the upper Colorado River Basins allow the Colorado River to flow downstream maintaining important stream flows for a wide range of users. Xcel Energy owns the 16 Megawatt hydropower plant. 2. Windy Gap Project Windy Gap is an example of one of the complicated water projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin where Front Range interests and Colorado River Basin interests meet head on. The Windy Gap Project consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acrefoot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Lake Granby. Windy Gap water is pumped and stored in Lake Granby before it is delivered to water users via the Colorado-Big Thompson Project’s East Slope distribution system. 3. Green Mountain Reservoir Green Mountain Reservoir (GMR) represents a great compromise that made the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) possible: it compensates (augments) the Colorado River Basin for water diverted to cities in Northern Colorado from Granby Reservoir, further upstream on the Colorado River. GMR was constructed in 1943 and was the first facility to be constructed as part of the C-BT. GMS also serves as an important augmentation source for Colorado River Basin Water users. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 4. Dillon Reservoir Dillon Reservoir resides in the middle of Summit County along the Blue River and was built by Denver Water as a water source for their growing population. The Reservoir is capable of storing 254,036 acre-feet of water which can be transferred to Denver via the Harold D. Roberts Tunnel. 5. Ruedi Reservoir Ruedi Reservoir is located near Basalt, CO on the Fryingpan River. This Bureau of Reclamation project, part of the Fryingpan Arkansas Project, was built to augment east-slope diversions higher up on the Fryingpan River. Ruedi Reservoir also serves as a major augmentation water supply for Colorado River Basin water users. 6. Grand Valley Irrigation Ditches The Roller Dam on the Colorado River is the location of several large irrigation ditches. The water rights associated with these ditches are very senior on the Colorado River and generally are the primary calling rights during the irrigation season. While these water rights can divert the majority of the flow in the Colorado River they also ensure water is flowing down river from the Upper Colorado River Basin protecting stream flows through a majority of the Colorado River within Colorado. 7. Colorado River Compact Call In 1922, the seven states that touch the mainstream of the Colorado River or tributaries to the Colorado River signed the Colorado river Compact. This Compact divided the annual yield of the River between the states. Colorado has not been restricted in its water use by the Compact but as the annual average water yield of the Colorado River decreases and water demand from the 7 states increases, chances of Colorado being affected by a Compact call in the near future are more likely. 22 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 1 About the Basin [cont.] HYDROLOGY Of the 16 million acre-feet/year (AFY) on average of renewable water generated within Colorado’s high country, approximately 80 percent is on the West Slope while the remaining 20 percent is on the East Slope. The challenge of managing this valuable resource is that 80 percent of our state’s population and a majority of the irrigated agricultural lands are located on the East Slope (CDM, 2010). The Reservoirs and TMDs discussed above provide the operational backbone to move the water from the West Slope to the East Slope. DROUGHT AND CLIMATE CHANGE Colorado has always been vulnerable to extreme weather and climate events as was evidenced in the droughts of 1930, 1954, 1977, 2002 and 2012. Many Colorado River Basin water providers and agricultural irrigators depended upon surface supply intakes that were severely impaired during the droughts of 1977, 2002 and 2012 due to low river and stream flows and irrigators lost production. Many Colorado River Basin utilities were forced to impose water restrictions. The CWCB and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) address statewide drought planning through the Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response Plan (DMRP). In 2010, the DMRP went through a comprehensive revision and was again updated in 2013. The updated plan provides a blueprint for how the state will monitor, mitigate and respond to drought. The plan consists of four components: monitoring, assessment, mitigation, and response. Monitoring is ongoing and accomplished, at a minimum, by regular meetings of the Water Availability Task Force (WATF The 2013 DMRP will also be used to incorporate drought planning into the Colorado Water Plan as it is developed over the next year (CWCB, 2014). The most serious anticipated impacts of climate change include shifts in timing and intensity of precipitation, streamflows, reductions in late-summer flows, decreases in runoff, increases in drought, and modest declines for Colorado’s high-elevation snowpack (Avery, et.al., 2011). These effects will ripple into water supply reliability, impacting municipalities, wildlife, ecosystems, forests, recreation, industries including power generation, snowmaking, energy extraction/ production, and agriculture. POPULATION Colorado’s population is expected to nearly double by 2050 from approximately 5.1 million people to between 8.6 million and 10 million people. On average, statewide population projections from 2008 forward indicate an increase of about 1.4 million people every 15 years. The fastest growth on a percentage basis is anticipated to take place on the West Slope with growth in some areas in the Basin increasing by 240 percent during the next 35 years (CDM, 2011b). This population growth will drive a significant demand for additional water to meet future municipal and industrial (M&I) demands and self-supplied industrial (SSI) water uses including snowmaking, energy extraction and production, and other industrial needs (CDM, 2011b). COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 23 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 1 About the Basin [cont.] FEDERAL LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT A substantial portion of the Basin is made up of Federally owned land. Of the almost 6 million acres in the Basin, almost half is owned by the United States Forest Service (USFS). Bureau of Land Management controlled rangeland is the second most predominant land use in the Basin accounting for approximately 40% of the total area. Livestock grazing, recreation, hunting, energy and timber harvest are the primary uses of the federal lands. Active and inactive mines can also be found throughout the Basin. A majority of the energy extraction activity occurs on Federal Lands throughout the Basin, specifically within the Piceance Basin of Garfield County. 1.2 Watershed and Forest Health There are 14 active watershed groups in the Basin assessing impaired water bodies and lands. These organizations promote the health and conservation of their watersheds through research, education, and project identification and implementation. In many cases these groups have been key operators in the development of watershed plans outlining specific needs, vulnerabilities and projects. These groups are critical to the successful protection of Basin watersheds and forests as they are leading the efforts in protection, reclaiming and maintaining this vibrant and living resource. Another collaborative effort that assesses the health and condition of our watersheds is being led by state and local fire and land management authorities. Fires and floods are becoming more and more destructive with drier climate conditions. Since the year 2000, 26 of Colorado’s 30 largest wildfires have occurred and 14 of the 15 most destructive fires to human property have been recorded. It has been estimated that over 4 million acres of forests in Colorado and Wyoming are dying due to the ongoing mountain pine beetle (MPB) infestation. The visual impact of dying and dead forests is stark, but the invisible changes to the water cycle in vital watersheds such as the Colorado River Basin headwaters, may be a longer-lasting legacy of the MPB (Maxwell et. al, 2012). With the loss of forests come risks to infrastructure, including, but not limited to water supply reservoirs, pipelines and pumping stations. Watersheds critical to supplying water to our communities should have a plan that provides specific actions needed to protect reservoirs, intakes, water transportation and distribution structures and other facilities from high-severity wildfires and other impacts that can influence our water quality. The CBRT recognizes the importance of protecting and maintaining healthy watersheds and forests and restoring ones that have been compromised by wildfires. The CBRT promotes planning and actions that will support sustainable ecosystems and protect critical water supplies, with good water quality and adequate water quantity during critical times of the year. Due to the breadth of the Basin, planning will necessarily occur at the local level as a Basinwide Plan is geographically infeasible. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 24 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 1 About the Basin [cont.] Additional plans that evaluate and protect our forests include the Colorado Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) and the Colorado Wildfire Risk Assessment Project (Colorado WRA 2012). CWPPs require counties to identify wildfire hazard areas in unincorporated areas perform a risk analysis and identify methods to reduce structural ignitability and an implementation plan. There are 18 CWPPs within the Basin. Further the Colorado State Forest Service established the Colorado WRA 2012 project to provide a consistent, comparable set of scientific results to be used as a foundation for wildfire mitigation and prevention planning in Colorado. An important aspect of the watershed health that is most often neglected is the riparian areas and floodplains the forest and the overall Basin. Deficient county and municipal building codes allow home owners and businesses to develop up to a rivers’ bank. The loss of a natural buffer to human activity degrades water quality. Stream and river diversions to fill reservoirs have meant a loss of peak spring flows resulting in decreased overbank flooding which is necessary to sustain riparian vegetation. Infringement on the riparian corridor and a loss of flows for riparian health, has added additional stress to overall river health. Half of the nutrients found in rivers come from riparian areas. In order to protect watershed health we must embark on additional assessments to quantitatively identify flow needs to sustain riparian health, (including the evaluation of benefits to the riparian health created from flood irrigation) and thus help provide clean water and suitable habitat and nutrients for aquatic life. 1.3 Water Quality Salinity Control Program (CRBSCP). The CRBSCP is a cooperative effort of the seven Colorado River Basin states, the federal government and Basin water users to limit increases in river salinity. Irrigation improvements and vegetation management reduce water available to transport salts. Point sources, such as saline springs like Glenwood Hot Springs are also controlled. The program, a long term interstate and interagency public/private partnership effort, is carried out to reduce the amount of salts in the river and its associated impacts in the Basin. The combined efforts of the Program have resulted in the control of an estimated 772,627 tons of salt per year. This salt reduction results have decreased damages to about $88 million/ year. Salinity Control Projects in the Colorado Basin include: • Grand Valley Unit: Canal lining, piped laterals and on-farm irrigation improvements in the Grand Junction area, funded by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) • Additional NRCS study areas: Silt, Whitewater and De Beque In conjunction with the removal of salts from the Colorado River basin, selenium is also removed. Reductions in selenium concentrations in the lower Colorado River have resulted in attainment COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 25 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 1 About the Basin [cont.] of the chronic and acute selenium standards on the lower Colorado River from the Gunnison River to the Colorado-Utah state line. This portion of the river was first identified on the state’s 303(d) List as impaired for selenium in 2004 and remains critical habitat for the endangered species, the Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker. Two federal laws, the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), were established to ensure the quality of Americans’ drinking and surface waters. Under the SDWA, EPA sets standards for drinking water quality and oversees the states, localities, and water suppliers who implement those standards (EPA, 2014). Under the CWA, the statute employs a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) – Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) and Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) are responsible for developing specific state water quality policies in a manner that implements the broader policies set forth by the Legislature in the Colorado Water Quality Control Act. The WQCC adopts water quality classifications and standards for surface and groundwaters of the state, as well as various regulations aimed at achieving compliance with those classifications and standards and the WQCD protects and restores water quality for public health and environment through the development and enforcement of permits. Several regulations have been established to protect the beneficial uses (public water supplies, domestic, agricultural, industrial and recreational uses, and the protection and propagation of terrestrial and aquatic life), of Colorado’s water bodies. Two specific surface water regulations identify narrative and numeric limits for waters within the Colorado Basin, Regulation No.33, covering the Upper Colorado River Basin and North Platte River Basins, and Regulation No. 37, covering the Lower Colorado River Basin. These regulations are revisited on a triennial basis by the WQCC to ensure site-specific standards protect identified beneficial uses. Another regulation, Regulation No. 93, establishes Colorado’s List of Water-Quality-Limited Segments Requiring Total Maximum Daily Loads (“TMDLs”) and Colorado’s Monitoring and Evaluation List (M&E List). The list of Water-Quality-Limited Segments Requiring TMDLs fulfills requirements of section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act which requires that states submit to the EPA a list of those waters for which technology-based effluent limitations and other required controls are not stringent enough to achieve water quality standards,. The M&E List includes a list of those water bodies where there is reason to suspect water quality problems, but there is also uncertainty regarding one or more factors, such as the representative nature of the data. Water bodies that are impaired, but it is unclear whether the cause of impairment is attributable to pollutants as opposed to pollution, are also placed on the M&E List. This M&E List is a state-only document that is not subject to EPA oversite. Both lists have been compiled and included as part of the nonconsumptive needs evaluation as part of this BIP and depicted on the figures within the Regional Breakdown section. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 26 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 1 About the Basin [cont.] 1.4 The Colorado River Basin’s Economy­— Relationship to Water Tourism, Agriculture and Energy are all critical and integral components of the Basin Economy. Tourism is the predominant basic-sector industry in the headwaters counties (Grand, Eagle, Summit, and Pitkin) with world-class visitor attractions, including ski resorts, Gold Medal fishing, National Parks and Wild and Scenic eligible rivers. Each County ranks tourism as a top economic development strategy. Tourism comprises 48% of all jobs, in contrast, with the rest of the State, tourism comprises 8% of all jobs statewide. In 2010, 60% of all overnight skier visitors came from out-of-state. Most major ski resorts are in the six headwaters counties. Skiers spent an average of $931 per person during their average 4.6 day stay (Longswood International, 2011). In 2007, in the six headwaters counties (including Gunnison and Routt counties), anglers spent about $105.8 million on goods and services and generated a total economic impact of $180.68 million and 2,199 jobs (NWCCOG, 2012). This economy also benefits the Front Range counties, where travel and equipment expenditures comprise an important component. Headwaters counties are highly dependent on and vulnerable to changes in environmental conditions that impact tourism (NWCCOG, 2012). Risks to environmental and recreational uses already exist. For example, the ecosystems of many headwater streams currently suffer from depletions by TMDs and local water uses. Further development of TMDs including the 120,000 AF to 140,000 AF, already identified in increased TMDs, will further impact the available recreational and environmental flows and carried through to the related industries in the Basin. Recreation, the economic mainstay for many counties in the Basin, requires virtually no consumptive water (NWCCOG, 2012). The value of agriculture to the Basin is often understated. Agriculture is part of the historic culture; it is complementary to tourism and a vital source of return flows that sustain late season streamflows for fisheries. It produces cattle that support east slope feedlots (NWCCOG, 2012) and summer produce that fills our grocery stores. A large percentage, of the beef raised within our Basin is exported outside of the state and to other countries. Colorado’s agricultural and food industries support about four percent of Colorado’s jobs and many of Colorado’s counties are “ag dependent” (CDM, 2011b). Energy also represents an important though varied segment of the economy. Water needs of the energy industry are similarly varied and added in more detail in Section __. 1.5 The SWSI Gap SWSI 2010 determined that all eight basins in Colorado face a “Gap” between water supply and demand. SWSI identified a large discrepancy between the anticipated supply and the projected need for water by the year 2050. The statewide Gap as determined is projected to be 500,000 AFY by the year 2050, with most of that being within the South Platte, Arkansas, and Metro basins. However, the Gap is a generalized number that lacks specificity to accurately inform state COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 27 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 1 About the Basin [cont.] water policy. Local needs and impacts must be analyzed and recognized to develop an accurate picture of Statewide needs. The 2010 SWSI intended to grow the available information on water supply and demand as well as support regional water planning efforts across the state. Key elements of SWSI included: • Analysis of the water demands to 2050, including consideration of the effect of passive conservation on those demands • Analysis of environmental and recreational needs (for each basin) • Analysis of the water availability/supply in the Colorado River basin • Implementation elements associated with identified projects, water conservation, agricultural transfers, and development of new water supplies (the four legs of the stool) The projected Colorado River Basin Gap ranges from 22,000 to 48,000 AFY, depending upon whether the low to high population projections were applied. This Gap is misleading as it does not account for the environmental and recreational needs and the agricultural shortages within the Basin, many of which exist as a result of the combined effects of the 400,000 to 600,000 AFY of water currently exported out of the headwater counties. Current water demands are being met through the administration and operation of augmentation reservoirs which augment water to the mainstem senior calls. A large percentage of these reservoirs are now fully allocated. The shortcoming of SWSI 2010 was not addressing recreational, environmental and agricultural needs in a meaningful manner. The lack of data on these issues for the Basin leads to a misconception as to the actual impacts of additional TMDs to the Basin. Colorado’s Prior Appropriation system of water use enabled the stable settlement and cultivation of Colorado’s Western Slope. The ability to divert and put to beneficial use waters in Colorado’s rivers and streams helped bring economic life to communities throughout western Colorado. As our communities have grown, so too has our need for more water. Despite the fact that there are significant water resources in the Colorado Basin, our needs have in many cases outpaced supply. Here’s a brief look at the background to why these Gaps have surfaced over time. MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL The SWSI 2010 Municipal and Industrial (M&I) water demand forecast focused on a growing population. Additional industrial water demands were evaluated as Self Sustained Industry (SSI) which included the oil and gas industry and snowmaking industries water demands among others. SWSI 2010 stated that in 2008 the estimated direct water demands for energy development within the Basin were 2,300 AFY and proposed to be between 200 AFY and COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 28 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 1 About the Basin [cont.] 10,700 AFY in 2050 due to the variability of the oil and gas industry. Snowmaking water demand in 2008 was estimated at 3,180 AFY with forecast growth to 4,740 AFY by 2050. The definition and use of the Gap for the 63 water providers of the Colorado Basin water providers and utilities are small and dependent upon direct stream flows. More importantly, these water providers have not addressed the uncertainties brought about by extended drought, Compact calls and climate change into their long-range water plans (beyond 2050). Many lack redundancy of supplies and even though most of them have a legal supply from augmentation reservoirs to meet in-basin calls, they do not have physical supply from reservoirs above intakes that can protect them in drought periods. Many Colorado water providers are growing into existing supplies or have senior water rights from local surface water supplies that are sufficient for future growth. Most of the planning for these supplies was premised on a firm dry year yield. Firm dry year yields were based upon historical statistical modeling. Relying upon historical hydrology will not guide us in the future based upon recent extended droughts and future climate change. Therefore this plan recommends that water providers need to update master plans to account for extreme droughts, a Compact call and climate change scenarios. AGRICULTURE The deficit in the agricultural water supply versus demand is referred to as the “shortage”. SWSI 2010 estimated that the agricultural sector is approximately 100,000 AF short. That estimate was based on the number of acres in production, the water needed to produce a crop, and the water typically available to meet full season demand. This shortage will exist and potentially increase as more senior water rights, that were once “conditional”, are developed in other parts of the Basin. This will continue to impact those with fewer senior rights who in the past have been vulnerable in dry and even normal years. For some farmers and ranchers in the Colorado Basin with more junior rights, their ability to divert water in the latter part of the season may be curtailed. ENVIRONMENT AND RECREATION The environmental and recreation (nonconsumptive) Gap has not been quantified. Initial efforts to quantify the nonconsumptive Gap have been made through the Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool (WFET), the Nonconsumptive Needs Assessment, and regional efforts such as the Grand County Stream Management Plan. In collaboration with the State of Colorado, the Basin (like the 8 others) identified the environmental attributes and the areas that are at-risk of hurting those attributes as a result of changes to river and stream flows through the use of the WFET. Further, American Whitewater completed an assessment of key whitewater boating opportunities in the Colorado Basin. They identified 28 reaches and the minimum, optimum and maximum flow levels for these reaches. As described in the WFET, many of these reaches are at-risk to being diminished by current or additional water development. American Whitewater’s study also COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 29 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 1 About the Basin [cont.] identified the number of user days that have historically been available. This BIP establishes a goal to protect these recreational boating opportunities from future water development above these reaches that might detract from their recreational values. There are some recreational reaches, we should note, where seasonally high flows are prohibitive for recreational use. This information will assist the Basin in moving forward with a Basinwide Stream Management Plan to further quantify the Basin’s environmental and recreational needs. 1.6 The Gap Shortfalls There is disagreement across the state on whether the SWSI Gap is accurate and the sense is that the methodology used to calculate these values should include more site-specific data and information. For instance, a review of the data used by SWSI and that information collected throughout the BIP process shows that, in general, existing water providers in the Basin have identified projects, policies, and methods to meet future water demands. Many will grow into existing supplies; however, the impacts to recreational and environmental needs, agriculture, and instream flows are unclear and need to be further evaluated. This is in sharp contrast to other basins which are projecting the need to develop TMDs to meet the future (if not current) demand. See e.g. South Platte and Arkansas Basin BIPs. SWSI assumed that 70 percent of the Gap will be met through buy and dry of additional irrigated acreage. This assumption has serious shortcomings by overstating the agricultural acreage that could be removed from irrigation (Currier, 2014b). SWSI 2010 did not use the historical consumptive use (HCU) from the urbanized lands to reduce the M&I Gap. If HCU from urbanized land is used to meet the Gap (and as a practical matter, it has been and will be) then the reported additional buy and dry acreage could be much smaller. In the Colorado Basin, about half of the urbanization is expected to occur in the Grand Valley, followed by Garfield County. Realistically, there will be very little buy and dry as water providers will meet future demands through a combination of storage as well as HCU from urbanized land and junior water rights (Currier, 2014b). Buy and dry on a large scale is simply not necessary because alternative supplies are available. The Next Steps section for the Basin Implementation Plan identify actions and projects that will better quantify the future consumptive, environmental, and agricultural water needs of our Basin. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 30 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basin Implementation Plan Approach, Public Outreach, and Basinwide Themes This section presents the approach used by the Colorado Basin Roundtable (CBRT) to develop the Basin Implementation Plan (BIP) for the Colorado River Basin. The approach used was modeled on the BIP Guidance document provided by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). In developing the information, ideas and solutions, the CBRT Team relied on a grassroots, bottom up, approach. 2.1 Summary of Outreach Outreach during the BIP drafting process included Town Hall meetings, presentations to community groups, invitations to the public to attend Roundtable planning sessions, a series of newspaper articles, a website, Facebook® page and Twitter® page. Input was gathered through a variety of methods including in-person meetings, surveys, and the Colorado Basin Implementation Plan website (http://coloradobip.sgm-inc.com/), Facebook® page and Twitter® account. PUBLIC MEETINGS The Colorado BIP Team led by SGM, with assistance from CBRT members and the collaboration of community groups within the Basin, made presentations on the BIP planning process and collected input at 45 public meetings throughout the Basin, reaching over 900 people prior to the completion of the draft BIP in July 2014. Since the completion of the draft BIP and Colorado Water Plan, presentations have been made in at least an additional 12 meetings with a combined attendance of over 350 people. In addition to meetings for the general public, technical outreach meetings with water providers across the Basin were conducted, which was integral to developing the municipal and industrial needs assessments and project lists. A complete list of the public meetings is included in Exhibit C. NEWS MEDIA The Water Center at Colorado Mesa University, a member of the BIP team, coordinated the writing and publication of a series of newspaper articles describing the various elements of the BIP, including an overview of the BIP, community water needs, agricultural perspectives, and environmental and recreational water needs during the BIP drafting process. These articles appeared in the Grand Junction Free Press, Glenwood Springs Independent, Vail Daily, and Rifle Citizen Telegram newspapers. Survey links were included in most of these articles. Additional articles on the plan were published following the release of the draft BIP and the draft statewide water plan. Aspen Journalism also covered Roundtable meetings in collaboration with both the Aspen Daily News and the Aspen Times, and other local newspapers and TV stations did stories on the water plan and outreach events. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 31 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basin Implementation Plan [cont.] INTERNET/SOCIAL MEDIA The BIP website (http://coloradobip.sgm-inc.com), Facebook® page and Twitter® account were all utilized during the drafting process to publicize public meetings, solicit input, and to further disseminate articles appearing in traditional news media. Outreach partners such as the Roaring Fork Conservancy and Water Center at Colorado Mesa University also used their social media accounts and email lists to publicize information about the planning process and input opportunities. The star performer in the use of social media to disseminate information was the December 2, 2013 Aspen Times article reporting on a Basin Roundtable meeting titled “Water Group: Look Elsewhere for Water,” which was shared on Facebook® 257 times and on Twitter® 57 times. 2.2 Public Input Results and Methodology Three primary methods were used to collect data from the public: 1) open discussions at public meetings, 2) online surveys, and 3) comment letters and emails. It was from this data collection that the six major Themes of the Basin were developed. Public input reflected significant concern about future water supplies and the health of the environment in the Colorado Basin. Residents also expressed concerns about transmountain diversions (TMDs) and a strong desire to protect irrigated agriculture in the Basin. Conservation was by far the most frequently advocated approach to meeting future water needs, followed by increased water storage. These messages were consistent with material already in the CBRT White Paper and contributed to the development of the BIP themes. Site specific ideas and technical information were also incorporated to enhance the substance of the BIP. PUBLIC MEETINGS Participants at all public meetings were invited to express their concerns, needs and proposed solutions to meet our future water demands in the Colorado River Basin. The following is a summary of this input. Formal notes from Town Hall meetings are included in Exhibit C. Participants voiced a desire to protect or enhance: • Water-based recreation • Existing water rights • Irrigated agriculture • Stream health • Water quality COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 32 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Public Outreach [cont.] Participants voiced concerns about: • The future of West Slope irrigated agriculture • Stream health • The impacts of a Colorado River Compact curtailment • The impacts of additional transmountain diversions • The impact of oil and gas development on water quality and supply • The impact of population growth on water supply Participants advocated the following approaches to meeting future water needs: • Promoting household water conservation, especially with outdoor watering • Raising water rates to encourage conservation • Limiting or guiding growth to reduce water demands • Understanding the energy-water nexus • Front Range storing water on the Front Range • 100% reuse of existing water supplies on the Front Range • Protecting the Shoshone call • Enhancing instream flow rights • Promoting agricultural water conservation/ removing “use it or lose it” disincentives to conservation • Payment for new projects by groups that need new water supplies – not whole state • Pursuing new water supply sources such as desalination, untapped groundwater, and water imports from outside Colorado and the Colorado Basin • More education COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 33 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Public Outreach [cont.] SURVEYS Three different surveys were circulated to encourage public input at different stages of the BIP development process. An open-ended “water values” survey was broadly distributed early on in the process; a more detailed “community water needs survey” was distributed upon completion of a preliminary analysis of municipal needs in the basin; and a “plan input survey” was broadly distributed after the draft BIP and Colorado Water Plan were released. Water Values Surveys on residents’ values related to water were distributed at public meetings and through web links attached to newspaper articles, email notices, and the BIP website throughout the initial BIP drafting process. Over 500 surveys were received of which over 200 were from adults and 324 surveys from K-12 students. Complete results are included in Exhibit C. A summary analysis from the adult responses is presented in Figure 6 (student responses are summarized in a separate subsection). The overall representation by adult respondents was well-distributed between the Colorado River headwaters, middle, and lower basin counties. Figure 6. Values Survey Responses by County (by adults). In response to the open-ended question, “What water issue(s) most concerns you?” most adults’ responses fell into multiple categories (Figure 7) found on the following page. The categories were assigned during the data analysis process. General concerns about the adequacy of future water supplies (SUP) were by far the most commonly reported, followed by more specific concerns related to environmental health (ENV), transmountain diversions (TMD), and maintaining water for agriculture (AG). Other concerns reported related to water quality (WQ), the economy (ECON), recreation (REC), water rights (RTS), the impact of oil and gas development (O/G), and over-regulation (REG). COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 34 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Public Outreach [cont.] Figure 7. Values Survey Responses by County (by adults). Most adults’ responses to the open-ended question “What approach(es) do you favor to meeting future water needs?” fell into multiple categories (Figure 8). Categories were assigned during the data analysis process, not selected by the respondents. Conservation (CONS) was by far the most common approach recommended by adult respondents for meeting future water needs, followed by enhancing storage (STOR), protecting instream flows (ISF), and either controlling or limiting growth (GRO). Some respondents advocated against transmountain diversions (TMD), while others suggested additional education (ED), legal changes (LAW), cooperative approaches (COOP), and non-permanent agricultural transfers (ALT AG). Water quality (WQ), agricultural preservation (AG PRES), preservation of water rights (RTS) and recreational water rights were also mentioned by a smattering of respondents. Figure 8. Values Survey Responses Approached Advocated. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 35 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Public Outreach [cont.] Respondents were asked “Which categories describe you?” and provided the options listed above. Most chose multiple categories, including “Interested Citizen” over half the time (Figure 9). Between 20-25% of respondents included each of the following categories: Farmer/ Rancher, Angler, Water Professional, Environmental Advocate, or Boater. Figure 9. Values Survey Summary of Types of Respondents. Three hundred twenty-four (324) K-12 student surveys were collected by the Roaring Fork Conservancy and provided to the Colorado Basin planning team. The results are summarized in Table 2; full surveys are attached in Exhibit C. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 36 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Public Outreach [cont.] Table 2. Summary of K-12 Student Roaring Fork Conservancy Survey Responses. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 37 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Public Outreach [cont.] Community Water Needs Survey In addition to the “Values” survey, the Colorado Basin planning team circulated a survey on how to meet community water needs via a link in a newspaper article and e-newsletters following the completion of a preliminary analysis of municipal water needs. Twenty-six (26) people answered this survey, which asked people to indicate their level of support for different options to meet future water needs for their own communities, as well as Front Range cities. A complete analysis of the results is provided in Exhibit C. Notable results included: • A moderate level of concern about their own community’s water supply. • 52% of respondents felt their water rates were about right; 39% thought they were too low. • Promoting healthy streams, forest health, household conservation and regional cooperation to help meet future water needs were all “completely” supported by over 60% of respondents. • Regulations to increase household conservation, denser development to decrease household water use, and building more reservoirs were less popular, but over half the respondents either “somewhat” or “completely” supported each of these options. • 69% of respondents would be willing to pay higher rates to support the actions listed above that they supported. • To meet Front Range water needs, respondents overwhelmingly supported incentives, regulations and denser development to reduce household water use, while moderately supporting temporary agricultural transfers and strongly opposing the “buy and dry” of agricultural water rights and additional transmountain diversions (large or small). • Most respondents identified themselves as Interested Citizens, 42% as Water Professionals, and 10% as Environmental Advocates. Farmer/Ranchers, Boaters, Anglers and Government Employees were also represented, in smaller numbers. Respondents could choose multiple categories. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 38 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Public Outreach [cont.] Plan Input Surveys Plan input surveys were distributed a public meetings held after the release of the draft BIP and Colorado Water Plan, as well as via links in newspaper articles and e-newsletters distributed by the Water Center at Colorado Mesa University, the Roaring Fork Conservancy, and the Eagle River Watershed Council. As of the end of March 2015, thirty-two (32) responses had been received to this survey, which asked participants to prioritize and indicate their level of support for key goals and themes of the Colorado Water Plan and the Colorado BIP, as well as approaches to meeting those goals. In summary: • Respondents gave highest priority to Colorado Water Plan goals related to environmental health, followed by effective and efficient water infrastructure promoting smart land use. The ranked “supporting vibrant cities” lowest. • Conservation was the most popular approach for meeting growing urban needs, ahead of both agricultural transfers and additional transmountain diversions. • Over 74% of respondents supported all six themes in the Colorado BIP. • Most respondents supporting funding, incentives, regulations and education to support the themes they supported, with education getting the strongest support and regulations the weakest. • Comments expressed concern about water waste, transmountain diversions, over-use of water in the lower Colorado River Basin, growth, water quality and the importance of recreational and environmental flows. Thirteen of the respondents were from Mesa County, Six from Garfield County, Five were from Eagle County, two were from Pitkin County, and three from counties outside of the Colorado River Basin. Approximately 80% of the respondents listed the environment as their primary interest in water. We anticipate additional survey completions as additional outreach is conducted, and will use these to inform Roundtable actions as well as forward them to the Colorado Water Conservation Board for consideration as Colorado’s Water Plan is completed. LETTERS AND EMAILS The planning team also received input through letters and emails from organizations and individuals, which were also provided to the Colorado Water Conservation Board for consideration in the development of the statewide water plan. Key points from these letters are summarized on the following page. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 39 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Public Outreach [cont.] • From “Protect the Flows”: States that small snow-and riverdependent businesses support keeping rivers healthy and flowing, reducing per capita municipal water use by 35% by 2050, investment in agricultural irrigation infrastructure, and modernizing and maximizing existing storage systems. • From Trout Unlimited (Input Document #74 for the Colorado Water Plan, Colorado Basin Region): States that environmental needs need to be quantified and detailed, not merely “identified” on maps (which is where the process stopped 4 years ago). Nonconsumptive needs are real in their own right and not just “enhancements” to be added to consumptive projects. • From Roaring Fork Conservancy (memo to Jim Pokrandt): Emphasizes the need for restoration and preservation of environmental and recreational water uses to support the economic, cultural, and ecologic health of the West Slope. • From Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners (memo to Louis Meyer): States the importance of river health, the importance of funding river health, the importance of developing incentives within the framework of existing law in order to leave water in the streams. • From the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA): States that the oil and gas requires reliable water supplies; is an ally to the agricultural industry and is a cornerstone of Colorado’s economy. • From Kendall Bakich, Wildlife Biologist, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (Electronic Record of Senate Bill 115 Comments and CWCB Responses): The Colorado Water Plan should support funding to understand and address nonconsumptive needs in the Colorado Basin. • From the Mesa County Board of County Commissioners: Commissioners express strong support for the draft Colorado BIP and emphasize their opposition to additional transmountain diversions. • Individual: The volume of useable groundwater on the Western Slope could exceed 100 million acre-feet and advocates increasing groundwater recharge to support stream base flow and reliability of water supplies. • Individual: Demand management has to be cornerstone of balancing supply and demand. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 40 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Public Outreach Plan [cont.] 2.3 Public Outreach Action Plan Beyond 2014 The CBRT will continue education and outreach efforts on Colorado’s Water Plan for the remainder of 2015, as the statewide plan is finalized. Longer term, we will continue to use the partnerships and communication channels developed through the process of conducting outreach on the BIP to continue to educate the public on the activities of the Basin Roundtable and regional and statewide water needs, and to encourage their input on how these needs should be met. Anticipated outreach and education activities for the remainder of 2015 will include: • Continuing to write and distribute newspaper articles on the Colorado Water Plan. • Continuing to use social media to provide information and solicit input on the Colorado Water Plan. • Enhancing coordination with watershed groups and other community organizations to inform a broader set of the public about the CWP and encourage input and participation. The results of these activities will be shared with the CWCB as their planning efforts continue. Longer term outreach activities will build on the communication and partnership infrastructure developed through the outreach efforts related to the BIP in order to engage the public on the water challenges and opportunities in the Basin and statewide. The Roundtable will strive to maintain a steady presence in both traditional and social media, as well as continue to ensure that CBRT members and partner organizations have the communication tools to inform their constituencies about the issues the Roundtable is addressing and collect public input on those issues. In addition to strengthening current outreach activities, the Roundtable will explore opportunities to connect with a broader segment of the population through new initiatives, including: • Enhancing K-12 water education opportunities, both inside and beyond the classroom. Programs established by the Roaring Fork Conservancy and the Keystone Science School provide models for potential initiatives throughout the basin • Enhancing water education opportunities in higher education. A new general education water course and student field seminar pioneered by Colorado Mesa University provide models to build on. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 41 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Public Outreach Plan [cont.] • Using film, radio, art and literature to engage people who don’t have an intrinsic interest in water science and policy issues. Very popular presentations by photographer Peter McBride and author Kevin Fedarko, as well as the positive reception to a 30-minute documentary on the Grand Valley and its Rivers produced by the Water Center at Colorado Mesa University, demonstrate the potential of such efforts. 2.4 Process for Developing the Six Basinwide Themes As detailed above, for over nine months, members of the CBRT and stakeholders of the Colorado Basin participated in multiple meetings and discussions, provided input, reviewed data, inventoried existing projects, policies and processes, participated in conferences, exchanged dialogue, and presented at several public outreach venues. During that same time the CBRT heard from water users, policy makers and the public. The CBRT formed four Project Leadership Teams (PLTs) early on in the BIP development process. These PLT’s were charged with identifying and documenting the municipal and industrial (M&I) and self-supplied industry (SSI) (the Consumptive PLT), environmental and recreational (the Nonconsumptive PLT), agricultural, and policy concerns and needs of the Basin. The agriculture PLT provided input on the Basin’s agricultural goals and needs separate from the Consumptive PLT, recognizing the importance and unique nature of agriculture. The policy PLT was created to address issues in meeting the Gap that require policies beyond the projects and methods identified in the BIP. The PLTs twice a month for four months, documenting the goals and measurable outcomes; needs and vulnerabilities; constraints and opportunities as well as projects and methods as recommended by the BIP Guidance document. Exhibit D includes the initial compilation of this information as well as the comprehensive inventory of projects and methods. As the BIP evolved, the information developed by the PLTs was continually updated and reorganized to fit with the feedback collected from the Public Outreach. This process resulted in six basin themes supported by a condensed and more focused set of goals, measurable outcomes, projects and methods. These themes are the foundation for the Basin and the regional discussions highlighted in this plan. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 42 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes 1 Protect and Restore Healthy Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Riparian Areas 4 Encourage a High Level of Basinwide Conservation A Protect and rehabilitate healthy rivers, streams, lakes and riparian areas A Improve Colorado Water Law to encourage efficiency, conservation and reuse B Define water quality needs and at-risk water bodies B Pursue continued municipal and industrial conservation C Preserve high quality recreational river and stream reaches with appropriate flows C Promote agricultural conservation that maintains agricultural production and viability D Develop a basinwide funding system to meet basin environmental and recreational needs 2 Sustain Agriculture 5 Develop Local Water Conscious Land Use Strategies A Reduce agricultural water shortages A Develop land use policies requiring and promoting conservation B Minimize potential for transfer of agricultural water rights to municipal uses B Support, preserve and promote local authorities management of stream health, development and conservation efforts C Develop incentives to support agricultural production C Expand regional cooperation efforts to improve efficiencies, provide water supply flexibility, and enhance environmental and recreational amenities D Increase education among the agricultural community about Colorado River Basin water issues D Extend water planning vision beyond 2050 3 Secure Safe Drinking 6 Assure Dependable Basin Administration A Secure growing water demand by developing in-basin supplies and expanding raw water storage supply A Protect and defend maximum mainstem calls at Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant and senior Grand Valley irrigation diversions B Raise awareness of current obstacles and efforts facing water providers B Ensure sufficient Lake Powell water level for uninterrupted hydroelectric power production C Protect drinking water supplies from natural impacts such as extended droughts, forest fires, climate change, etc C Maintain Interstate Compact deliveries to Lake Powell D Ensure safe drinking water D Improve water court process The following six subsections focus on each of the six themes. A table outlining the goals, measurable outcomes, short and long term needs, and projects and methods for each theme are also included. In general, each theme is supported by three or four basinwide goals. Under each goal are measurable outcomes which define in a quantifiable way how the BIP will meet the goal. Short term and long term needs highlight the specific actions (research, policy, organization, COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 43 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes [cont.] etc.) or improvements needed to reduce and/or remove vulnerability and meet the goal and measurable outcome. Projects and methods highlight identified opportunities to address the needs and accomplish the goals. Projects and methods identify only a few examples of the many collected and supported by the CBRT stakeholders. A full list of the projects by region can be found in Section 4 and the next steps are identified in Section 6. THEME 1 ­ PROTECT AND RESTORE HEALTHY STREAMS, RIVERS, LAKES AND RIPARIAN AREAS Healthy Rivers provide the foundation for tourism, recreation and agriculture in the Colorado Basin and Statewide. Colorado is home to 12% of the nation’s outdoor industry companies which provide 107,000 jobs and $10 billion in economic output. Nine to ten percent of the total workforce in Colorado is employed by recreation and tourism industries (NWCCOG, 2012). The environmental and recreational sector sometimes referred to collectively as nonconsumptive use in this BIP, are unique in that they neither consume or divert water from the hydrologic system; but are dependent on it remaining in place. When you imagine outdoor recreation in Colorado it is most often images of non-consumptive uses that come to mind. The vulnerabilities that threaten non-consumptive uses include, but are not limited to: (NWCCOG, 2012) • Potential loss of “Gold Medal” fishing status and the related benefits of attracting anglers worldwide • Adverse impacts on fish, specifically within the 15-Mile Reach that need adequate streamflow, water quality and temperature conditions • Less reliable streamflows for kayaking and rafting (impact summer tourism) • Reductions in irrigated lands and the associated delayed return flow to the streams • Devaluation of real estate development that relies on healthy riparian corridors for scenic beauty and fishing • Higher costs for water and sewer treatment facilities that are borne by local rate payers due to reduced streamflows • The loss of pristine headwaters from TMDs which degrades water quality throughout the entire basin, but most acutely in the middle and lower basin COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 44 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes PROTECT AND RESTORE HEALTHY STREAMS [cont.] Millions of dollars and significant time has been spent through public and private collaboration to repair and restore streams, rivers and riparian habitat and to create recreational opportunities. Specific examples of nonconsumptive restoration projects in headwater counties are contained in Exhibit F. Methods for addressing and assessing non-consumptive needs already identified for the Basin include, but are not limited to: (NWCCOG, 2012) • Grand County Stream Management Plan – Learning by Doing implementation. • Wild & Scenic River Alternatives – Stakeholder Groups • Eagle River Watershed Council • Winter Park Master Plan – Zoning Density Constraint • Roaring Fork Watershed Collaborative • Blue River Restoration Project • GMUG Pathfinder Project • Grand Valley / Gunnison Selenium Task Force • Local Voter-Authorized Tax Rate Increases for Watershed Improvements • Aspen Water Conservation Initiative • Wolford Mountain Reservoir Agreement • Coordinated reservoir operations (upper Colorado River reservoirs releases) • Upper Colorado Endangered Fish Recovery Program • Summit County / Denver Water Agreement • QQ Committee of the NWCCOG • Upper Blue Reservoir/ CSU Substitution Agreement COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 45 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes PROTECT AND RESTORE HEALTHY STREAMS [cont.] The four environmental and recreational goals identified to support this theme include: • Protect and rehabilitate healthy rivers, streams, lakes and riparian areas • Define water quality needs and at-risk water bodies • Preserve high quality recreational river and stream reaches with appropriate flows • Develop a basinwide funding system to meet basin environmental and recreational needs Table 3 on the following pages presents these four goals as column headings. These goals are supported by measureable outcomes, short term needs, long term needs, and projects and methods. The most important project identified by the environmental and recreational PLT and the Colorado Basin Roundtable members is to continue assessing the systemic riverine environmental needs of the Basin on-the-ground through the creation of a basinwide stream management plan (SMP). The purpose of a SMP is to provide the framework for maintaining healthy stream systems while also protecting local water uses and planning for future consumptive and nonconsumptive water needs. SMPs identify environmental and recreational flow needs and assist in identifying areas where historical alterations of stream flows most likely affected the ecological resource conditions. For example, Grand County developed a Stream Management Plan for 80 miles of river in the Upper Colorado Basin, completing the effort in 2010. Their SMP analyzes and provides recommendations for target flows, restoration opportunities, and monitoring recommendations. This SMP also formed the underpinnings of the CRCA negotiations for Grand County. The Nonconsumptive Needs Assessment Focus Mapping efforts (CDM, 2010) identified environmental and recreational attributes throughout the Basin that may need a project or process to protect, restore or enhance its function. The Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool (WFET) identified 66 reaches in the Basin that are at risk due to reductions or changes to flow regimes. Results of this analysis provided suggestions on how best to address the risks to associated attributes. The WFET also identified flow needs for critical recreational reaches. While these initial studies and reports provide an insightful, big picture look at reaches of concern, they do not focus on how to best to evaluate, prioritize and implement projects and methods for improving the overall function of rivers and streams. The CBRT believes that the rest of the Basin would benefit from following the example of the Grand County SMP and other more site-specific watershed plans, such as those completed by the Roaring Fork Conservancy or the Eagle River Watershed Council. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 46 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes [cont.] Goals Measurable Outcomes Protect and rehabilitate healthy rivers, streams, lakes and riparian areas •A map depicting high priority reaches that have insufficient or poorly timed flows (e.g., 15-Mile Reach, 303(d) impaired streams, instream flows, monitoring and evaluation reaches, ecological impacted, recreational significant, reaches with existing dams) •M ap or list of reaches where habitat has deteriorated as a result of non-flow related changes and could be restored • I mprove habitat conditions in all identified prioritized reaches in exchange for harm caused by existing or additional water development •R educe the number of river miles where non-native invasive fish and invasive riparian species have degraded aquatic and riparian communities Short Term Needs •D evelop a basinwide stream management plan using the Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool (WFET) that identifies rivers and streams at-risk and methods and projects to rehabilitate them to satisfactory conditions • I dentify habitat restoration projects to benefit important recreational or natural values • I mplement projects currently identified in Watershed studies to rehabilitate them to satisfactory conditions Long Term Needs •T ake the steps identified in the stream management plan to remove rivers from the impaired list, one by one, until all are removed •S upport monitoring efforts that identify the scope, cause and potential management opportunities to address invasive species •E nsure that new water development activities do not further degrade stream and riparian health or become an impediment to restoration and recovery efforts Projects & Methods Define water quality needs and at-risk water bodies Reduce number of stream reaches that the state has identified as impaired •S ecure municipal, county, or State regulations that require water developments to analyze future impacts on flows to determine if depletions would trigger water quality problems • I mplement coordinated monitoring program to measure a. flows and temperatures b. 3-native fish and cutthroat trout c. Macro invertebrates at critical locations • I mplement water quality protection standards within development codes for local governments in the Colorado River Basin •D etermine “tripping point” triggers for required fish population reviews under the Programmatic Biological Opinion for the environmentally sensitive fish of the 15-Mile Reach based on current planned transmountain diversions such as Windy Gap and Moffat firming projects. • I dentify water quality improvement projects including 303(d) listed segments •A map depicting high priority reaches that have insufficient or poorly timed flows (e.g., 15-Mile Reach, 303(d) impaired streams, instream flows, monitoring and evaluation reaches, ecological impacted, recreational significant, reaches with existing dams) • I dentify municipal and county land use guidelines that permit current or future development within riparian/wetland areas •E nsure that new water development activities do not diminish water quality and fall below standards •D evelop model guidelines that could be adopted by land use authorities to protect riparian/wetland areas and function •P romote research to assess impacts of pharmaceuticals introduced to streams through wastewater discharge • I mplement forest health initiatives to protect source water quality •D evelop a basinwide stream management plan to identify criteria for restoration projects and multiuse projects •D evelop a basinwide stream management plan to identify criteria for restoration projects and multiuse projects • Successfully recover fish in the 15-Mile Reach • Implement CRCA water quality projects • I mplement Colorado River Cooperative Agreement (CRCA) identified projects •S ecure 401 certification for specific places prior to a Record of Decision (ROD) by the Army Corp of Engineers, through a coordinated permitting process that includes all permitting agencies, including local government Table 3. Protect and Restore Healthy Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Riparian Areas COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 47 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes [cont.] Goals Measurable Outcomes Preserve high quality recreational river and stream reaches with appropriate flows •M aintain number of boater days on 28 reaches identified as recreation priorities by American Whitewater in cooperation with the WFET work •E stablish a new funding agency or existing agency for the basin or in every county in the basin to fund environmental and recreational management •P rotect access and flows levels to 28 popular recreational reaches •L everage existing financial resources to further protect or restore all streams, rivers and lakes that host prioritized recreational or natural attributes (determine source and scope of funding) •D evelop more Recreational In-Channel Diversions (RICDs) structures and water rights on community and basin supported reaches to protect recreational flows Short Term Needs •F und the acquisition of conservation easements that retain agricultural purposes and current uses of water •D evelop acceptance from watershed groups on 28 recreation reaches identified by American Whitewater in cooperation with the WFET work •D evelop a basinwide stream management plan that identifies environmental and nonconsumptive needs and how best to meet those needs • Support existing RICD applications • I dentify funding sources for restoration activities and water acquisitions •R ecreation and fishery interests continue to investigate how whitewater park development affects fisheries, and how best to mitigate impacts to the aquatic community Long Term Needs Develop a basinwide funding system to meet basin environmental and recreational needs •S upport efforts to expand water based recreational uses of the Colorado River Basin •U tilize basinwide and sub-basin collaboratives already operating in the Basin to leverage and implement the work suggested in this table. Find focal point or institutional framework for facilitation of data sharing, outreach, research, and problem solving. (e.g., CMU Water Center) • Coordinate research, management and project efforts with federal, state, local government and non-profit organizations. •E valuate future storage projects in-basin and the potential impacts to nonconsumptive values •P rojects should identify real costs of municipal water including implementation of associated conservation efforts and river improvement projects Projects & Methods •C onstruct and obtain absolute water right for pending RICD •D evelop stream management plans basinwide to identify criteria for restoration projects and multiuse projects Table 3. Protect and Restore Healthy Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Riparian Areas COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 48 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes [cont.] THEME 2 ­ SUSTAIN AGRICULTURE Agriculture is extremely important to the Colorado Basin and the economy. Agriculture supports open space, provides wildlife habitat, contributes to late season flows in rivers and streams, maintains groundwater levels, and is part of the culture and heritage. Agritourism is a growing segment of the headwaters counties economies as ranchers and farmers look for additional ways to support their business activity. The Colorado Department of Agriculture defines agritourism as activities, events and services related to agriculture that take place on or off the farm or ranch, and that connects consumers with the heritage, natural resource or culinary experience they value. In 2006, an estimated 13.2 million visitors to Colorado engaged in some agritourism, spending about $1.26 billion (Thimany, et. al, 2007). In 2012, $41 billion of the State’s economy benefited from agriculture. Throughout the state, agricultural land is at risk. In the headwaters counties, there has been market pressure to convert agricultural land to other land uses. Agriculture uses the largest amount of water in the Basin. This lends a favorable eye for municipalities and industrial water users to purchase agricultural water rights. The agricultural community in the Basin believes that alternatives to buy and dry of agricultural lands generally have limited utility unless landowners receive help to address issues such as lost income, lost market share, and lack of expertise to farm new crops. Alternatives to buy and dry typically involve short term fallowing, switching to lower water use crops, or limiting irrigation. Alternatives to buy and dry are limited because producers do not want to lose their existing market share, they might not have the right equipment to farm a different way, they will lose income unless payments adequately cover all of their expenses, their land might not tolerate short term fallowing (grapes, orchards, and forages for example) and they might not have the expertise to farm different crops. Reducing the buy and dry trend would require that producers be given help to transition to different practices, be protected from financial losses, and that the support must be provided for the long term. The problems with alternatives to buy and dry are not just limited to the Colorado River Basin — the issues are the same for the producers statewide. If the obstacles to buy and dry are to be addressed on a broad scale, it may be possible to continue profitable agricultural production with less water use and address future water demands without building new diversion projects from the Colorado Basin. The difficulties associated with successfully implementing alternatives to permanently taking agricultural lands out of production reflect the overall trend in Colorado’s agricultural sector. The fact is that the number of agricultural producers statewide continues to decline, which leads to a sell off of land and water previously used to grow food. The primary reason that land and water are being taken out of production and sold for other uses is the fact that farm economics cannot COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 49 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes SUSTAIN AGRICULTURE [cont.] compete with the prices offered by buyers for the land and water. If this trend is to be reversed, the root causes of the decline in the number of producers needs to be thoroughly examined. Farm economics, limited options for young producers, centralized markets, transportation costs, access to consumers, and consumer willingness to pay are factors that have impacted the agricultural sector. Although a full agricultural economic analysis is beyond the scope of this report – there are some exciting trends in the agricultural sector that may address at least a portion of the decline. The consumer demand for locally raised food products and the consumer demand for less processed foods provide new opportunity in the agricultural sector. Producers could more readily respond to this strong consumer demand if some of the obstacles were addressed. A partial list of the challenges facing the local foods movement include: • Availability of affordable insurance for the non-traditional crops in the event of a failure • Access to convenient markets where consumers can purchase the products year-round • Technical assistance addressing regulatory requirements • Availability of processing for meats and other products • Transportation networks to support getting crops from either the farm to the consumer or the processing facility to the consumer • Crop storage facilities • Equipment availability to plant, irrigate, and harvest specialty crops (e.g., vegetables) • Access to market (customers), improve connection of producer to customer (farm-to-plate) Tapping into the demand for locally raised and processed foods for some, but not all regions of the Basin, could provide supplemental income for agricultural producers if the benefits are greater than the costs. This theme emphasizes the importance of the agricultural sector to the Colorado River Basin based upon the needs evaluation. The CBRT’s assumptions for the evaluation of the agricultural needs was based on: land dedicated to agricultural production is not expected to increase in the Basin; current shortages in supply already exist; and that existing agricultural producers intend COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 50 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes SUSTAIN AGRICULTURE [cont.] to stay in business and will continue to divert and consume water for livestock and farming purposes. The four goals identified to support this theme are: • Reduce agricultural water shortages • Minimize potential for transfer of agricultural water rights to municipal uses • Develop incentives to support agricultural production • Increase education among the agricultural community about Colorado River Basin water issues Table 4 includes the four goals as column headings. These goals are supported by measureable outcomes, short term needs, long term needs, and projects and methods. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 51 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes [cont.] Goals Measurable Outcomes • I dentify multi-purpose storage projects and methods that address the annual 100,000 acre feet agricultural shortage • Maintain existing irrigated agricultural acreage •R esearch local agricultural shortage values in the Colorado River Basin • I mprove Colorado water law to encourage agricultural water efficiency practices without harming water right value •E stablish lease programs for excess water from existing supply projects in the Municipal and Industrial (M&I) sector or multi-use projects Short Term Needs Minimize potential for transfer of agricultural water rights to municipal uses Reduce agricultural water shortages •E stimate increased agricultural shortages if temperatures increase •S uggest conservation improvements that reduce headgate demands and reduce shortage • Expand the storage capacity in existing reservoirs •D evelop options for financing and constructing new multi-purpose projects • I dentify farm improvements to develop strong sustainable farm economics •D evelop a set of quantifiable factors of agriculture pressures that can be measured and evaluated in the future to incentivize production and reduce trends towards transfers •A dopt local land use codes to conserve water and reduce pressures for agricultural water transfers •P romote conservation easements with the anticipated result that they will be more widely considered by the agricultural community •S tudy and recommend alternatives to urbanization, growing water demands and other pressures that may reduce the current agricultural land area •R aise funds to purchase conservation easements to preserve agriculture, especially in prime farmlands locations •R esearch new supplies for M&I water use including reservoir enlargements •S upport basin stakeholder ownership of agricultural water rights through private or government ownership Long Term Needs •E nsure agricultural decrees are tabulated properly, in proper priority to transmountain diversions •R esearch farm improvements to develop strong sustainable farm economics •C onstruct new agricultural reservoirs with hydropower to help finance agricultural projects • I dentify opportunities to reduce agricultural consumptive use while continuing agricultural production • I dentify local water providers for pilot leasing program • Study high value, low water demand crops • I dentify multi-use and collaborative projects that address agricultural water shortages • I mprove Colorado water law to encourage agricultural conservation without harming water right value •R esearch how to tie basin agricultural water rights to basin lands to limit transbasin transfers or purchases - Protect private property rights Projects & Methods •C reate leasing program with M&I users to lease back water for agricultural uses •E xpand Green Mountain historic users pool (HUP) to include Slot Group (1977-1985 water rights) •S ee regional lists for local ditch and reservoir projects •R evise local governments land use policies to protect agricultural land •D evelop a risk analysis of new supply projects increase chances of a Compact Call Table 4. Sustain Agriculture. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 52 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes [cont.] Goals Measurable Outcomes Develop incentives to support agricultural production •R eimburse agriculture for value added to the environment including, water quality, wildlife, and viewscapes •T rack effectiveness of agricultural incentives in maintaining irrigated acres •M inimize regulatory disincentives such as overly stringent requirements for reservoir construction Increase education among the agricultural community about Colorado River Basin water issues • I ncrease participation of agricultural community in Colorado Basin Roundtable (CBRT) meetings •E stablish regional water provider and ditch company cooperatives focused on improving regional relationships, water supply redundancy and operational flexibility, water quality, coordinated efforts for multi-beneficial projects and addressing environmental and recreational needs • Reduce taxes for true self-sustaining agriculture •D evelop incentives that encourage continued agricultural production Short Term Needs •R eimburse agriculture for value added to the environment including water quality, wildlife, and viewscapes •E ngage larger agricultural producer representatives in the Colorado River Basin through presentations, personal conversations/interviews and meetings •R esearch and recommend revising existing taxes and other fiscal requirements for agriculture •P ublicize the use and importance of the Historical Users Pool (HUP) to the Basin • Research regulatory disincentives for ATM transfers •E ducate Front Range about the importance of keeping West Slope water on the West Slope • I nterview Colorado State University Extension staff about on-going and planned research on higher value and low water consumptive use crops Long Term Needs • I dentify the availability of funds to support agricultural water use research •S tudy available incentives and recommend new incentives that encourage agricultural entities to continue production Projects & Methods •E stablish regional watershed cooperative groups represented by agriculture, municipal and industrial, environmental and recreational water users to understand and support local, regional and basin agricultural and riparian needs •S tudy available incentives and recommend new incentives that encourage agricultural entities to continue production •U se toolbox of existing agricultural incentives (as identified by Colorado Agricultural Water Alliance and Colorado State University Colorado Water Institute) •P ass open space taxes to purchase agricultural land in the Basin Table 4. Sustain Agriculture. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 53 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes [cont.] THEME 3 ­ SECURE SAFE DRINKING WATER Clean safe drinking water is essential. The public has taken safe drinking water for granted because of the excellent uninterrupted service provided by water providers. Most consumers hardly think of mentioning it on a list of priorities for the Basin. Input for the municipal needs was obtained from the SWSI 2010 Report Colorado Basin Needs Assessment (CDM, 2011a), input from interviews with the major water providers and collaborative efforts with representative and interested CBRT members and participants. The population in the Colorado Basin is projected to increase from 307,000 in 2008 to a range from 661,000 to 832,000 by the year 2050. M&I water usage is also expected to nearly double, even with savings from passive conservation. The 2010 SWSI Report (CDM, 2011b) predicted a Colorado Basin municipal and industrial Gap of 48,000 AF by the year 2050. This is the volume of new water that must be developed to meet the water demands between now and the year 2050 above the needs already met by proposed projects. Upon evaluation of this number, the CBRT has found this “Gap” an irrelevant statistic for our Basin. Unlike other basins in the state, the majority of the municipal and industrial water use in the Basin is diverted directly from streams and aquifers instead of planning by volumes from reservoir releases. Diversions and available supplies are based upon time and place from available streamflows. In most cases the impact on recreation and environmental needs has not been quantified. Thus, the Gap will not be quantified until completion of the basinwide Stream Management Plan (SMP). The Gap was also determined using a simplified calculation based on gallons per capita per person ratio which has not incorporated the large variability of city populations throughout the year in the resort headwater communities that can swell to over 600% of the permanent population during peak seasons. To better understand the Gap, each large water provider within the Basin was contacted and interviewed to evaluate specific needs to meet the estimated 2050 municipal demands. Further discussion regarding the data collected from these interviews is included in the Evaluation of Consumptive, Environmental and Recreational, and Agricultural Needs section below. The Colorado Basin has approximately 63 water providers in the basin. The majority of these water providers are small (< 5000 taps). The two largest water provides in the basin include the Ute Water Conservancy District in the Grand Valley Region and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District in the Eagle River Region. Overall, most water providers throughout the Basin have surface water intakes and/or wells as their primary source of supply and very few rely upon physical water from larger upstream reservoirs. The majority of water providers do rely upon augmentation from Green Mountain Reservoir or Ruedi Reservoir to meet mainstem senior calls. All of the water providers interviewed (30) had master plans in place that identify the legal COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 54 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes SECURE SAFE DRINKING WATER [cont.] and physical source of water and infrastructure needed to meet future demands. The future timeframe for these plans varied, however, averaged around a 20 year horizon. Water providers in the Basin, however, are vulnerable to extended droughts, a Lower Basin Compact call, future forest fires, and the uncertainties of climate change and unpredictable future land use. Several water providers are seeking upstream reservoirs as an additional source of physical and legal water supply despite the challenges associated with the cost, complexity and timeframe associated with the permitting and regulatory climate. In addition the presence of fens, regulated through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), has become a significant obstacle to developing storage reservoirs. Water providers are vulnerable to additional TMDs because of the impacts to physical and legal water supplies. Additional TMDs will also increase the risk of Compact curtailment. The majority of water providers are not prepared for the likelihood of Compact curtailment as many legal water rights and augmentation storage is junior to 1922, the date of the Compact. Water quality throughout the Basin will continue to be negatively impacted as firming projects increase diversions out of the Basin by diminishing high quality dilution flows. Despite the excellent service from water providers, future threats must be taken into consideration in order for reliable service to continue. Recommendations are as follows: • Water providers should continue to aggressively pursue multiple and redundant water supplies in order to maintain reliable water supplies during extended droughts. • Water providers must recognize the change in permitting that has occurred and that has resulted in the lengthy and costly regulatory requirements for reservoirs. Rather than undertake this risk with no assurances of approval, water providers should consider other alternatives to upstream reservoirs in order to ensure a safe reliable supply. Other alternatives include redundant surface and groundwater supplies, increased conservation, water efficient land use practices, and regional cooperation that may result in interconnections with other systems. • Water providers should establish high conservation goals in conjunction with the local land use authorities to which they provide water. • All water providers should update their respective Water Master Plans to reflect a planning horizon beyond 2050. These master plans COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 55 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes SECURE SAFE DRINKING WATER [cont.] should be updated to specifically reflect extended drought conditions, climate changes, protections against a Lower Basin Compact administration, and impacts to instream flows. These plans should be updated every three to five years. • Water providers should aggressively pursue converting irrigation water rights in their portfolios that are senior to 1922 to municipal water rights in order to improve risk from Compact administration. • Water providers should require that developers dedicate 100% of water necessary for the proposed development needs. • Water court processes must be enhanced to improve the cost, timeframe and complexity to allow water providers to meet these future challenges. • Water providers need to address aging infrastructure requiring costly and timely replacement. The Basin water providers are planning and preparing for the future with great motivation and sound planning. Implementation of the listed projects will support the water providers in providing redundancy and expanding much needed storage for better drought protection. The four goals identified to support this theme are: • Secure growing water demand by developing in-basin supplies and expanding raw water storage supply • Raise awareness of current obstacles and efforts facing water providers • Protect drinking water supplies from natural impacts such as extended droughts, forest fires, climate change, etc. • Ensure safe drinking water Table 5 includes the four goals as column headings. These goals are supported by measureable outcomes, short term needs, long term needs, and finally projects and methods. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 56 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes [cont.] Goals Measurable Outcomes Secure growing water demand by developing in-basin supplies and expanding raw water storage supply •A ll basin water providers to meet current supply needs with redundancy, drought plans and viable project options to meet future water needs •R educed average permitting time for reservoir project to under 10 years •E stablished regional water provider and ditch company cooperatives focused on improving regional relationships, water supply redundancy and flexibility, water quality, coordinated efforts for multi-beneficial projects and addressing environmental and recreational needs Raise awareness of current obstacles and efforts facing water providers •P ublish summary of state and basin water providers’ true cost of water by analyzing operation and maintenance costs including sustainable infrastructure replacement programs •D evelopment of national, state or local funding assistance programs to replace aging infrastructure •A ll basin water providers have sustainable infrastructure replacement funding programs •R educe demands by establishing water conservation goals and strategies Short Term Needs •C omplete existing water provider projects to meet growing demands •S tudy existing burden of aging infrastructure on basin water providers •C onstruct interconnects between regional water providers to provide redundancy in water supply •E ducate water providers on additional means of reducing demand to meet “high” conservation goal and reduce distribution costs • I mprove inefficiencies in reservoir permitting process between federal agencies and promote revisions and best management practices (BMPs) to improve process timeline and cost •R esearch potential locations for hydropower generation facilities •P ublish summary of true cost of water by interviewing water providers •S ecure funding for replacement of aging infrastructure through federal or state grants or loans, or through local taxing programs •E stablish regional cooperatives to meet municipal, industrial, agricultural and environmental and recreational needs •D evelop a set of project criteria that supports the development of multi-use water supply projects Long Term Needs Projects & Methods •D evelop a tool to estimate the cost of reservoir permitting, construction and operations •E nsure all water providers are charging for true cost of water including sustainable infrastructure replacement programs •D evelop a user friendly GIS database and map that facilitates understanding of water supply needs, diversion locations and environmental and recreational needs, including a reservoir site evaluation with sufficient legal and physical water supply analysis •E nsure all water providers are planning and funding for development of future projects to meet population growth expectations • I nstallation of permanent drinking water systems interconnect among Fraser River valley water providers •P ursue state funding assistance for water providers to improve infrastructure •E stablished regional water provider and ditch company cooperatives •S ee regional project lists for local water provider projects Table 5. Secure Safe Drinking Water. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 57 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes [cont.] Goals Measurable Outcomes Protect drinking water supplies from natural impacts such as extended droughts, forest fires, climate change, etc. •E very basin water provider has a reliable redundant water supply to meet 2050 demands Ensure safe drinking water •S ource water protection regulations are enforced and revised when supported by proper research •C BRT or CWCB to establish a biannual basin conference on natural disaster planning for water providers, government officials Short Term Needs •C omplete and provide updates to Colorado River Water Availability Study (CRWAS) Phase II to better understand estimated affects of climate change, extended droughts, flooding, forest health and impacts on water supply and quality. •C onstruct interconnects between regional water providers to provide redundancy in water supply Long Term Needs • I mplement natural disaster mitigation measures outlined in water provider, local government or state plans for drought, forest fire, flood, climate change or other unforeseeable potential source water quality impacts •W ater providers to provide mitigation plans for potential natural disaster impacts to water supply and water quality and implement recommended mitigation methods •A ll wells classified as groundwater under the direct influence (GWUDI) of surface water have proper treatment facilities •C ontinued research to best understand future climate changes to best manage water supply and water use •A dditional research on emerging contaminants and treatment technologies •U pdate and modify water provider mitigation plans per most current data and BMPs • I mplement identified mitigation plan projects to protect water supply and water quality •E ducate water provider, municipal and county elected officials and planning officials on importance of potential natural changes to water supply and water quality Projects & Methods •P rovide clean drinking water by all water providers 100% of the time • I nstallation of permanent drinking water systems interconnects as listed in the regional project lists •C BRT or CWCB to establish a biannual basin conference focused on natural disaster planning BMPs for water providers, government officials and interested persons •S ee regional project lists for local mitigation plan projects •M aintain and increase flows in Colorado River below Glenwood Springs to provide sufficient dilution flows for high salinity issues and potential affect of emerging contaminants to protect water providers with mainstem intakes (applies to Fraser River as well) •B etter understanding and/or national research of algal toxins produced in reservoirs •B roader enforcement of nutrient removal to include agriculture and lawn applications in an effort to control nitrogenous disinfection byproducts exacerbated by large population growth and lower stream flows • I nstallation of permanent drinking water systems interconnects as listed in the regional project lists to provide redundancy • I mplementation of source water protection plans mitigation projects •P harmaceutical take-back program and education to keep over the counter drugs, prescriptions and personal care products out of sewer systems. Table 5. Secure Safe Drinking Water. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 58 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes [cont.] THEME 4 ­ ENCOURAGE A HIGH LEVEL OF BASINWIDE CONSERVATION The CBRT supports adoption of high water conservation and efficiency measures for all water users including water providers, agriculture (where conservation and efficiency measure have been studied and determined to be productive in meeting SWP and CBIP goals and protecting private property rights), and industrial users. Conservation and efficiency measures vary significantly throughout the Basin which is expected based upon the unique geographic, cultural, economic, and climatic setting of each region. In general, there is a broad recognition that water is a finite resource, and it is not to be wasted. Conservation will be a key element in meeting the vision for the State’s future water needs and, therefore, the Basin, have to walk the talk. The old “Soil” Conservation Districts, established by state law in the 1950s, now called the Natural Resource Conservation Districts, encouraged landowners to install soil and water conservation practices. The Basin has seven Conservation Districts promoting conservation work with private landowners. This work is the landowner’s information and is generally not available to the public, however, it is estimated that over $100 million of private dollars has been spent on the installation of conservation practices over the last 60 years with in the Colorado Basin. In some instances these improvements had a 50% match with federal and or state programs, such as Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), and the many other matching dollars programs. These practices include, but are not limited to, pipelines, water control structures, gated pipes and sprinklers systems (Davidson, 2014). Currently most water providers in the Basin already have aggressive conservation programs. Based upon information gathered during the outreach and interviews, many Basin water providers use less water today than they did 10 years ago. Examples of these programs include: • Voluntary and/or mandatory water restrictions (depending upon drought or water supply conditions) • Leak detection and correction programs • Water loss tracking • Integrating conservation into land use planning and regulation • Increasing block rate structures (tiered rates) which encourage conservation • Radio read meters which can detect leakage or red flag water usage • Limitations on use of potable water for outside irrigation • Adoption of Best Management Land Use Practices (BMPs) for outside irrigation COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 59 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes ENCOURAGE A HIGH LEVEL [cont.] • Adoption of plans that require more xeriscaping, using plants that don’t require irrigation, and reducing irrigation of remaining turf Colorado Basin water providers realize they first must put their own house in order before encouraging other basins to use in-basin supplies first. Other examples of conservation practices that are in the Basin include: • Communities are making the connection between water usage and impacts to the local rivers or streams below diversion points. Western Resources Advocates’ (WRA) Rushing Rivers study identified those communities that would be receptive to adopting programs that would stress conservation BMPs and using the revenues saved through utility charges to make improvement to the local stream. • Several communities have adopted land use comprehensive plans that have a maximum allowable population growth or number of taps limited by finite water supplies and/or based upon leaving adequate water in receiving streams for instream flows. • The Town of Breckenridge is considering regulations that would cap outdoor use at three days a week. • Several headwater water providers do not allow any outdoor irrigation for new development. • A coalition of Roaring Fork Valley water providers is assembling plans for public outreach to elevate water efficiency by the adoption of a broad water efficiency strategy for the valley. • The City of Aspen used the same amount of water last year as it did in 1966 despite having three times as many residents. • The City of Grand Junction has offered incentives for use of xeriscaping. • The Upper Eagle River District outdoor use since 2005 has been restricted to three days a week, before 10:00 AM and after 4:00 PM which in part has resulted in a 20% per capita reduction. • The irrigation entities in the Grand Valley have implemented irrigation ditch conveyance efficiency measures. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 60 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes ENCOURAGE A HIGH LEVEL [cont.] An important step in obtaining a high conservation level is education. Watershed organizations throughout the Basin have undertaken aggressive education programs to inform and remind residents where their water comes from. West Slope grassroots efforts in part were the driving force behind SB-023 which passed both houses of the legislature this year but was ultimately vetoed by the Governor. This legislation proposed changes to Colorado Water Law that would have provided for incentives for Colorado Basin agricultural water users and irrigators to make their operations more efficient while also increasing instream flows, and protecting the full legal water rights. Basinwide implementation of greater conservation and water conscious land use practices to encourage conservation needs additional work. This may include legislative actions such as mandating daily maximums per user or requiring comprehensive plans to include high water conservation goals. The Colorado Basin Roundtable strongly supports the conclusions of three different studies by John Currier (Currier, 2014b), Ken Ransford (Ransford, 2012) and Western Resource Advocates (WRA, 2014) that show new supply projects, transmountain diversions and buy and dry practices can be eliminated or deferred through adoption of water conservation measures that reduce per capita water use and reduce the amount of water consumptively used on blue grass lawns on the Front Range. The CBRT also encourages local government land use authority to strictly limit water demands from outside lawn irrigation statewide and recommends small incremental improvements in Colorado Water Law that can result in more efficient water use among all sectors of water users. These changes will allow water users more flexibility to install efficiency measures that can result in improvements to instream flows and promote stream health. These measures would be voluntary and should come with economic incentives. Conservation measures are intertwined with those goals included in the Develop Local Water Conscious Land Use Strategies theme. Water conscious land use development is a critical component of any conservation strategy. However, it is important to reiterate that changes to the statutory framework for administering water rights in Colorado could have a beneficial effect for agricultural producers allowing them to transfer water rights or to implement conservation measures. An integral part of the Colorado Water Plan should include an innovative approach to addressing and encouraging agricultural efficiencies. The three goals identified to support this theme are: • Improve Colorado water law to encourage efficiency, conservation and reuse COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 61 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes ENCOURAGE A HIGH LEVEL [cont.] • Pursue continued municipal and industrial conservation • Promote agricultural conservation that maintains agricultural production and viability Table 8 includes the three goals as column headings. These goals are supported by measureable outcomes, short term needs, long term needs, and finally projects and methods. The following section describes the background information used to support the consumptive (municipal and industrial), agricultural, and environmental and recreational (nonconsumptive) needs that drove the development of the goals, measurable outcomes, short term and long term needs, and projects and methods discussed in the sections above. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 62 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes [cont.] Goals Measurable Outcomes Improve Colorado water law to encourage efficiency, conservation and reuse •R evised Colorado Water Law through legislation to allow more flexibility among water providers and agricultural community to promote stream health through conservation, bypass flows, and flexibility in diversion location Pursue continued municipal and industrial conservation •A chieve and sustain a high level of conservation by all basin water providers and industrial users •R educe time of average Division 5 water court process by adding staff including judges, referees and supporting staff Short Term Needs •R esearch improvements to the water court process to decrease cost and average time between application submittal and signed decree •S tate recognition that Basin municipal return flows remain in the basin and contribute to instream flows, downstream water users and Compact deliveries •D eveloped potential Colorado Water Law revisions for environmental benefits from allowing more legal flexibility to municipal and agricultural water rights •P ublication of existing basin high level conservation efforts in-basin cities and industries Long Term Needs •S eek state funding to hire additional water court judges, referees and supporting staff •E valuate alternatives for municipal water right modifications without exposing water right portfolio to opposition, especially when conservation or environmental benefits are met Projects & Methods •C ompare Colorado Water Law and procedure with other Western states to identify alternative practices to facilitate water transfers •S ee regional project lists for local water provider conservation projects •D evelop alternative water use calculation to gallons per capita per day (GPCD) that more accurately describes resort communities water use Table 6. Encourage Basinwide Conservation. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 63 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes [cont.] Goals Measurable Outcomes Promote agricultural conservation that maintains agricultural production and viability •R evised Colorado Water Law to allow agricultural conservation and improved efficiency measures without impacting water right value or risk of abandonment •S trive towards a high level of conservation and efficiency within the agricultural industry Short Term Needs •R esearch the water efficiencies that can be gained through structural improvements and infrastructure improvements • Investigate non-productive water losses •S tudy potential for producing high value, low water demand crops •R esearch beneficial contributions from agricultural flood irrigation return flows to nearby springs, wells and contribution flows to streams and rivers in late summer, fall and winter Long Term Needs • I dentify “water saving” opportunities in the Colorado River Basin that have no injury to other water users, the proponents water rights and environmental values Projects & Methods •S ee regional project lists for local agricultural conservation projects Table 8. Encourage Basinwide Conservation. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 64 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes [cont.] THEME 5 ­ DEVELOP LOCAL WATER CONSCIOUS LAND USE STRATEGIES We cannot solve Colorado water issues without addressing the fundamental link between water and land use. Basin residents recognize that the limited water supply in Colorado and the ever-increasing water demands both in the Basin and throughout the State require the development of new policies linking land use and water. The Colorado Basin from the headwaters to the state line is very diverse. Land use policies, water conservation practices and economies are different and are best managed by local authorities who represent and understand the local needs and are directly accountable to the local population. Implementation of these policies will vary based on geographic region within the Basin. Local governments have the authority and tools to ensure that new growth and development do not out strip water supply. Colorado’s Water Plan must support these local efforts (NWCCOG, 2014b). Overall these policies should ultimately: • Build a culture of conservation within the development community • Encourage local authorities to implement conservation and growth strategies that protect and preserve efficient water resources not only for meeting consumptive needs but to address nonconsumptive needs as well • Promote regional cooperation for water resource use within the Basin • Plan for water demands that will continue to grow beyond the current 2050 planning horizon • Achieve balanced economies which protect and encourage agriculture • Adopt local and regional comprehensive plans which respect and recognize locally available limited water supplies The CBRT recommends that these policies be adopted in Colorado’s Water Plan, recognizing that current and future land use practices will have a significant impact on water use statewide. Dense growth should be directed within urban growth boundaries where water supply infrastructure and plans are in place. Land use planning across the Basin should recognize the shortage and limits of water supply and establish achievable and meaningful water conservation goals. Land use policies must both recognize and articulate preserving water for streams and rivers and maintaining agriculture as a trade-off for efficient outdoor landscapes and indoor use. The goals contained in Table 7 were developed from repeated comments and suggestions heard from Town Hall meetings, Rotary presentations, city councils and at watershed collaborative discussions. The thoughts were assembled and presented with overwhelming support from the COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 65 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes DEVELOP LOCAL WATER [cont.] CBRT. This is the voice of the Colorado Basin on what water conscious land development will look like in our Basin and a model for what it could look like Statewide. The four goals identified to support this theme are: • Develop land use policies requiring and promoting conservation • Support, preserve and promote local authorities management of stream health, development and conservation efforts • Expand regional cooperation efforts to improve efficiency, provide water supply flexibility, and enhance environmental and recreational amenities • Extend water planning vision beyond the 2050 horizon Table 7 includes the four goals as column headings. These goals are supported by measurable outcome short term needs, long term needs, and projects and methods. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 66 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes [cont.] Support, preserve and promote local authorities management of stream health, development and conservation efforts Goals Develop land use policies requiring and promoting conservation Measurable Outcomes •D evelop recommendations for city, county and state governing bodies promoting water awareness and efficiency in land use policy •D evelopment of intergovernmental agreements (IGA) to provide regional comments and input on water projects •D evelop educational material or opportunities for municipal and county elected officials and planning officials on water supply issues and conservation options •D evelopment by local jurisdictions of water conservation plans with identified goals •P reserve agriculture and reduce the transfer of agriculture water to municipal use Short Term Needs •R eview existing land use regulations for water conscious development requirements •E valuate potential growth in unincorporated areas and water supplies to those areas Long Term Needs •P rovide financial support to local jurisdictions to implement water conscious development requirements •D raft recommended model basin and Statewide land use planning guidelines that focus on water conservation and water efficient land use development Projects & Methods •C reate Statewide grant opportunities for local jurisdictions to review land use regulations, conduct public outreach and implement regulations •E ducational outreach utilizing currently available materials to educate local jurisdictions on stream health, development and conservation opportunities •M aintain and strengthen local jurisdictions’ review authority of water project development • Rally state and basin support for water conservation goals •P rovide financial support for local jurisdictions to develop and implement stream management plans •E ncourage local government in the area where project impacts occur to review water development projects by entities outside the Colorado River Basin •U tilize current councils of government to develop model land use regulations •E ncourage water conservation plans with identified goals for every county and city within the Basin Table 7. Develop Local Water Conscious Land Use Strategies. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 67 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes [cont.] Goals Measurable Outcomes Expand regional cooperation efforts to improve efficiency, provide water supply flexibility, and enhance environmental and recreational amenities •E stablished regional water provider, ditch company and environmental & recreational advocate cooperatives focused on improving regional relationships, water supply redundancy and flexibility, water quality, coordinated efforts for multi-beneficial projects and addressing environmental and recreational needs Extend water planning vision beyond the 2050 horizon •P rovide regular updates to the state water plan every 10 or less years once plan is created •R equire updates for water demands to include 50-75 years in the future • I ncrease permanent interconnects between water providers where feasible Short Term Needs •D evelop examples of regional cooperative structures as models for rest of basin •P rovide financial support for planning and implementation for water providers needing redundant water supply in water tight watersheds, including shared supplies •D evelop a Basin and state vision for Colorado beyond 2050 and estimate water needs to meet vision •D evelop timeframe for updates to Colorado Water Plan • I mprove environmental and recreational attributes by coordinating time and place of diversions by water providers and agriculture users Long Term Needs •E xpand scope of smaller water providers to proceed on needed water storage projects as multi-beneficial projects •C oordinated watershed efforts among major water users to improve water use efficiency Projects & Methods •P ursue state water planning discussion to address future population growth, climate change, natural disasters, economic growth and environmental health •S trongly evaluate state land use regulations to meet long term exponential state population growth (and water demand) with a limited water supply •E stablish regional water provider and ditch company cooperatives • I nstall permanent drinking water interconnections among Fraser River valley water providers Table 7. Develop Local Water Conscious Land Use Strategies. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 68 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes [cont.] THEME 6 ­ ASSURE DEPENDABLE BASIN ADMINISTRATION Assuring dependable Basin administration provides stability and predictability for the Colorado Basin. The Basin identified two primary diversions; the Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant located above Glenwood Springs in the Glenwood Canyon and the senior Grand Valley irrigation diversions referred to as the “Cameo Call”. Water users in the Colorado Basin identified maintaining these two diversions and their positions within the administration system of the river as critical to the future of the Basin. A third pivotal concern for the Basin is the 15-Mile Reach which protects Endangered fish in the Upper Colorado River. Every water user within the Colorado Basin feels the impacts of these three major uses and their senior calls which ensure that water remains in the Colorado River and gets delivered to the State line. This helps to meet critical environmental and recreational needs both on the Colorado River and its tributaries. The short and long term needs of the Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant were partially addressed in the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement (CRCA) and the Shoshone Outage Protocol which was adopted by the large reservoir operators on the Western Slope. However, the long term viability of a 100+ year old power plant is always in question and so the exploration of more permanent long term solutions than the Shoshone Outage Protocol must be an integral component of the Colorado Water Plan. The Grand Valley water users divert to support the production of high value agricultural crops. The short and long term goals of maintaining and protecting the viability of agriculture on the Western Slope, help to ensure that the Cameo Call will continue to be a lynchpin for middle and lower river operations and administration. Two pending projects, the Moffatt Firming Project and the Windy Gap Firming Project have the potential to divert an additional 18,000 AF and 40,000 AF, respectively to the Front Range. Additional major depletions from the Colorado River or its tributaries could trigger another Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act. In 1999 the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) recommending that 10,825 AF be delivered each year during the late summer and fall to protect four endangered fish in the 15Mile Reach of the Colorado River, from the Grand Valley Irrigation Company Diversion Dam near Palisade downstream to the Gunnison River confluence in Grand Junction. This is known as the Recovery Program. The four species Listed under the Endangered Species Act are the Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, razorback sucker and bonytail. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) set a goal in the PBO for a population of 1,100 pikeminnow. The PBO stated that if this level is not reached by the earlier of 2015 or when 50,000 AF of new depletions are made from the Colorado River, this would be considered new information and require a new consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. A Section 7 consultation requires the US Fish and Wildlife Service to undertake another scientific study to estimate the population of these fish to determine if their numbers are increasing, stable, or decreasing. If the Recovery Program fails, Federal Agencies are obligated to take measures to conserve the Endangered fish. Any additional depletion from the Colorado River is likely to trigger another Section 7 consultation. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 69 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes ASSURE DEPENDABLE BASIN ADMINISTRATION [cont.] The desire to increase conservation and maintain agriculture through creative programs comes regularly in conflict with the entrenched culture and current statutory framework for the administration of water rights. In particular there is such a high fear of losing some portion of a diverter’s water rights that both municipalities and agricultural users are disincentivized from pursuing creative solutions. Water court proceedings have also become prohibitively expensive for many small users to participate in. Simple matters such as changing a point of diversion have become so expensive that for a small agricultural user the thousands of dollars involved render whatever gains might be made by the water user in efficiency or conservation economically impractical. Legislative solutions to improving upon the current statutory framework to allow for varied and creative approaches to water needs without penalizing water users needs to be addressed as part of the Colorado Water Plan. Two goals identified by the Basin to support this theme included meeting the obligations of the Colorado River Compact and maintaining Lake Powell levels at a point at which power can be generated. The failure to maintain Lake Powell levels will have a significant impact on millions of people’s lives and the economy of much of the western United States. Linking conservation, water conscious land use and limiting the potential for large new TMDs all contribute to maintaining Colorado River flows and Lake Powell levels. In addition, meeting the needs of agriculture and the protection of the Shoshone and Cameo Calls contribute to the short and long term goals of maintaining Lake Powell levels at power production levels. The four goals identified to support this theme are: • Protect and defend maximum mainstem calls at Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant and senior Grand Valley irrigation diversions • Ensure sufficient Lake Powell water level for uninterrupted hydroelectric power production • Maintain Interstate Compact deliveries to Lake Powell • Improve water court process Table 8 includes the four goals as column headings. These goals are supported by measureable outcomes, short term needs, long term needs, and finally projects and methods. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 70 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes [cont.] Goals Measurable Outcomes Protect and defend maximum mainstem calls at Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant and senior Grand Valley irrigation diversions (Cameo Call) •A Western Slope purchase of, or signed first right of refusal to purchase, the Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant •P rotocols to maximize significant mainstem calls at Shoshone and Grand Valley •R etain 100% ownership of senior Grand Valley irrigation water rights by West Slope entities (private or government) Ensure sufficient Lake Powell water level for uninterrupted hydroelectric power production •U pper Basin states plan to protect and maintain power producing water level in Lake Powell •D eveloped statewide plan to guarantee water deliveries to Lake Powell with allotted flows and volumes including a discussion on risk responsibilities • Protect Shoshone and Grand Valley irrigation calls • I mprove time that ESA Recovery flows for 15-Mile Reach are met Short Term Needs •D evelop protocols with Xcel to protect and maximize Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant calls for the health of the Colorado River mainstem, recreation provided by the Shoshone flows, and needed water quality improvements provided through dilution by Shoshone flows. •S ecure uninterrupted hydroelectric power production which sustains basin: low electricity costs, funding for federal Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) programs and Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs, funding for salinity and selenium reduction programs, and supports necessary storage to meet the Colorado River Compact deliveries • I ncrease the water level in Lake Powell to build drought protection for uninterrupted hydropower production Long Term Needs •W est Slope control of the Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant to guarantee maximize call potential for entire basin benefit •D efine Colorado River Basin’s responsibilities to maintain Lake Powell hydropower producing water level •E liminate risks to reduced Grand Valley irrigation call to sustain needed environmental, recreational and water quality flows above Grand Valley irrigation diversions •P ursue interstate options to create real “new supply” projects • I dentify additional existing water rights important for the sustainability of the Colorado River Basin Projects & Methods •P urchase of Xcel owned Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant or other permanent solution to maintain secure maximum Shoshone diversions •D evelop triggers and responses based on Lake Powell water level to better manage water level •W ork with Bureau of Reclamation to understand tools available to support Lake Powell water level •E stablish a Water Bank to meet West Slope required flows or volumes •P ursue interstate options to create real “new supply” projects (i.e. exchange of Pacific Ocean desalination water for Lower Basin Colorado River water, importation of water from outside the Colorado River Basin) •D evelop criteria for new water rights detailing risk responsibility •E valuate potential for Intentionally Created Surplus programs in the Upper Basin Table 8. Assure Dependable Basin Administration. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 71 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 2 Basinwide Themes [cont.] Goals Measurable Outcomes Maintain Interstate Compact deliveries to Lake Powell •M aintain 10-yr running average delivery of 8.25 million acre-feet to Lower Basin •A ssume in any further water availability studies of the Colorado River that the Upper Basin is responsible for 50% of the Mexico Treaty obligation to deliver 1.5 million acre feet each year •C olorado to define and meet allotted Upper Basin delivery requirements Short Term Needs •W ork with Upper Basin states to determine state specific responsibilities •D etermine Colorado’s consumptive use of the Colorado River Long Term Needs •E valuate future needs for curtailment and payback to meet 10-yr running average deliveries to Lower Basin Improve water court process • Recommendations to improve the objector process •R ecommendations to limit vulnerability of water rights when changing existing water rights in water court • I mprovements to Colorado water law to encourage agricultural water efficiency practices without harming water right value •E valuate alternatives for municipal water right modifications without exposing water right portfolios to opposition •C onvene a symposium to engage a statewide discussion on improving Colorado water law process •S eek federal and state funding to retain additional water court judges, referees and supporting staff if the current system cannot be improved •P ursue interstate options to create real “new supply” projects Projects & Methods •E stablish the Water Bank to meet West Slope required flows or volumes •P ursue interstate options to create real “new supply projects (i.e. exchange of Pacific Ocean desalination water for Lower Basin Colorado River water users, importation of water from outside the Colorado River Basin) •C ompare Colorado water law and procedure with other Western states to identify alternative practices to facilitate water transfers •D evelop criteria for new water rights detailing risk responsibility •E valuate potential for Intentionally Created Surplus programs in the Upper Basin Table 7. Assure Dependable Basin Administration. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 72 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis — Regional Information and Breakdown 3.1 Evaluation of Consumptive, Agricultural, Environmental and Recreational Needs The evaluation of needs for this BIP relied on existing studies including, but not limited to SWSI 2010 (CDM, 2011b) and the SWSI Colorado Basin Needs Assessment (CDM. 2011a). The BIP is built upon the information contained in these and other documents and by obtaining input from stakeholders throughout the Basin. A comprehensive list of projects, policies and processes was also developed and is provided in Section 4. The development of this list is an iterative process and will continue to be well into the future. Specific information relating to the evaluation of the consumptive, agricultural and environmental and recreational needs is provided below. Evaluation of Consumptive Needs Municipal and Industrial users form the principal needs for consumptive use. Energy development is the primary user within the industrial sector,. The CBRT relied on data and information contained in existing studies including the SWSI 2010 and the SWSI Colorado Basin Needs Assessment. This information was further expanded to include the data collected from the water provider interviews for the municipal sector. The Colorado/Yampa-White Roundtable’ Energy Demand studies, input from the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) and the National Oil Shale Association (NOSA) were used to assess the future water demands associated with the oil and natural gas and oil shale industries. Exhibit E includes additional data and information related to the consumptive needs evaluation. WATER PROVIDER DATA The consumptive Project Leadership Team (PLT) focused on obtaining additional data to better quantify the water demands of local water providers than that provided in SWSI 2010. Interviews were conducted with 30 of the major water providers throughout the Basin. A questionnaire was developed and provided to each of the interviewed providers and other major water providers. The questionnaire requested data that characterized their existing and forecast supply, demands, conservation efforts and projects. Additional data was obtained from available engineering reports, comprehensive studies, and other similar published data. A qualitative analysis was performed through the questionnaire and interviews discussing topics such as: the three most significant needs of each provider; the concerns and preparations for environmental changes; and an understanding of the water providers input into the local land use planning and approval process. The analyses of needs were collected as Maximum Daily Demands and Average Daily Demands to more appropriately reflect the demands of each system as many of the water providers in the Basin are dependent on wells and direct streamflows, instead of large reservoirs. The data collected from the water providers within the Basin are included in Exhibit E and a Summary of Demands is provided in Table 9. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 73 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] COLORADO BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DEMAND SUMMARY BY COUNTY Population 1 County Annual Water Demand (AFY) Estimated C.U. (AFY) 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 2015 2030 2050 Eagle 104,495 108,649 166,184 18,819 26,335 41,271 2,823 3,950 6,191 Garfield 58,961 87,300 131,692 19,453 21,200 28,848 2,918 3,180 4,327 Grand 21,661 33,267 42,809 2,945 4,271 5,403 442 641 811 Mesa 121,295 204,268 282,460 20,425 36,124 54,384 3,064 5,419 8,158 Pitkin 39,800 47,911 60,566 6,854 5,686 6,997 1,028 853 1,050 Routt 2,077 2,140 2,227 370 362 374 55 54 56 Summit 66,104 73,587 92,248 5,211 7,981 10,027 782 1,197 1,504 Total 414,393 557,122 778,186 74,077 101,959 147,305 11,112 15,294 22,096 Table 9. Conservation is at the forefront of most water provider’s goals and large efforts have been made to reduce the system demands. The SWSI conservation analysis used the gallons per capita per day water demand for each water provider. The PLT decided not to focus on this type of a conservation analysis as it does not account for the huge population fluctuations in the resort communities across the headwaters of the Basin. The Next Step this BIP identified is the need for a more in-depth analysis of this information and further investigation into the water providers not interviewed. A summation of water demands and consumptive uses of individual water users should also be conducted to support a full analysis of future Basin drinking water demand and depletions. SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRY SWSI 2010 addressed water demands associated with the self-supplied industry (SSI) and municipal provided large industries separate from the M&I sector. The subsectors that were included in SWSI SSI assessment were • Large industries, including mining, manufacturing, brewing, and food processing • Water needed for snowmaking COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 74 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] • Thermoelectric power generation at coal- and natural gas-fired facilities • Energy development, including the extraction and production of natural gas, coal, uranium, and oil shale. Since SWSI 2010, additional research and information has been made available that better quantifies the water demands associated with the oil shale and oil and natural gas sectors. No additional data was collected as part of this BIP effort to refine the water demands presented in SWSI 2010 for the large industrial, snowmaking, and thermoelectric power sectors. Further assessment of these demands are needed and recommended for further evaluation in the Next Steps Section of this report. ENERGY DEVELOPMENT The abundance of natural resources in northwest Colorado is predictive of continued potential for energy resource development. Recent studies have indicated that the Green River Formation in western Colorado, of which a portion lies within the Colorado River Basin, may contain approximately 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels (bbl) of recoverable oil from shale (URS, 2008). As a result of the recent improvements in the extraction and production technologies and the continued potential for future development, there is a need to continually assess and update the waterrelated impacts of energy resource development in northwestern Colorado, specifically within the Colorado, Yampa, and White River Basins. In 2008, the Energy Subcommittee of the Colorado and Yampa/White Green Basin Roundtable commissioned a study to evaluate the water demands associated with the oil shale, oil and natural gas, coal, and uranium industries (Phase I). In addition, Phase I provided estimates of water demands for the electrical generation needed to fuel energy production and the municipal water demands stemming from the increased population of workers. The results of Phase I study concluded that more than 400,000 AF of water annually were needed for the development of the studied energy industries (oil and natural gas, oil shale, uranium, coal), a very high estimate of which a majority was for oil shale development, requiring more than 200,000 AF for electrical generation to serve in-situ (in place) oil shale production. Due to the concern regarding the Phase I water demands for the oil shale industry, the Energy Subcommittee commissioned a second study in 2011 (Phase II) that reexamined the oil shale water demands. The result was that the overall annual demand estimates were reduced to 120,000 AF (AMEC, 2012). However, changing industry conditions have led to a reassessment of Phase I and II water needs regarding their validity under current conditions. (Anticipated to be completed by June 30, 2014.) A summary of the information documented in the Update memorandum (Exhibit E) for the oil shale and oil and natural gas industries is provided below. Since coal and uranium energy production is not expected to vary considerably from current conditions, the Phase I estimates will be adopted in the Update. (Note that the Colorado River COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 75 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Basin currently does not have any active coal and uranium mines.) The Update provides revised water demands where applicable based upon updated data and recommendations made for further research and refinement for oil shale, oil and natural gas. ENERGY — OIL SHALE In March 2014, the National Oil Shale Association (NOSA) updated their circa 2012 water use estimates for the future commercial oil shale industry. The new NOSA data indicate future oil production from oil shale projects have been reduced from 1.5 million to 500,000 barrels per day in light of a more pragmatic view of what the industry might look like in 50 years. These revised estimates result in a new estimate of 10,000 – 25,000 AF/year net water demands for oil shale as compared to the Phase II Report of 120,000 AF. This estimate does not include the water demands associated with the indirect uses of water associated with the oil shale industry. ENERGY — OIL AND NATURAL GAS The Phase I report (URS, 2008) estimated 3,000 to 5,500 AF/year for “low” to “high” production scenarios for natural gas (an estimated 2.2 AF/well demand). Due to recent developments in the drilling technology, from vertical to horizontal wells, and data and information from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) and the CWCB, the gross direct water use factor may be more than double of the Phase I estimate, now around 5 AF/well. Additional research is underway by AMEC and Canyon Water Resources to document the overall impact to the future water demands needed for the oil and gas well drilling and completion activities. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) released on June 18, 2014, a new report that frames an integrated challenge and opportunity space around the water-energy nexus for DOE and its partners and lays the foundation for future efforts. These on-going efforts to refine the water demands needed to support our energy sector will be important in updating the consumptive water demands for the Basin. The Next Step section identifies the need to incorporate this information into the consumptive needs evaluation. Evaluation of Agricultural Needs Agricultural water uses are considered part of the consumptive water use sector, because of the importance of agriculture, this BIP addressed the municipal and industrial consumptive water use needs separately, as documented above. The agricultural Project Leadership Team (PLT) focused on addressing existing agricultural water supply shortages but the members also identified management programs as tools that address agricultural needs. The agricultural uses addressed during the assessment included row crop farming, irrigated pasture and hay production, water used for vineyards, orchards, vegetables, and other specialty crop production. The CBRT’s approach to evaluating the agricultural needs was based on the following COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 76 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] assumptions: land dedicated to agricultural production is not expected to increase in the Basin, current shortages in supply already exist, and existing agricultural producers intend to stay in business and will continue to divert and consume water for livestock and farming purposes. It was generally agreed during the evaluation discussion that the overarching goal is to protect and sustain the existing agricultural practices. Measures were discussed in that context. While evaluating the agricultural needs in the basin the participants noted that broad-scale management efforts such as the promotion of on-farm improvements by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Salinity Control Program, and the Endangered Fish Recovery Program elements should be included and evaluated because of their direct and indirect agricultural production benefits. Such programs were included in the evaluation because of their overall benefit to agricultural production. Interviews were also conducted in an effort to obtain input on other relevant studies currently in the works by the BOR, the Colorado River Water Conservation District (CRWCD), and other water users in the Basin. Evaluation of Environmental and Recreational Needs The evaluation of the environmental and recreational needs for the Draft CWP was based on the SWSI 2010 Nonconsumptive Needs Assessment (NCNA), which assumed that the existing needs did not need quantifying beyond the minimal instream flows. This document assisted in the identification of those river reaches that have been adversely affected as a result of changes in river flows. The efforts of the CBRT’s environmental and recreational PLT resulted in a comprehensive list of projects to consider in meeting the environmental and recreational needs of the Basin. The environmental and recreational PLT also identified two primary actions in moving forward beyond the BIP. Specific goals and measurable outcomes should determine what projects and methods are most important. A set of questions developed by the environmental and recreational PLT will assist in determination of the relative importance of individual projects and methods included on the comprehensive list. The environmental and recreational PLT expressed a need to continue to assess the systemic needs of the Basin from an on-theground perspective. A template for these needs assessment can be obtained from the “Catalog of Stream and Riparian Habitat Quality for the Roaring Fork River and Tributaries, Central Colorado”, prepared for the Roaring Fork Stream Health Initiative and the recent Inventory and Assessment of the Colorado River in Eagle County, the Colorado River Inventory Assessment (CRIA) prepared for the Eagle River Watershed Council. The Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool (WFET) report identified over 60 river reaches in the Basin that were at-risk of degrading one or more attributes including riparian, geomorphic processes, aquatic, recreation or water quality. While this report gives an insightful, big picture look at reaches of concern due to changes in flows, it is not focused on how to best address these vulnerabilities from a site specific perspective. Gaining this perspective is going to be COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 77 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] challenging work, but by using past studies including the work in the watershed flow evaluation tool and more site specific watershed plans like the one developed by the Roaring Fork Conservancy, Eagle River Watershed Council and by Grand County, Basin stakeholders will continue to plan and implement projects that will best address the environmental and recreational needs of the Basin. Exhibit F includes additional data and information relative to the environmental and recreational needs evaluation. Table 10 depicts previous work done using the Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool. The tool identified 66 reaches at-risk of hurting one or more key environmental or recreational attributes throughout the Colorado Basin. The following excerpt from the WFET table is taken from the Upper Blue and Upper Colorado River basins. The full table is provided in Exhibit F. The following attributes and their corresponding flow needs were used to evaluate which reaches in the upper Colorado Basin are at-risk of hurting these attributes because of changes in flows: • Geomorphic function • Aquatic ecosystems • Riparian/wetland ecosystems • Water quality • Recreational boating While the public tends to focus on the health of the fishery, identified here as the aquatic environment it is important to use additional indicators to help us determine what makes a healthy river and able to continue to provide for human use and enjoyment. Despite the havoc and damage that can occur with seasonal flooding, natural geomorphic changes in the shape and depth of rivers is as important to aquatic and riparian health as periodic fires are to forest health. Nature is not static and when human development barricades a river’s edge or water development decreases the frequency or magnitude of flooding events, river health suffers. Changes in flow and low flows in particular contribute to and exacerbate issues with water quality. Many of the smaller reaches in the upper Blue, Fraser, Eagle, or Roaring Fork rivers provide municipal water for thriving mountain towns. But the combination of transmountain diversions, historic mining practices, and burgeoning municipal development has paired water depletions with historic contamination. This is a significant problem for the ecosystem and people. Careful consideration to water quality should be given when evaluating projects that will further deplete these already degraded river and streams. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 78 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Recreation is another key attribute was used to identify at risk reaches. For most Coloradans, whitewater and flat water boating is about having fun. But for the Western Slope it is a key economic driver. Maintaining adequate flows in key river reaches that are enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of Colorado residents and visitors alike is critical to the Colorado Basin’s recreational economy. It also assists ranchers, farmers and municipalities downstream by helping to ensure that adequate flows. The full report on the WFET work will be a helpful screen to ensure that our Basin continues to do the right work in the most important places. Table 9 highlights critical issues and puts forth possible solutions to these challenges. Additional work has been done to add corresponding State instream flows to the 66 identified at-risk reaches. Future work needs to be done to determine what instream flows are met consistently and which are not. Most people assume that the State’s broad network of instream flows designed to protect adequate flows for the environment are sufficient to keep water in the streams. While the State instream flow program has been an enormous asset to protecting flows and helping maintain river health, the junior dates of appropriation of many of the instream flows are too recent to provide sufficient. Additional water projects that take more water out of rivers and streams are often done with senior water rights that have yet to be developed. As a result, many instream flows are insufficient protection for the streams they are designed to help. The Colorado Basin has committed to using this BIP and other studies to create a stream management plan to assess how the Basin can further determine their recreational and environmental needs and which projects should be prioritized for implementation. A challenge facing the Colorado Basin in the future will be the location of the new growth and impacts on water supplies. In the past thirty-five years much of the growth has occurred outside of municipal boundaries in unincorporated areas abetted by the proliferation of special districts. Because existing water providers have robust water supply plans, the growth over the next thirty-five years should be encouraged to be within urban growth boundaries or service areas. Growth outside of these boundaries will be very dependent upon building new augmentation reservoirs because current augmentation reservoirs are fully allocated or subscribed. Further growth outside of these boundaries and service areas will further displace agricultural land. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 79 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Blue River Blue River Blue River Blue River Blue River Upper Blue River Snake River Blue River Blue River Blue River Dillon Reservoir Upstream of Dillon Reservoir Dillon Dam to Willow Creek (Silverthorne town limit) Willow Creek to Green Mountain Reservoir Green Mountain Reservoir to Colorado Recreational Boating Water Quality Location Riparian/Wetland Eco lo gic a l Func tio n Stream Name Aquatic Ecological Functions: trout, warm water Sub-basin Geomorphic Functions Needs Analysis [cont.] X X X X X X X X Resource Values at Risk Issues Recreational boating (flatwater) Ensure adequate lake levels for Frisco and Dillon Marinas July through Labor Day Recreational trout fishing Aquatic life impacted by trace metals from abandoned mines and low flows in winter, channel maintenance (sediment) Gold medal fishery Protect flows for fish; flows for fish are related to operations at Dillon; water too cold to support bug life below dam Recreational boating (private and commercial) through July 4th, fishing, riparian habitat Protect rec. flows for kayak/rafting June through July 4th, channel maintenance (sediment), fish/ aquatic life needs; diminished flows require “resizing” channel i.e., physical habitat work Recreational boating (private and commercial) , fishing Protect recreational flows in Green Mtn Canyon for fish and float boats, threatened by potential GMR pumpback, fish/ aquatic life needs, channel maintenance (sediment) Table 10. Example of Data from the Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool for the Upper Blue River COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 80 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Sub-basin Blue River Blue River Blue River Blue River Blue River Can flow be Stream Name Location Upper Blue River Dillon Reservoir Snake River Upstream of Dillon Reservoir Blue River Dillon Dam to Willow Creek (Silverthorne town limit) Blue River Blue River Willow Creek to Green Mountain Reservoir Green Mountain Reservoir to Colorado Actions/ Is risk flow realistically related? Solutions part of the ISF solution? Quantity of water needed No Not Applicable Not Applicable N No For trout, if reach not protected, identify mechanisms to protect reach. Perhaps retime to address winter issues could be addressed. Not Applicable Y No For trout, if reach not protected, identify mechanisms to protect reach. Not Applicable Y No For trout and cottonwood, if reach not protected, identify mechanisms to protect reach. Not Applicable Y No For trout and cottonwood, if reach not protected, identify mechanisms to protect reach. Not Applicable Y Improve winter flows and upstream source control Reservoir operational considerations Reservoir operational considerations Case Number(s) 5-86CW210 5-87CW293 5-87CW294 5-87CW296 5-87CW297 5-87CW299 Table 10. Example of Data from the Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool for the Upper Blue River COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 81 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Sub-basin Stream Name Location Blue River Upper Blue River Dillon Reservoir Blue River Snake River Upstream of Dillon Reservoir Blue River Dillon Dam to Willow Creek (Silverthorne town limit) Blue River Blue River Blue River Blue River Blue River Willow Creek to Green Mountain Reservoir Green Mountain Reservoir to Colorado Stream Name Upper Terminus Lower Terminus Segment Length (miles) Flow Amount (CFS) Appropriation Date Snake River confl NF Snake River at confl Dillon Res in 4.4 6 (10/1 - 4/30) 3/14/1986 outlet Dillon Reservoir in; confl Straight Creek in confl Straight Creek in; confl Willow Creek in confl Rock Creek in; confl Boulder Creek in confl Boulder Creek in; confl Slate Creek in 1.6; 4.2 outlet Green Mountain Res in Kremmling confl Colorado River in 15.4 Blue River Blue River Blue River Blue River 50 (1/1-12/31) 0.4; 2 50 (10/1 -4/30) 78 (10/1 - 10/31) 70 (11/1 - 2/29) 60 (5/1 - 7/15) 10/2/1987 10/2/1987 10/2/1987 10/2/1987 10/2/1987 Table 10. Example of Data from the Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool for the Upper Blue River COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 82 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Upper Colorado Upper Colorado Upper Colorado Upper Colorado Upper Colorado Colorado River Colorado River Colorado River Colorado River Colorado River 3-Lakes area; Shadow Mt to Granby Granby Reservoir to Windy Gap X X Windy Gap Reservoir Windy Gap Reservoir to Williams Fork Williams Fork to Blue River X X X X X Recreational Boating Resource Values at Risk Issues Riparian habitat Fishing and recreational boating (flatwater) threatened by water quality. algae, aquatic weeds, sediment, clarity, fish/aquatic life needs; extremely irregular flow regime, 30 cfs to 1,000 cfs Flows for fish and habitat, overwintering fish habitat, macroinvetebrates, fishing, riparian habitat X X X Water Quality Location Riparian/Wetland Eco lo gic a l Func tio n Stream Name Aquatic Ecological Functions: trout, warm water Sub-basin Geomorphic Functions Needs Analysis [cont.] X Adequate releases from Granby for fish and habitat, temperature, sediment transport, embeddedness, cottonwood regeneration, overwintering fish habitat, macroinvertebrate habitat; USFWS flow rec’s ignored Fishing Ideal whirling disease conditions, sediment transport and deposition, fish/ aquatic life needs Gold Medal fishery with good access, riparian habitat, recreational boating (seasonal) Whirling disease, temperature, water quality, algae, fish/ aquatic life needs, channel maintenance (sediment transport and deposition) Fish, aesthetics Temperature, sediment embeddedness, cottonwood revegetation related to upstream reservoir management, fish/ aquatic life needs; Williams Fork Reservoir operations challenges, minimal ramping Table 10. Example of Data from the Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool for the Upper Colorado River COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 83 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Sub-basin Upper Colorado Stream Name Colorado River Can flow be Location Actions/ Is risk flow realistically related? Solutions part of the Quantity of water needed ISF No For trout, if reach not protected, identify mechanisms to protect reach. Not Applicable N Yes For trout AF - August/ flows could September be annual average considered; increase; for Cottonwood >100,000 AF cottonwood, magnitude of - May to July increase 1 in flows likely preclude flow 3 years (150% increase over solution. solution? 3-Lakes area; Shadow Mt to Granby Case Number(s) Trout - 6000 Upper Colorado Colorado River Granby Reservoir to Windy Gap Y 5-90CW300 current flows) Upper Colorado Upper Colorado Upper Colorado Colorado River Colorado River Colorado River Windy Gap Reservoir Windy Gap Reservoir to Williams Fork Williams Fork to Blue River Windy Gap bypass, identify off-channel diversion (enhancement) Windy Gap enhancement, $6 million at habitat improvement; RICD at Hot Sulphur Springs, proposed No Not Applicable Not Applicable N Yes Trout - 7000 AF - August/ For trout September flows could be annual average considered; for increase; cottonwood, Cottonwood magnitude of >100,000 AF flows likely - May to July preclude flow increase 1 in 3 years (150% solution. increase over current flows) Y 5-80CW447 Yes For trout, if Cottonwood reach not - >150,000 protected AF - May to identify mechanisms July increase to protect 1 in 3 years reach. For (~50% cottonwood, increase magnitude of flows would over current likely preclude flows) flow solution. Y 5-80CW446 Table 10. Example of Data from the Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool for the Upper Colorado River COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 84 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Upper Terminus Lower Terminus Segment Length (miles) Flow Amount (CFS) Appropriation Date outlet Granby Res in confl Fraser River at 7.8 40 (5/1 8/31) 11/27/1990 Colorado River hdgt Windy confl Gap Project Williams div at Fork River in 14.7 90 (1/1 - 12/31) 7/8/1980 Colorado River confl confl Williams Troublesome Fork River in Creek in 8 135 (1/1 - 12/31) 7/8/1980 Sub-basin Stream Name Location Stream Name Upper Colorado Colorado River 3-Lakes area; Shadow Mt to Granby Colorado River Upper Colorado Colorado River Granby Reservoir to Windy Gap Colorado River Upper Colorado Colorado River Windy Gap Reservoir Colorado River Upper Colorado Colorado River Windy Gap Reservoir to Williams Fork Upper Colorado Colorado River Williams Fork to Blue River Table 10. Example of Data from the Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool for the Upper Colorado River COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 85 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] 3.2 Regional Breakdown Although united by the six themes, the priorities and challenges from the headwater counties of Grand, Eagle, Summit and Pitkin, to the Colorado-Utah State line, are diverse. The water demands to support the tourism, recreation, municipal, industrial and agricultural demands carry a different emphasis in each of these areas. The Basin was divided into seven regions to allow more focus on regional needs, vulnerabilities, methods and projects. Each of the following regional sections begins with a brief description of the region followed by a series of three maps that depict the existing consumptive uses, environmental and recreational conditions, and top identified projects. This existing conditions information was used by the regional stakeholders to develop the most relevant Basinwide themes and associated vulnerabilities for that region which in turn helped identify methods and top projects in meeting future needs. This information is presented in the first table of each section. Focusing on specific goals, vulnerabilities, needs and top projects within each region is not intended to split the basin but instead draw the Basin together through better understanding of how the Basinwide themes are prioritized. The regional boundaries were delineated based on the State Engineer Office’s (SEO) water district boundaries. Several regions mimic the exact SEO district boundaries while some were a combination of several districts and in one instance; the Middle Colorado Region, was enlarged to include the Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant. The seven regions are as follows (Figure 10): Figure 10. Colorado BIP Regions. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 86 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] • Grand County • Summit County • State Bridge • Eagle River • Middle Colorado • Roaring Fork • Grand Valley GRAND COUNTY REGION The Grand County Region consists of the Fraser and the Upper Colorado River watersheds and follows the boundary of Grand County. This region is the most impacted region in the Colorado basin from TMDs. The major TMDs include: • Northern Water Conservancy Districts Colorado Big Thompson Project (C-BT) which diverts water through the Alva B. Adams Tunnel at Grand Lake (BOR, 2014) • Windy Gap Project (Northern Water, 2014) sponsored by Northern Water, diverts water through a pump back system to Lake Granby and is delivered to water users via the C-BT project • Moffat Collection System which diverts water above Winter Park through the Moffat Tunnel (Denver Water, 2014) and the Williams Fork Basin sponsored by Denver Water • Grand Ditch, a diversion project in the Never Summer Mountains, delivers water to the Cache La Poudre River via a 14.3 mile long ditch The diversions out of Grand County amount to more than 300,000 AFY, more than three times the amount from any other region in the Colorado Basin. On average, more than 60% of the Fraser River is diverted out of the Basin above Tabernash (Ranch Creek Confluence). Water providers in the upper Fraser River Valley are vulnerable to extended droughts, lack of redundancy, regulatory changes from Groundwater Under the Direct Influence (GWUDI) classifications, further firming from Denver’s Moffat Collection Project and lack of upstream reservoir storage that can be used for physical water. Further, Grand County water providers experience large fluctuations in demand due to the tourist/recreational seasonal economy. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 87 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] The protection and restoration of the Fraser and upper Colorado Rivers are critical needs for Grand County. Recent studies and reports including the Upper Colorado River Basin Study (UPCO) (Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, 2003) investigated water quantity and quality issues in Grand and Summit Counties. The Grand County Stream Management Plan (Tetra Tech, et. al., 2010) developed a framework for maintaining a healthy stream system in Grand County and has been used extensively to assist Grand County in recent negotiation for the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement (CRCA) and the Windy Gap Firming Projects. Copies of both these agreements can be found in Exhibit I. Many of the projects listed in the Grand County Region tables have come from these agreements. Several projects listed include possible new small reservoirs above the physical diversion locations. Regulatory restrictions, high costs and variable geologic conditions have prevented proceeding with these conditional storage rights. This BIP recommends that State, Federal and Local regulatory jurisdictions work collaboratively to improve the permitting process. Collaboration among the water users in the Fraser Valley, Grand County, Middle Park Water Conservancy District, Denver Water, Winter Park Recreation Association, CWCB (minimum instream flow program) and others should occur in order to permit and build these small reservoirs to provide redundant water supplies. Water providers in the upper Fraser Valley should consider interconnected water systems which would have multiple benefits to all users. The Grand Valley Water Council and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) are good examples that could be followed to guide these interconnections. The cooperation and interconnections would result in multiple supplies and redundancy that could protect water users from extended droughts, impacts from climate change and upstream spills in the Fraser River. The Fraser Valley will incur growth over the next 35 years to 2050. Existing water providers and municipalities have land use planning and water master planning in place. If land use and growth occurs outside of these planned areas where plans do not exist, the development of physical and legal water supplies will be challenging and will further stress specific reaches of the Fraser River. A land use/water supply study should be undertaken to develop plans in the Fraser River that would result in better collaboration on reservoir planning and municipal water distribution system interconnections in the upper Fraser River. The lower Fraser River water providers should continue to work toward consolidation and interconnecting water systems. Table 11 highlights the top specific themes and vulnerabilities, methods and projects for the Grand County Region. Figures 11 and 12 depict the consumptive uses, environmental and recreational conditions, and identified projects for this region. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 88 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Figure 11. Colorado River BIP Grand County Region Consumptive Uses COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 89 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Figure 12. Colorado River BIP Grand County Region Environmental and Recreational Conditions COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 90 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan Themes and Supporting Vulnerabilities Protect and Restore Healthy Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Riparian Areas •A quatic environmental habitat degradation • Unmet instream/nonconsumptive flows • I mpacts to tourism and recreation economies1 • I mpacts by existing and potential additional transmountain and in-basin diversions •A greed proposed benefits vulnerable to Moffat & Windy Gap projects implementation •C ollapsing ecosystems due to low flows, degrading water quality and non-optimal temperatures Methods Identified Projects • Preserve Water Conservancy Act • CRCA identified projects •G rand County Stream Management Plan, CRCA, Grand Lake Clarity MOU, Windy Gap Firming Project IGA, and UPCO Study. •W indy Gap Firming Project IGA identified projects • I f firming projects proceed, all conditions of signed agreements must be completed • UPCO Study identified projects •G rand County Stream Management Plan identified projects • I f firming projects do not proceed, identify projects for mitigation • Water provider conservation projects •L ocal government land use authority • Bypass of Windy Gap Reservoir •R estore Upper Colorado River above the confluence with the Blue River •T ourism and recreation economy1 needs and funding opportunities •U pper Colorado River Irrigation and Restoration Project Phase 1 (KB Ditch to Blue River) and Phase 2 (TMDs on the Fraser and Colorado River to the confluence with the Blue River) •R eview proposed benefits from mitigation actions of Moffat and Windy Gap projects •G rand Lake Clarity Umbrella Agreement Projects •L earning By Doing to direct, coordinate and apply resources • Grand County RICDs •R egional Section 208 Water Quality Management Plan •W ild and Scenic River Stakeholder Group Plan • I mplement transmountain diversion bypass flow projects • Jones 1 Reservoir Sustain Agriculture • Reduced agriculture irrigated acres •P urchase of agricultural water rights by East Slope entities • I mpacts by existing and potential additional transmountain and in-basin diversions • Existing and potential shortages •U se suggestions presented in the Agriculture Toolbox2,3,4 •E xpand HUP to include Slot Group •R estore Irrigation Infrastructure and Irrigated Lands that have been damaged from TMDs above the confluence with the Blue River •P rotect West Slope agricultural values •S tudies identifying existing and potential shortages •P rotect Green Mountain Operation Policy • Hay Park Conduit and Reservoir • Protect Slot Group • Big Lake Ditch Study •U pper Colorado River Irrigation and Restoration Assessment projects • Sunset Ridge Pond •U pper Colorado River Irrigation and Restoration Project Phase 1 (KB Ditch to Blue River) and Phase 2 (TMDs on the Fraser and Colorado River to the confluence with the Blue River) • I ncrease raw water storage •C oordinate exchange potential between users and CWCB Secure Safe Drinking Water • Source water degradation •L ack of redundancy in drinking water supplies •F ollow recommendations documented in local source watershed protection/forest health studies and plans •G ranby/SCWWW Authority Permanent drinking water systems connection •F raser/Winter Park drinking water systems connection • Extended drought •W ater providers should work with neighboring entities to provide a redundant water supply • Forest Service bypass in Fraser Valley •M aintain Forest Service bypass • Jones 1 Reservoir •G WUDI classification on drinking water wells •C reate redundancy for individual users/ storage • Hay Park Conduit and Reservoir • I mportant junior municipal water rights being called out by senior right •C oordinate exchange potential between users and CWCB • I mplement Windy Gap Firming IGA and Firming of Middle Park Windy Gap water •P rotect Green Mountain Operation Policy • Ranch Creek Reservoir •P rotect Green Mountain Slot Group • Expand HUP to include Slot Group • Winter Park Reservoir No. 2 Enlargement • Implement CRCA identified projects • Grand County W&S Reservoirs Nos. 1 & 2 • Fraser River Pumpbacks Develop Local Water Conscious Land Use Strategies •L imiting development to within urban boundaries •G rand County Master Plan land use revisions •G rowth development impacting water supplies and nonconsumptive needs •P romote water conscious growth development through improved land use policies • Winter Park changes to land use policy Table 11. Grand County Region Themes and Supporting Vulnerabilities COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 91 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] SUMMIT COUNTY REGION The Summit County Region aligns with the Summit County boundaries and includes the Blue River, Tenmile Creek, Snake River, Straight Creek and Swan River, to name a few of the main tributaries. The region is home to some of the largest and most visited ski resorts in Colorado including Keystone, Breckenridge, Copper Mountain, and Arapahoe Basin ski resorts. These resort communities are not only known for their winter activities but sport great boating and fishing opportunities in their rivers, streams and lakes during other times of the year. Summit County is also home to many productive ranches. The Colorado State Demographer estimated Summit County population in 2012 at 28,160 people and forecasts population growth to 50,350 by 2040. SWSI concluded that Summit County 2008 water supply demands of approximately 8,000 AFY will grow to 16,800 AFY by the year 2050. According to the UPCO Study, “Approximately 25% of the future demands are in the upper Blue River area above Dillon Reservoir. The remaining future demands are primarily in the Silverthorne, Eagles Nest and Mesa Cortina areas. Keystone and East Dillon Water District will experience water supply shortages under future demands due primarily to lack of physical supply during fall and winter months” (Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, 2003). Other water providers in the county have adequate water supplies to support anticipated future growth and demands. Summit County is a major donor basin, providing approximately 75,000 AFY through Dillon Reservoir, Straight Creek Tunnel, Vidler Tunnel and the Continental Hoosier Tunnel. Dillon Reservoir, owned by Denver Water, has a capacity of 254,000 AF, diverting the largest amount of water from the Blue River through the Roberts Tunnel to the South Platte River Basin. The Blue River between Dillon and Green Mountain is significantly impacted by TMDs and Dillon Reservoir. Portions of the region, including the upper Blue River, have been impacted by historical mining practices and resulting significant water quality challenges. The Snake River and Upper Blue Watershed Plans have been actively identifying and implementing projects to remediate these issues. The Colorado Springs Utilities’ Hoosier Pass Collection System and Vidler Tunnel impacts flows in the Blue River and Snake River. Streamflows in the Blue River below Dillon Reservoir under additional anticipated diversions through the Roberts Tunnel would be at or just above the decreed minimum stream flows of 50 cfs as identified by the CWCB instream flow program, and well below flows needed for recreation purposes during normal water years. In very dry years, flows below Dillon Reservoir have fallen below 50 cfs and may continue to decrease below the ISF target if inflows to Dillon Reservoir are less than 50 cfs and Denver Water reduces outflows in accordance with the 1966 right-of-way from the Department of Interior (subject to conditions of the CRCA). COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 92 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Summit County government is proactive in water issues including assisting water providers, ski areas, and smaller water users in unincorporated areas of the County. The County offers water allotment contracts for legal water supplies and augmentation plans with water from Dillon Reservoir, Old Dillon Reservoir, Clinton Reservoir and Green Mountain. Ruedi Reservoir serves as a source of replacement water for Green Mountain Reservoir, when needed. The County is actively pursuing plans that will stress comprehensive land use and development codes, promoting smart land use, water efficiency and conservation, density, open space, and Best Management Practices. Although the County has taken a lead in countywide legal augmentation water, the infrastructure to support drinking water treatment, conveyance, and storage of this water is not as organized. The Town of Breckenridge, however, has been proactive in long range planning to provide potable water from current town boundaries to Dillon Reservoir. There is an identified need to develop additional storage that can provide more physical water above water users’ points-ofuse to protect against drought, climate change and uncertainty in the future. Further regional collaboration of all water users in the County and including Denver and Colorado Springs could result in additional storage projects and better instream flow management. The needs of the Summit County Region primarily are focused on protecting, maintaining and restoring healthy rivers and streams. The County, individual town plans, CRCA and the UPCO Study identified projects to meet these needs and are further identified in the following tables. Summit County is very interested in participating in the development of a basinwide stream management plan (SMP) necessary to identify criteria for restoration projects and multi-use projects. Table 12 highlights the top specific themes and vulnerabilities, methods and projects for the Summit County Region. Figures 14 and 15 depict the consumptive uses, environmental and recreational conditions, and identified projects for this region. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 93 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Figure 14. Colorado River BIP Summit Region Consumptive Uses COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 94 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Figure 15. Colorado River BIP Summit Region Environmental and Recreational Conditions COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 95 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan Themes and Supporting Vulnerabilities Protect and Restore Healthy Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Riparian Areas •A quatic environmental habitat degradation • Unmet instream/nonconsumptive flows • Impacts to tourism and recreation economies1 • Impacts by existing and potential additional transmountain and in-basin diversions • Lack of detailed understanding of habitat and ecological needs • Adequate mitigation of implemented SWSI Identified Projects and Processes (IPPs) • Reduced dilution flows in rivers and streams (specific impact from wastewater treatment plant discharges) • Extended drought Sustain Agriculture •B uy and dry • Impacts by existing and potential additional transmountain and in-basin diversions • Purchase of agricultural water rights by East Slope entities • Unauthorized well depletions Secure Safe Drinking Water •S ource watershed degradation • Lack of redundancy in drinking water supplies • I-70 threats such as frequent hazardous materials transportation and harmful materials from road maintenance Develop Local Water Conscious Land Use Strategies •G rowth development impacting water supplies and environmental needs Methods Identified Projects •U tilize local government land use authority to protect stream health •R estore streams, rivers and lakes affected by transmountain diversions (in-basin and out-of-basin diversions and consumptive uses) • I mplement agricultural efficiency measures and apply savings to instream flows •R emediate mine drainage and mining impacts to water quality and stream health •S nake River and Upper Blue Watershed Plans •W atershed Flow Evaluation Tool (WFET) identifies ecological water shortages at watershed scale •T ourism and recreation methods1 •S tudy habitat and ecological needs and develop flow/habitat management plans •E valuate potential for improvements to coordinated reservoir operations •T ourism and recreation economy1 needs and funding opportunities •A ccelerate Open Space protection mechanisms and water quality improvement projects •R egional Section 208 Water Quality Management Plan •D illon and Frisco Marina improvement projects • Tenmile Creek Restoration Phase II • Swan River Restoration Project • Creation of low flow habitat below Dillon Dam • Lower Blue River habitat restoration • Staged release structure from Dillon Reservoir for temperature for fish • Development of whitewater park below Dillon Dam • Implement 2013 Snake River/Blue River Watershed Plans prioritized list of mine remediation projects • Summit County stream management plan documenting and prioritizing stream conditions and rehabilitation • New Town of Breckenridge water treatment plant • Upper Blue Reservoir/Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU) Substitution Agreement • Peru Creek Reservoir • Pooled release of CRCA/Clinton Reservoir water • Maintain bypass flows below CSU and DWD diversions • CRCA identified projects • UPCO identified projects •U se suggestions presented in the Agriculture Toolbox2,3,4 •E xpand HUP to include Slot Group •R estore Irrigation Infrastructure and Irrigated Lands that have been damaged from TMDs above the confluence with the Blue River •P rotect West Slope agricultural values •S tudies identifying existing and potential shortages •P rotect Green Mountain Operation Policy • I ncrease raw water storage •C oordinate exchange potential between users and CWCB •C RCA identified projects, including water supply provisions • UPCO Study identified projects •W ater providers need to implement redundancy in water supply •E stablish agreements to begin connecting neighboring water systems, providing redundancy • I mplement Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Sediment Control Action Plan (SCAP) for Straight Creek •D evelop new water supply projects to meet identified Gaps (UPCO) •D enver Water/USFS watershed management agreement •S ummit County Wildfire Protection Plan •J oint Sewer Authority WWTP improvements • Frisco Sanitation District outfall project • Old Dillon Reservoir for Town of Dillon Clinton Gulch Reservoir 1st Enlargement • Goose Pasture Tarn/Blue River watershed protection • Winterization of Upper Blue Reservoir • Upper Blue Pumpback/McCain Storage • Interconnect Mesa Cortina and Hamilton Creek water suppliers with other providers •L imiting development to within urban boundaries • I mprove water conscious land use policies •A ssess master plans and codes for improvements in smart growth land use policies •R eview local governments land use policies for water quality and environmental protection standards •T own of Breckenridge outside irrigation minimization plan • Wetland bank located in Summit County • Town of Breckenridge Water Conservation Plan Table 12. Summit County Region Themes and Supporting Vulnerabilities COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 96 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] STATE BRIDGE REGION The State Bridge Region consists of the Colorado River from below Kremmling at the top of Gore Canyon to Dotsero at the confluence with the Eagle River and includes Rock Creek, Piney River and Deep Creek. The Colorado River throughout this region has significant whitewater recreational amenities including Gore Canyon. This region is defined by the lack of significant municipal or industrial water uses. Water use in this region is mainly limited to ranching and irrigation along the tributaries and mainstem of the Colorado River. Included in the region is the largest average annual TMD imported to the Colorado River Basin for irrigation use into Rock Creek drainage called the Stillwater Ditch which conveys approximately 1,700 AFY. Because of the large open spaces and low population present in the State Bridge Region, there are numerous areas being studied for identification as holding Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORV) as part of the BLM and White River National Forest (WRNF) Wild & Scenic suitability assessment. The upper Colorado River and Deep Creek areas within this region are currently being studied for consideration for inclusion into the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Eligibility and suitability studies are currently finished. Deep Creek segments have been recommended as ‘Suitable’ as of February 2014 and are currently in public comment/objector phase prior to final Record of Decision (ROD) by WRNF and BLM. Colorado River segments were found Suitable, but an official Suitability recommendation will be delayed pending acceptance of the Wild & Scenic Stakeholder Group’s Alternative Management Plan as the Preferred Alternative for the BLM’s 2014 updated Resource Management Plan. The Alternative Management Plan seeks to protect ORVs, but defers an official Suitability recommendation which might restrict the flexibility of water management options by upstream and downstream stakeholders (Hoblitzell and Loff, 2014). The largest identified threats to this region are the ongoing TMDs and associated reservoir operation schedules upstream in Summit and Grand Counties. The TMDs reduce needed flushing flows along the mainstem of the Colorado and dilution flows throughout the year which help keep the water temperature low to maintain existing ecosystems. The proposed Wolcott Reservoir, if built, could have a dramatic impact on this region. Wolcott Reservoir would be filled in part through water pumped from the Colorado River in the State Bridge Region. The Colorado River Restoration & Conservation Project (CRRCP) is focused on identifying and implementing restoration and conservation projects on the Upper Colorado River reach in Eagle County. As part of the effort, the Eagle River Watershed Council (ERWC) has embarked on a “Colorado River Inventory and Assessment” (CRIA) to close the gap on the lack of research for this reach. Currently in final review, the CRIA provides important information on the primary natural and human drivers of the river ecosystem’s current state, and its potential future direction. The CRIA includes baseline information on aquatic and terrestrial communities in the mainstem Colorado River and select perennial tributaries, as well as reviewing threats and COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 97 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] opportunities arising from river management upstream and downstream of the State Bridge Region. Sections of the report with special relevance to the Colorado BIP include preliminary quantification of nonconsumptive needs for habitat maintenance in the State Bridge Region via hydrologic alteration and flushing flows analyses. Table 13 highlights the top specific themes and vulnerabilities, methods and projects for the State Bridge Region. Figures 17-18 depict the consumptive uses, environmental and recreational conditions, and identified projects for this region. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 98 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Figure 17. Colorado River BIP State Bridge Region Consumptive Uses COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 99 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Figure 18. Colorado River BIP State Bridge Region Environmental and Recreational Conditions COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 100 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan Themes and Supporting Vulnerabilities Protect and Restore Healthy Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Riparian Areas •A quatic environmental habitat degradation • Unmet instream/nonconsumptive flows •E mbeddedness of sediment from decreased peak flows on the Colorado River •C ontinued riparian degradation within the hayfield to river bank buffer • I mpacts by existing and potential additional transmountain and in-basin diversions (Wolcott Reservoir and Green Mountain Pumpback, Moffat Tunnel Firming, Windy Gap Firming) Methods Identified Projects •C olorado River Restoration and Conservation Project (CRRCP) and Colorado River Inventory and Assessment (CRIA) • Gore Canyon RICD development •R einstate peak flushing flows • Deep Creek Wild & Scenic classification •C oordinate with conservation districts to identify projects •C oordinated flushing flow releases from upstream reservoirs •S upport CWCB instream flow applications in Colorado River •C olorado River Inventory and Assessment identified projects •C olorado River Wild & Scenic Alternative process •D ocument importance of Blue River flow temperature improvements to Colorado River • I dentify tourism and recreation economy1 needs and funding opportunities •E agle River Watershed Plan •R egional Section 208 Water Quality Management Plan Sustain Agriculture • Reduced agriculture irrigated acres •U se suggestions presented in the Agriculture Toolbox 2,3,4 Table 13. State Bridge Region Themes and Supporting Vulnerabilities COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 101 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] EAGLE RIVER REGION The Eagle River Region is located in Eagle County and encompasses the Eagle River watershed which includes the Eagle River, Gore Creek, Homestake Creek, Brush Creek and Gypsum Creek, (to name a few of the main tributaries). Like many headwater regions, residents and communities in this region place a high priority on the economic, recreational, and natural values associated with the its streams and rivers. Healthy, functioning streams best support these common values. Continuing the work to support and promote the environmental and recreational needs will best maintain healthy, functioning streams (ERWC, 2014). The economy of this region, , is very much dependent upon tourism and recreation industries. Eagle County is home to the Vail, Beaver Creek and Arrowhead Ski Areas. Healthy environments within the watershed are vital for maintaining this recreation based economy. Development focus has shifted from the upper valley resorts to lower valley towns. Eight hundred homes in the proposed Haymeadow area of Eagle, 700,000 square feet of retail and 550 homes in the proposed Eagle River Station, and almost 600 new residential units at Village of Wolcott offer challenges for water providers in managing water resources and providing for healthy stream communities (ERWC, 2014). The proposed Wolcott Reservoir, a contested project among Basin regions, could allow Existing TMDs to increase diversions out of Grand and Summit Counties by providing augmentation releases to satisfy the Shoshone and Cameo calls. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) and Upper Eagle River Water Authority (UERWA) are in favor of the reservoir but implementation plans by Denver Water for the reservoir has yet to be seen and opposition by other Colorado regions needs to be overcome. The Columbine, Ewing & Wurtz Ditches and the Homestake Tunnel divert water out of the Eagle River watershed to the Arkansas River Basin. The ERWSD has and continues to collaborate with water providers on the Front Range as participants in the Eagle River Memorandum of Understanding (ERMOU) and the CRCA agreements. The objective of the ERMOU was to develop a joint use water project that meets the water requirements of the participants, minimizes the environmental impact, is technically feasible, and cost effective. The ERMOU was first established in 1998 to develop 30,000 AF of storage in the upper Eagle River that would be shared; 20,000 AF for Colorado Springs and Aurora, 10,000 AF for the Vail Consortium which includes ERWSD, URWA and the Vail Associates. ERWSD is the second largest water provider in the Colorado Basin and in Western Colorado. The ERWSD operates the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority through contract and has since the Authority was created in 1984. The service area extends from east Vail to Wolcott and includes Vail, Minturn, Eagle-Vail, Avon, Arrowhead, Beaver Creek, Edwards, Cordillera, and many other outlying developed areas. The ERWSD and UERWA serve approximately 60,000 people during the peak season and have the most complex water system in Colorado consisting of: 3 water plants, 17 wells, 73 pressure zones, and 270 miles of water mains with over 3,000 feet of eleva- COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 102 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] tion change. The ERWSD uses the Eagle River, Gore Creek, and their aquifers as direct supplies supported by minimal storage in Black Lakes, Eagle Park Reservoir and Homestake Reservoir. The ERWSD is a good example of the positive benefits of consolidation of multiple water systems into one regional system. The consolidated management of the ERWSD has allowed for cooperation and strong coalitions with municipalities and the ski industry through Vail Resorts and Eagle County. This cooperation has resulted in a well-managed efficient umbrella agency that could serve as a model for many other competing water systems throughout the Colorado Basin that not only supplies drinking water but provides environmental flows. Several municipal governments including the Town of Vail, Town of Avon, and Town of Eagle continue to initiate proactive programs to address the existing water quality impairment issues, allocating significant financial resources and personnel time on research, stormwater improvements, land planning, and community outreach. Eagle County government supports progressive land use codes and continues to invest heavily in recreational access and stream-related amenities that support the recreation-based economy. In Gypsum’s planning documents, the Town’s goals include continuously providing adequate high quality water for service to its citizens for potable and business needs. Other Town goals include ensuring that minimum instream flows are met, and local river habitat is protected and improved. As part of all development approvals, the Town requires new developments to dedicate water to the Town to cover new uses (Kropf, 2014). The Town of Eagle’s water planning efforts are an excellent example of collaboration and long range planning. With the construction of the Lower Basin Water Treatment Plant, the Town of Eagle will have redundant supply and treatment from three different sources, Upper Brush Creek, Lower Brush Creek and the Eagle River. The Town of Eagle has strategically planned water management in Brush Creek by cooperating with new developments and agricultural communities. Examples of other efforts to support the environmental and recreational needs within this region include the Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan, the Camp Hale-Eagle River Headwaters Collaborative Restoration Implementation Plan and the NWCCOG 208 WQ Management Plans. Additionally the Eagle River Watershed Plan outlines several needs and projects that will restore and maintain healthy rivers, streams and ecosystems in the Eagle River Region. The Eagle River Watershed Plan, updated in 2013, provides consensus-based, stakeholder developed guidance for the entire Eagle River Basin. The purpose of this plan is to ensure water related values are protected and enhanced not only in the face of out-of-basin pressures, but especially in relation to in-basin growth (ERWC, 2014). Overall, the water providers and community within the Eagle River Region support storage on the Eagle River for Eagle River users and purposes, more likely on a smaller scale. Local control for land use planning and water use is an important water management tool for most municipalities and water providers. Projects identified in the CRCA, the Eagle River MOU and the Eagle River Watershed Plan are included in the following tables. Table 14 highlights the top specific themes and vulnerabilities, methods and projects for the Eagle River Region. Figures 20 and 21 depict the consumptive uses, environmental and recreational conditions. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 103 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Figure 20. Colorado River BIP Eagle River Region Consumptive Uses COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 104 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Figure 21. Colorado River BIP Eagle River Region Environmental and Recreational Conditions COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 105 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan Themes and Supporting Vulnerabilities Protect and Restore Healthy Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Riparian Areas •A quatic environmental habitat degradation • Unmet instream/nonconsumptive flows • I mpacts to tourism and recreation economies1 • I mpacts by existing and potential additional transmountain and in-basin diversions Methods Identified Projects •E agle River MOU • Eagle River MOU listed projects •C RCA •G ore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan •U tilize local government land use authority to protect stream health •E valuate and uphold instream flow levels •2 013 Eagle River Watershed Plan •T ourism and recreation economy1 needs and funding opportunities •R egional Section 208 Water Quality Management Plan •A brams Creek Cutthroat Trout Improvements • CRCA identified projects • Water provider conservation projects • Eagle Mine Reclamation • Camp Hale Restoration • Re-evaluating existing ISFs •Q uantifying recreational needs in lower -valley communities •T horough examination of all new major diversions and storage projects for impacts to water quality and quantity Sustain Agriculture • Reduced agriculture irrigated acres •U se suggestions presented in the Agriculture Toolbox2,3,4 • Gypsum’s L.E.D.E. Reservoir •C ontinued use and policies to protect senior water rights in a Prior Appropriation system, particularly those rights senior to 1922 Colorado River Compact •T own planning documents support continued agricultural land use Secure Safe Drinking Water •C oordinate with conservation districts and Upper Colorado to identify source watershed protection projects • Eagle River MOU listed projects • Source watershed degradation • Extended drought •E agle River MOU • Red Cliff Project (Iron Mountain) • I mplement ERW&SD Fire preparedness plan • Eagle Mine Reclamation • Eagle Park Reservoir Enlargement • I mplement Community Wildfire Protection Plan Develop Local Water Conscious Land Use Strategies •G rowth development impacting water supplies and environmental needs Encourage a High Level of Basinwide Conservation •M unicipal and agricultural waste due to state laws promoting “use it or lose it” •E agle River MOU • Review Eagle County land use policies •L imiting development to within urban boundaries •E nsure new development appropriately incorporates water-related values •P romote water conscious growth development through improved land use policies • Water provider conservation projects •E valuate state water policy and law for opportunities to implement effective conservation • Water provider conservation projects • I mplement new technologies and BMPs to mitigate urban runoff on new developments •R ecognize the discrepancies and contradictions between the current water rights system and conservation/ nonconsumptive goals •W ork locally to reduce calls on Gypsum Creek that dry the creek •T own code adoption of drought stages for reduced water use •T own code land use provisions includes limits on irrigation on a per lot basis •A greements exist between Gypsum and the Colorado River Water Conservation District to uphold instream flows •M etering and increasing rate structure for higher water use encourages conservation Table 14. Eagle River Region Themes and Supporting Vulnerabilities COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 106 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] MIDDLE COLORADO REGION The Middle Colorado Region includes the mainstem Colorado River from the Eagle/Garfield County line at the head of Glenwood Canyon to the confluence of Roan Creek at the Town of De Beque. Some of the smaller tributaries include No Name, Grizzly Creek, Canyon Creek, Divide Creek, Rifle Creek, Garfield Creek, Mamm Creek, Parachute Creek, and Roan Creek. Several communities are located along the Colorado River and include Glenwood Springs, New Castle, Silt, Rifle, Parachute, Battlement Mesa, and De Beque. Of the seven regions within the Colorado Basin, the Middle Colorado supports the second highest number of irrigated acres at over 52,000. A significant portion of this acreage is irrigated with water from the smaller tributaries. This region is supported by the Silt Water Conservancy District, Bluestone Water Conservancy District and the West Divide Water Conservancy District. This area is also served by the Bureau of Reclamation Silt Project (BOR, 2014) which is located near the towns of Rifle and Silt. The Middle Colorado Region is also characterized by the ongoing natural gas drilling and potentially marketable oil shale formations. It contains more natural gas wells than any region in the state outside of Weld County. In the past, this region was also subject to significant conditional water rights filed by energy concerns for a future oil shale industry. One of the largest oil shale reserves in the world is located within the Middle Colorado Region. For many years, oil companies have tried to extract the oil from this hard rock but have yet to find a cost-effective method. Several research and development operations are ongoing in the region and surrounding areas to find the key to unlocking this valuable resource. If development of oil shale becomes a viable industry, water use will increase. The Middle Colorado Region has just recently emerged as an identifiable reach of the Colorado River through the efforts of the Middle Colorado Watershed Council (MCWC) (MCWC, 2014). The MCWC is in the process of creating a watershed plan that will identify opportunities and plans for protecting and enhancing the health of the watershed. As part of this planning effort, the MCWC is currently assessing existing water quality issues. The Colorado River through this reach is a direct source of drinking water for the Town of New Castle (redundant supply with Elk Creek), Town of Silt, City of Rifle, Parachute, Battlement Mesa and De Beque. This reach is impacted by all Colorado River Basin headwater TMDs which take high quality clean water, leaving less water and lower flows to help dilute the poorer quality water downstream. Concentrations of salinity, selenium, hardness, total dissolved solids, iron and manganese are examples of potential water quality concerns through this reach. Additional concerns include emerging contaminants and endocrine disruptors; however, limited water quality data has been collected to understand the trends. The City of Rifle, in particular, has experienced the significant impacts of water quality concerns and is currently in the process of building a new surface water drinking water plant using Colorado River water. The expense of this new plant has significantly increased water rates for the citizens of the City of Rifle. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 107 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] The Endangered Species Act designation of critical habitat for three of the T&E listed fish species extends upstream on the Colorado River mainstem from the 15-Mile Reach in Mesa County to the main Rifle I-70 Bridge. This designation has resulted in more stringent discharge permit standards for wastewater treatment discharges. This same reach of river is also home to three native fish species of concern: the roundtail chub, bluehead sucker, and flannelmouth sucker. Management actions are needed to ensure that populations of these species do not decline to the point requiring a T&E listing. One of the region’s most important needs is to protect water quality and riparian habitat along the Colorado River. Plans matching future land use with restoration needs for the numerous abandoned and existing gravel pits should be developed to provide comprehensive standards focusing on restoration of riparian habitat; this is an element that will be addressed through watershed planning efforts. Finally, this region may experience uncertainty with regards to water supply because of the potential oil shale industry development and the significant amount of conditional water rights which, if developed, may impact the priority of other water rights in the Colorado Basin. Table 15 highlights the top specific themes and vulnerabilities, methods and projects for the Middle Colorado Region. Figures 23-24 depict the consumptive uses, environmental and recreational conditions. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 108 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Figure 23. Colorado River BIP Middle Colorado Region Consumptive Uses COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 109 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Figure 24. Colorado River BIP Middle Colorado Region Environmental and Recreational Conditions COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 110 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan Themes and Supporting Vulnerabilities Protect and Restore Healthy Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Riparian Areas •A quatic environmental habitat degradation • Unmet instream/nonconsumptive flows • I mpacts to tourism and recreation economies1 Methods Identified Projects •R ecreation flows through Glenwood Canyon • City of Glenwood Springs RICD application •A ddress tributary water quality and quantity issues •D evelop a watershed management assessment and watershed plan •M iddle Colorado Watershed Council • Battlement Reservoir #3 •T ourism and recreation economy1 needs and funding opportunities • Water provider conservation projects •U se suggestions presented in the Agriculture2,3,4 • Kendig Reservoir and 1st Enlargement • I mpacts by existing and potential additional transmountain and in-basin diversions • Salinity issues • Increase in energy extraction activities Sustain Agriculture • Reduced agriculture irrigated acres • Existing and potential shortages •B uild reservoirs in tributaries to provide needed late season agricultural water •E nhance conservation easement incentives • Baldy Reservoir Enlargement • I mplementation of Farm Bill Incentives through the NRCS • Horsethief Canal Improvements • Dry Hollow Reservoir and feeder canal • West Divide Canal - West Mamm Creek Reservoir Secure Safe Drinking Water •L ack of redundancy in drinking water supplies • Increase in energy extraction activities Develop Local Water Conscious Land Use Strategies •G rowth development impacting water supplies and environmental needs • Increase in energy extraction activities Assure Dependable Basin Administration •D ecreased flows in Colorado River from reduced calls at Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant and senior Grand Valley irrigation diversions (“Cameo Call”) •E very water provider should have redundant water supplies. Implementing intakes off of tributaries as well as the mainstem of the Colorado or groundwater supplies CRCA identified project to upgrade diversion structures for water treatment plants in Garfield County • I mplement groundwater monitoring program in areas of concern •B aldy Reservoir Enlargement •C oordinate with the Middle Colorado Watershed Council and stakeholders to develop water master planning/regional treatment efforts •M iddle Colorado Watershed Assessment/ Plan projects to be identified Smart population growth by: •K endig Reservoir and 1st Enlargement •L imiting development to within urban boundaries •B aldy Reservoir Enlargement •P romote water conscious growth development through improved land use policies •P ursue acquisition or right of first refusal to purchase Xcel owned Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant •M aintain maximum Grand Valley irrigation calls •K endig Reservoir and 1st Enlargement •W est Mamm Creek Reservoir •W est Mamm Creek Reservoir •C ounty Land Use Policy Review •W ater provider conservation projects •P urchase of Xcel owned Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant or other permanent solution to maintain maximum Shoshone flows Table 15. Middle Colorado Region Themes and Supporting Vulnerabilities COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 111 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] ROARING FORK REGION The Roaring Fork Region, a main headwaters region, consists of the Roaring Fork River and many sizable tributaries including: Maroon Creek, Castle Creek, Hunter Creek, Woody Creek, Fryingpan River, Crystal River, Cattle Creek and Fourmile Creek. The Roaring Fork Region consists of nine major water providers, three Water Conservancy Districts and four counties. Additionally, the region is characterized by strong watershed organizations including the Roaring Fork Conservancy and Pitkin County Healthy Rivers and Streams Board. The Ruedi Water and Power Authority is a quasi-governmental agency made up of representatives from the five municipalities in the watershed, plus representatives from Pitkin and Eagle Counties. The region is very dependent upon tourism and recreation economies with a vibrant winter and summer recreation industry. There are five ski resorts contributing to the strong winter tourism in the region including Aspen, Highlands, Buttermilk, Snowmass and Sunlight Ski Resorts. These resort communities attract summer visitors as well through local Gold Medal fisheries, whitewater rafting, mountain biking, hiking, cultural attractions and overall scenic mountain settings. Water is currently diverted out of the Basin to Front Range communities including Colorado Springs, Aurora and Pueblo through the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and Twin Lakes Projects, amounting to an average annual yield of approximately 100,000 AFY. On average, 37% of the upper Roaring Fork Watershed (42,000 AFY) and 41% of the upper Fryingpan Watershed (59,000 AFY) is currently diverted annually to the Front Range. These are the 5th and 3rd largest transmountain diversions, respectively, in the state. Water providers in the upper reaches of the Basin are dependent upon direct flow stream intakes and are susceptible to extended drought periods. Because the watersheds above these intakes are primarily located on U.S. Forest Service lands (USFS) the process for permitting a new reservoir will be rigorous. Due diligence to thoroughly investigate every option along with a detailed environmental mitigation plan, will be a necessary part of any permitting process. These water providers should also seek redundancy through other means including: enlargement of existing reservoirs, interconnects between regional water providers, development of well supplies and reliance upon multiple stream water supplies. A recent issue in the Roaring Fork Region that may impact water development in the future is the complete allocation of Ruedi Reservoir augmentation water. Ruedi has been the source of augmentation and physical water for not only the Roaring Fork Region but the entire Colorado Basin. Ruedi Reservoir became 100% allocated in 2013 when the Bureau of Reclamation sold the remaining unallocated volume in the reservoir. Several entities including the Basalt Water Conservancy District, the Colorado River Water Conservation District and Garfield County have large water holdings in Ruedi that can continue to provide augmentation water for future growth in the Roaring Fork Region. Further study is needed to determine if the water under contract with these entities is sufficient for future needs in the region to the year 2050 or beyond. Many Roar- COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 112 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] ing Fork water providers have relatively junior water rights that are augmented by Ruedi Reservoir. Roaring Fork water providers that have post Compact water rights (junior to 1922) should aggressively convert agricultural rights senior to 1922 to points of potable water supply diversions. These pre-1922 water rights will provide protection against a future Compact call. This will require change cases in water court. The primary need of the Roaring Fork Region is to protect, maintain and restore healthy rivers and streams. Almost 140 of 185 miles of streams surveyed in the Roaring Fork Region have moderately modified to severely degraded riparian habitat. There are three critical reaches of mainstreams that have been targeted for restoration 1) the Roaring Fork River below the Salvation Ditch through the City of Aspen; 2) the Roaring Fork River upstream from the confluence of the Fryingpan River; and 3) the Crystal River upstream from Carbondale. These three main reaches do not include all the smaller tributaries in the upper Fryingpan and the upper Roaring Fork that have been dewatered due to TMDs. Active efforts are underway to restore these reaches with innovative methods including, but not limited to, coordinated efforts among irrigators to maintain stream flows, improvements to irrigation ditch infrastructure efficiency and legislation similar to Senate Bill 14-023 (not enacted) promoting voluntary transfer of water efficiency savings to instream flows. Some of the top priority projects in the region are conservation focused. A Regional Water Conservation Plan for the Roaring Fork watershed is currently underway and is exploring water conservation measures on a regional basis. The Roaring Fork Watershed Plan (Roaring Fork Conservancy, 2012) has outlined additional actions and projects to protect and restore the watershed and riparian habitats. Additionally, consideration is being given to studying the viability of small reservoirs located along some of the small tributaries such as Fourmile Creek and Cattle Creek which have been subject of diminished late season flows from irrigation diversions, and out of basin diversions. These reservoirs could provide multiple benefits including instream environmental flows during times when the tributaries dry up. Finally, the region should collaborate more with unified constituencies in a cooperative effort to develop multipurpose projects. Regional efforts among water providers, irrigators, conservation organizations and recreational enthusiast are pivotal to the implementation of any future project. Table 16 highlights the top specific themes and vulnerabilities, methods and projects for the Roaring Fork Region. Figures 26-27 depict the consumptive use, environmental and recreational conditions. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 113 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Figure 26. Colorado River BIP Roaring Fork Region Consumptive Uses COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 114 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Figure 27. Colorado River BIP Roaring Fork Region Environmental and Recreational Conditions COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 115 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan Themes and Supporting Vulnerabilities Protect and Restore Healthy Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Riparian Areas •A quatic environmental habitat degradation • Unmet instream/nonconsumptive flows • I mpacts to tourism and recreation economies1 •A nnual dry river segment or “holes” (Lower Crystal River, Roaring Fork River above Fryingpan R. and Roaring Fork River below Salvation Ditch) • Water quality degradation in tributaries • I mpacts by existing and potential additional transmountain and in-basin diversions (Fry-Ark Project, Twin Lakes Project) •W ater quality impacts from energy development •U nidentified funding system to support basin environmental and recreational needs Methods Identified Projects •R oaring Fork Watershed Plan • Northstar Restoration Project •M itigate streams that have been impaired by transmountain diversions (in-basin and out-of-basin consumptive uses) • Cattle Creek Restoration Project •M onitor and evaluate water quality impacts from energy development • Pitkin County and Carbondale RICDs •R egional stormwater management plans • I mproved instream flows through better utilization of beneficial use of ditch water •R oaring Fork Water Efficiency Plan recommendations •U tilize local government land use authority to protect stream health •T ourism and recreation economy1 needs and funding opportunities •E valuate state water policy and law for opportunities to assure adequate nonconsumptive instream flows •R eview existing basin and state stream and watershed plans for better regional management and funding ideas. (Grand County Stream Management Plan, Pitkin County Healthy Rivers and Streams program, Roaring Fork Water Efficiency Plan, and the Endangered Fish Recovery) • Town of Basalt Restoration Project •P itkin County and City of Aspen ditch conversions to instream flow filing • I dentify additional short term leases of agricultural and municipal water rights for instream use •C rystal River irrigators coordinated efforts to maintain instream flows • Aspen Reclaimed Water Project • Water provider conservation projects •D evelop broadly-applicable metrics for measuring adequate streamflow and mitigation measures (physical and political) •S mall reservoirs to improve instream flow in tributaries (Sopris Creek, Cattle Creek Snowmass Creek) • Develop municipal stormwater programs •C onduct an economic analysis that assesses the primary, secondary, and tertiary costs of a river •N ew water rights should demonstrate how it complies with goals and themes of the BIP •R egional Section 208 Water Quality Management Plan Secure Safe Drinking Water •L ack of redundancy in drinking water supplies •S ufficient supply storage during low flow periods •G WUDI designation on water provider alluvial wells •C ity of Aspen to investigate the possibility of developing redundant water supplies in the event the Castle and Maroon Creek sources are temporarily unavailable •A ddress extended drought protections •A ddress vulnerability towards source watershed protection/forest health • Ziegler Reservoir 2nd enlargement • Aspen Deep Well System •C ontinue due diligence for the preservation of the 1972 storage rights on Maroon and Castle Creeks by giving true consideration to all other potential options • I nvestigate the development of storage reservoirs on both Maroon and Castle Creeks if no better alternative is discovered Develop Local Water Conscious Land Use Strategies •A ddress Missouri Heights lowering groundwater levels • Source water degradation •W ater providers should work with neighboring entities to provide and plan for growth between boundaries •G rowth development impacting water supplies and environmental needs Encourage a High Level of Basinwide Conservation • Municipal and agricultural waste due to state laws promoting “use it or lose it” • County Land Use Policy Review • Missouri Heights Reservoir enlargement • Avalanche Canal and Siphon Project • Fourmile Canal & Siphon Project •P romote water conscious growth development through improved land use policies • Martin Reservoirs enlargement •E valuate state water policy and law for opportunities to implement effective conservation •W ater provider conservation projects •R ecognize the discrepancies and contradictions between the current water rights system and conservation/ nonconsumptive goals • Water provider conservation projects •P itkin County and City of Aspen ditch conversions to instream flow filing • I dentify additional short term leases of agricultural and municipal water rights for instream use •S uggest incremental changes to both existing laws and water rights administration Table 16. Roaring Fork Region Themes and Supporting Vulnerabilities COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 116 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] GRAND VALLEY REGION The Grand Valley Region follows the mainstem of the Colorado River stretching from De Beque Canyon to the Colorado-Utah state line. The two main tributaries are the Gunnison River (in the Gunnison Basin) and Plateau Creek. Due to the favorable growing conditions and the supply of the Colorado River (previously the Grand River) the valley was one of the first areas in the Basin to develop and consequently, it has some of the most senior water rights. These senior water rights historically place a call on the river requiring water to be delivered to the region; this call is sometimes referred to as the “Cameo Call”. Maintaining this call and requiring delivery of the large flow of water to the lower Basin is a top priority. The irrigation entities that comprise the Cameo Call are the Grand Valley Irrigation Company, Palisade Irrigation District, Orchard Mesa Irrigation District (OMID), Mesa County Irrigation District and Grand Valley Water Users Association. Grand Valley domestic water providers have made strong efforts to coordinate their services by establishing over 31 interconnects among, at least, four separate systems. This regional cooperation has even expanded to include the local irrigation entities to better coordinate water needs and manage the water resources in the Valley. This type of regional cooperation should be a model for not only the Basin but the entire state. Ute Water Conservancy District (Ute Water) is the largest domestic water provider in the Colorado Basin with approximately 80,000 customers (Ute Water, 2014). Despite strong conservation gains lowering the average water use to less than 80 gallons per person per day, Ute Water anticipates a water Gap of approximately 9,000 AFY by the year 2045. To meet this Gap, Ute Water is currently pursuing permits to enlarge Hunter and Monument Reservoirs, both of which are located in the Plateau Creek watershed along the north side of the Grand Mesa. After 10 years and more than $1.5 million dollars spent by Ute Water the permit application continues to be under review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Grand Valley Region is known throughout the state for its robust agriculture production that produces vegetables, fruits and grains on over 70,000 acres (Spahr, et. al., 2000). The most famous products from the Grand Valley are the prized Palisade peaches and numerous vineyards and associated wineries. The region is home to the City of Grand Junction and the surrounding communities which combined make it the largest population center in Colorado’s West Slope. Although the region is located in the lowest elevations of the Basin it is still home to the Powderhorn Ski Resort located on the north side of the Grand Mesa. The most significant needs heard from the Grand Valley can be summarized by the need to protect, maintain and, if possible, increase flows in the Colorado River, not only to benefit the streams but to assure Colorado River Compact compliance and power production at Lake Powell. The Grand Valley desires to make best use of the Shoshone and Cameo calls, improve water COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 117 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] quality in the streams and particularly in the mainstem of the Colorado River, and improves the permitting process to allow for more efficient approval of water storage projects. Attached in Exhibit B are copies of the Grand Valley’s Principles for the CWP and a statement from the Grand Valley Water Council that characterizes the perspectives of the Grand Valley water providers. A further concern for the Grand Valley is the continuation and success of the recovery of the endangered fish in the lower Colorado River. Water quality improvements are also a need due to high salinity and selenium concentrations which result from applying water to Grand Valley soils. Substantial investments have been made to line ditches and improve irrigation practices to reduce salt and selenium loading in the river. High salt levels cause problems for downstream agriculture, while high selenium levels negatively impact waterfowl and endangered fish. The Grand Valley is also a supporter of interstate activities to create real “new supply” such as desalination projects in the Lower Basin and importation of water from remote watersheds. Table 17 highlights the top specific themes and vulnerabilities, methods and projects for the Grand Valley Region. Figures 29-30 depict the consumptive uses, environmental and recreational conditions. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 118 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Figure 29. Colorado River BIP Grand Valley Region Consumptive Uses COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 119 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Figure 21. Colorado River BIP Eagle River Regions Environmental and Recreational Conditions COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 120 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan Figures 29 – 30, 2 maps Themes and Supporting Vulnerabilities Methods Identified Projects Table 22 Protect and Restore Healthy Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Riparian Areas •A quatic environmental habitat degradation • 15-Mile Reach • Salinity and selenium issues •C ollapsing ecosystems due to low flows, degrading water quality and non-optimal temperatures •E valuate use of supplies from upstream reservoirs for power production at the Grand Valley Power Plant, 15-Mile Reach flows and instream flows •P rohibit any new transmountain diversions to protect dilution flows in the mainstem of the Colorado River •S tormwater management plans •D evelop model to better represent timing of reservoir releases and stream management of the 15-Mile Reach •C omprehensive Grand Valley Canal lining project • Water provider conservation projects • OMID Improvements • I dentify Bureau of Reclamation funding for salinity/selenium remediation projects • I mpacts by existing and potential additional transmountain and in-basin diversions Sustain Agriculture •U tilize toolbox of agricultural incentives •P urchase of agricultural water rights by east slope entities •B uild reservoirs in Plateau Creek tributaries to provide needed late season agricultural water • Late season shortage in Plateau Creek •M aintain and improve infrastructure to ensure continued use of irrigation rights •G rand Valley Diversion Dam (Roller Dam) Improvements •C omprehensive Grand Valley Canal lining project •C ollbran Conservation District main canal improvements and siphon replacement • Bull Creek #5 Reservoir • OMID improvements Secure Safe Drinking Water • Extended drought • Colorado River Compact curtailment • Source watershed degradation •R esearch reservoir permitting constraints and inefficiencies with federal entities •R aw water Storage projects • I dentify ways to use excess Green Mountain Reservoir HUP water to protect and firm up municipal water rights • Hunter/Monument Reservoir • Big Park Reservoir • Willow Creek Reservoir • Owens Creek • Buzzard Creek Reservoir •E valuate weather modification projects (e.g. cloud seeding) to enhance local water supplies Assure Dependable Basin Administration •D ecreased flows in Colorado River from reduced calls at Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant and senior Grand Valley irrigation diversions (“Cameo Call”) •U se to full extent senior irrigation water rights •M aintain and improve infrastructure to ensure continued use of irrigation rights •E valuate potential for creation of Intentionally Created Storage (ICS) programs in Colorado and/or Upper Basin States •G rand Valley Diversion Dam (Roller Dam) Improvements •P rohibit any new transmountain diversions to protect water supplies in the mainstem of the Colorado River •E valuate potential for a Water Bank (should avoid unregulated buy and dry by postCompact water users, should maintain full Grand Valley irrigation call during fallowing and deficit irrigation in Grand Valley) •E valuate methods for West Slope acquisition of Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant or other permanent solution to maintain Shoshone flows •C omprehensive Grand Valley canal lining projects •C ollbran Conservation District main canal improvements and siphon replacement • Bull Creek #5 Reservoir • OMID improvements •P ursue acquisition or purchase of Xcelowned Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant or other permanent solution to maintain Shoshone flows Table 17. Grand Valley Region Themes and Supporting Vulnerabilities COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 121 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] REGIONAL TABLES As previously described in the BIP Approach Section, the CBRT formed four Project Leadership Teams (PLTs) at the beginning of the BIP process to detail needs based on water uses in the municipal and industrial (M&I), environmental and recreational, agricultural, and policy sectors . These PLTs were responsible for developing the goals and measurable outcomes; needs and vulnerabilities; constraints and opportunities; and projects and methods requested by the CWCB. Exhibit D includes the initial compilation of this information. As the BIP evolved, the results of the PLTs were merged with the feedback collected from the public outreach efforts and further refined by representatives from each region. The results of this process are documented in the following two tables. These tables are envisioned to be a dataset for the CBRT to use as they continue to identify water needs and projects throughout the Basin. The Themes and Vulnerabilities Tables highlight each region’s priority themes and supporting vulnerabilities, the methods used to address the vulnerabilities, and finally projects that address the vulnerabilities. The first column identifies the top themes from the six basinwide themes. The shading in this table corresponds to each theme as defined in the Approach Section. These themes are supported by several vulnerabilities or observed threats listed directly below each theme. The second column lists methods which may include resources, existing plans and/or signed agreements, funding, and/or coordination partners that can be used to support the identified projects. The last column includes top projects that the regional stakeholders identified to mitigate and/or remove vulnerabilities. The identified projects listed in the first table are not all-inclusive list and represent top candidate projects for that region as identified by the CBRT in the Project, Policies and Processes Tables. The Projects, Policies and Processes Tables located in Exhibit __ are comprehensive lists of identified projects for each region. The table lists projects in all phases from conceptual to just before construction, including multiple options for similar objectives. Many of the listed projects are either within the permitting phase, fundraising and/or waiting for agreements to be completed prior to starting. The CBRT realizes that it is unrealistic for all of the projects listed to be developed. The tables are broad reaching and will continually revised as the CBRT and Basin stakeholders evaluate, construct, and develop new projects. As described in Section 4 the CBRT along with regional stakeholders identified what they believe are the current priority projects for each region. REGIONAL MAPS Two maps were developed for each region which identify consumptive uses, environmental and recreational conditions. These maps provide an overview of the existing Basin characteristics identifying spatial relations to specific identified reaches, projects and towns. A summary of the data layers and/or process in the instance of the projects and processes maps, are provided below. Section 4 provides a more detailed analysis of projects by region. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 122 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Consumptive Uses Map Irrigated lands — This dataset was based upon the 1993 Division 5 Irrigated Lands dataset from the Colorado Decision Support System (CDSS) Water provider service area boundaries — This dataset was provided by Leonard Rice Conservancy district boundaries — This dataset was provided by Leonard Rice Absolute and conditional diversions/reservoirs — This dataset was obtained from the Colorado Decision Support System (CDSS) Transmountain diversions (TMDs) — This dataset was obtained from the Colorado River Water Conservation District Environmental and Recreational Conditions Map Boatable segments — These segments were identified by American Whitewater as those waters that have ‘acceptable’ or ‘optimal’ flows for a specific subset of river segments that are important to the paddling community. These segments were identified as part of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Colorado River Basin Study (BOR, 2012) which, in part, aimed to develop a ‘boatable days’ metric, one that defined the range of flows that provide the recreational opportunities, too low, optimal, and too high (American Whitewater, 2014). The river segment descriptions used to create the dataset were provided by American Whitewater, found in Exhibit F. Gold Medal waters — These fishing areas have been designated by the Colorado Wildlife Commission as waters which are able to produce 60 pounds of trout per acre, and at least twelve (12) 14” or larger trout per acre (ColoradoFishing.net, 2014). This dataset was provided by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). 303(d) Listed segments — Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires that states submit to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a list of those waters for which technology-based effluent limitations and other required controls are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards. The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission’s (WQCC) Regulation No. 93 lists Colorado’s Section 303(d) Impaired Waters. This dataset was provided by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division (CDPHE-WQCD). Other Identified Water Quality Issues [with a developed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) or on the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) list] — These segments represent one of two datasets; a segment on the M&E List; or a segment with a developed TMDL. Regulation No. 93 also includes Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) water bodies where there is reason to suspect water quality problems, but where uncertainty exists regarding one or more factors, such as the representative nature of the data. Those segments where Clean Water Section 303(d) impairments have already been determined have developed TMDLs. These datasets were provided by the CDPHE-WQCD. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 123 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 3 Needs Analysis [cont.] Instream flow segments — These are streams that have established water rights dedicated to the preservation and improvement of the natural environment to a reasonable degree. These segments have established minimum flows between specific points either on a stream or levels in natural lakes. These rights are administered within the State’s water right priority system to preserve or improve the natural environment to a reasonable degree (CWCB, 2014). A list of the instream flow segments can be found in Exhibit F. This dataset was provided by the CWCB. Nonconsumptive Needs Assessment (NCNA) segments — The NCNA assessment was implemented as part of the 2010 Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI) efforts and identified streams with “environmental and recreational features at risk.” The important environmental and recreational features selected were water quality, geomorphic function, aquatic ecological function, riparian/wetland ecological function, and recreational boating. Segments with features at risk were those that had important environmental and/or recreational features that were in some way threatened. A list of the environmental and recreational datasets used to identify these segments can be found in Exhibit F. This dataset was provided by the CWCB and the Colorado Decision Support System (CDSS). Recreational In-Channel Diversions (RICD) — These identify locations where either RICDs have been decreed or are pending water court approval. RICDs essentially limit water rights to the minimum stream flow necessary for a reasonable recreational experience in and on the water (CWCB, 2014). This dataset was provided by the CWCB. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 124 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 4 Basinwide Projects — Regional Top Projects Led by SGM, CBRT members and basinwide and regional stakeholders met on a regular basis from the fall of 2014 through April of 2015 undertaking an intensive and extensive review of the numerous projects and process that were identified in the first draft of the BIP. The comprehensive list of all identified projects is contained in Exhibit J. The outgrowth of that process is summarized in the following Table which identifies top projects both basinwide and regionally. Each project in the Table has a more detailed project information sheet contained in Exhibit K. Each region determined the criteria by which it chose the regions top projects which are summarized below. GRAND COUNTY • Meet BIP Themes SUMMIT COUNTY • Substantially done by 2025 AND • Sponsoring entity could use Water Supply Reserve Account (WSRA) funds to accomplish the project. STATE BRIDGE REGION • Meet BIP Themes • Support the Stream Management Plan • Not yet funded or permitted EAGLE REGION • Meet BIP Themes • Support the Stream Management Plan • Not yet funded or permitted COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 125 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 4 Basinwide Projects [cont.] MIDDLE COLORADO • Address agricultural, drinking water and environmental needs – consistent with the overall focus of the BIP. • Support agriculture.  Building in additional agricultural water supply was important in our region which is considered water-short.  • All four projects address this goal directly or indirectly through either increased storage capacity or improved efficiencies. ROARING FORK REGION • Support the objectives of the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan • Provide adequate instream flows to: • Promote healthy streams • Support the recreational economy • Recharge aquifers • Mitigate/protect water quality • Sustain agriculture • Secure Safe Drinking Water GRAND VALLEY • Projects are well into the permitting process • Urgency - time sensitive, and there is a need for storage to increase Ute Water’s firm yield.  • Sustain agriculture in the Plateau Valley In developing the list the CBRT recognizes that the Top Projects list is ever changing based on needs and opportunities. Some of these projects may never happen for a variety of reasons and others not currently on the Top Projects list may happen. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 126 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 4 Basinwide Projects [cont.] Table 18. Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Top Projects — April 2, 2015 BASINWIDE Funding Needs Project Sponsor(s) Protect Existing and Future West Slope Uses TBD Colorado Basin Roundtable, West Slope entities, Colorado River District, The Nature Conservancy Colorado River Cooperative Agreement (CRCA) As outlined in CRCA. Additional funding, TBD likely required for full implementation of all potential aspects of CRCA Protect 17 West Slope signatories to CRCA and Denver Water Meets Six Themes 1 2 3 4 5 6 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Grand Valley Roller Dam Rehabilitation TBD Grand Valley Water Users Association, Orchard Mesa, Palisade and Mesa County Irrigation Districts, Colorado Basin Roundtable Colorado Basin Stream Management Plan $20-30 M (mostly supports through compensatory wetland mitigation payments) Conservancy Dist., Watershed Groups, Local Governments, Environmental Groups, CPW,CWCB, CBRT, USFS, BLM X X X X X TBD CRCA Signatories, Xcel Energy, other diverters, Reclamation and the State of Colorado X X X X X Protect the Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant Cell SIX THEMES KEY: 1 Protect/Restore Healthy Streams 4 Water Conscious Land Use 2 Sustain Agriculture 5 Assure Dependable Basin Administration 3 Secure Safe Drinking Water 6 High Basinwide Conservation COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 127 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 4 Basinwide Projects [cont.] Table 18. Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Top Projects — April 2, 2015 EAGLE RIVER REGION Meets Six Themes Protect Funding Needs Project Sponsor(s) Camp Hale – Eagle River Headwaters Restoration Project $20-30 M (mostly supports through compensatory wetland mitigation payments) National Forest Foundation, White River National Forest X Eagle River Watershed Water Quality Plan & Implementation $10 M TBD X Multi-million dollar effort anticipated but order of magnitude TBD The Cities of Aurora and Colorado Springs; Eagle Park Reservoir Company (consisting of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority and Vail Associates, Inc.); and Climax Molybdenum Company. X Eagle River Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Project 1 2 3 4 X X X 5 6 X X SIX THEMES KEY: 1 Protect/Restore Healthy Streams 4 Water Conscious Land Use 2 Sustain Agriculture 5 Assure Dependable Basin Administration 3 Secure Safe Drinking Water 6 High Basinwide Conservation COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 128 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 4 Basinwide Projects [cont.] Table 18. Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Top Projects — April 2, 2015 GRAND COUNTY REGION Protect Funding Needs Project Sponsor(s) Upper Colorado River Irrigation and Restoration Assessment and Implementation $5-$16 M ILVK, LBD(?), Grand County Colorado Basin RT Meets Six Themes 1 2 3 4 5 6 X X X X X X X X X X X X Construct Windy Gap Reservoir Bypass Alternative #3 $9.6 M Update and Implement Grand County Stream Management Plan $1 M LBD(?), Grand County Grand County Water Users X X X X X X $1.5 M Grand County Water & Sanitation #1, other Fraser Valley entities, Middle Park, Grand County X X X X X X Grand County Water and Sanitation Reservoir #1 Grand County, NCWCD, MSNCWCD, UCRA, TU, CPW SIX THEMES KEY: 1 Protect/Restore Healthy Streams 4 Water Conscious Land Use 2 Sustain Agriculture 5 Assure Dependable Basin Administration 3 Secure Safe Drinking Water 6 High Basinwide Conservation COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 129 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 4 Basinwide Projects [cont.] Table 18. Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Top Projects — April 2, 2015 GRAND VALLEY Protect Funding Needs Project Sponsor(s) Collbran Conservation District Main Canal Improvements and Siphon Replacement Multi-millions Collbran Conservancy District (CCD) Hunter Reservoir Enlargement Project The Ute Water Conservancy District will address as we get closer to construction (anticipated $5 - $7 M) Monument Reservoir Enlargement Project The Ute Water Conservancy District will address as we get closer to construction (anticipated ~$20 M) Meets Six Themes 1 2 3 4 5 6 X X X X X Ute Water Conservancy District X X X X X Ute Water Conservancy District X X X X X SIX THEMES KEY: 1 Protect/Restore Healthy Streams 4 Water Conscious Land Use 2 Sustain Agriculture 5 Assure Dependable Basin Administration 3 Secure Safe Drinking Water 6 High Basinwide Conservation COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 130 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 4 Basinwide Projects [cont.] Table 18. Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Top Projects — April 2, 2015 MIDDLE COLORADO REGION Protect Funding Needs Project Sponsor(s) Selenium Source Investigations and Implementation of Control Measures in the Middle Colorado Watershed Phase I – $0.5 M Phase II - $1.5 M Phase III - $20 M Project funding to be derived from a number of sources, including federal ag-based cost share programs Irrigation Asset Inventory Program Silt Mesa Feasibility Study to Assess the Value of a Rural Regional Water Authority Kendig Reservoir and Kendig Reservoir 1ST Enlargement Meets Six Themes 1 2 3 Middle Colorado Watershed Council X X $300,000 Conservation Districts X X X TBD Silt Water Conservancy District, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, West Divide Water Conservancy District, Colorado River Water Conservation District, Town of Silt, Town of Rifle, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Garfield County, Bookcliff Conservation District X X X TBD West Divide Water Conservancy District /Colorado River Water Conservation District X X X 4 5 6 X X SIX THEMES KEY: 1 Protect/Restore Healthy Streams 4 Water Conscious Land Use 2 Sustain Agriculture 5 Assure Dependable Basin Administration 3 Secure Safe Drinking Water 6 High Basinwide Conservation COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 131 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 4 Basinwide Projects [cont.] Table 18. Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Top Projects — April 2, 2015 ROARING FORK Meets Six Themes Funding Needs Project Sponsor(s) Roaring Fork Watershed Plan Multi-million dollars will be needed and determined on a project-by-project basis Roaring Fork Watershed Conservancy, Town of Basalt, City of Aspen, Eagle County, Pitkin County, Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Carbondale, City of Glenwood Springs X Implement the City of Aspen Municipal Water Efficiency Plan TBD City of Aspen TBD Roaring Fork Watershed Conservancy, Town of Carbondale, Ruedi Water and Power Authority Protect Irrigation Asset Inventory Program 1 2 3 4 5 6 X X X X X X X X SIX THEMES KEY: 1 Protect/Restore Healthy Streams 4 Water Conscious Land Use 2 Sustain Agriculture 5 Assure Dependable Basin Administration 3 Secure Safe Drinking Water 6 High Basinwide Conservation COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 132 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 4 Basinwide Projects [cont.] Table 18. Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Top Projects — April 2, 2015 STATE BRIDGE Protect Irrigation Asset Inventory Program Deep Creek Wild & Scenic Project Sponsor(s) Funding Needs $100,000 TBD Eagle County Conservation District, Eagle County Road and Bridge Dept. BLM/USFSERWC/AR Meets Six Themes 1 2 3 X X X X X X 4 5 6 X X Colorado River Wild & Scenic Alternative Process SIX THEMES KEY: 1 Protect/Restore Healthy Streams 4 Water Conscious Land Use 2 Sustain Agriculture 5 Assure Dependable Basin Administration 3 Secure Safe Drinking Water 6 High Basinwide Conservation COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 133 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 4 Basinwide Projects [cont.] Table 18. Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Top Projects — April 2, 2015 SUMMIT COUNTY Protect Funding Needs Swan River Stream Restoration • Phase 1 - $2M (received $975,000 from Statewide and Colorado Basin Roundtable Water Supply Reserve Account) Meets Six Themes Project Sponsor(s) 1 Summit County Board of County Commissioners X 2 3 4 5 6 X • Future Phases $300,000 annually Snake/Blue River Watershed Plan Project – Implement Clean Up of Abandoned Mines TBD Constructed Wetlands in a Storm Water Detention Pond TBD Blue River Watershed Group, and Town of Silverthorne X McCain Blue River Reclamation TBD Town of Breckenridge X Town of Dillon Alternate Water Supply – Old Dillon Reservoir Enlargement/ Pipeline Partial funding from CRCA (900,000). Total project cost $3 -$5 M depending on alternatives. Town of Dillon Dillon Reservoir Staged Release System Feasibility Study TBD Town of Silverthorne X X X X X X X X SIX THEMES KEY: 1 Protect/Restore Healthy Streams 4 Water Conscious Land Use 2 Sustain Agriculture 5 Assure Dependable Basin Administration 3 Secure Safe Drinking Water 6 High Basinwide Conservation COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 134 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 5 Interbasin Reliance Report This section discusses the interaction and cooperative opportunities between the state Roundtable basins. For a Colorado Water Plan to work, all basins need to coordinate their efforts, priorities and needs to develop a plan that can be supported and shared by all. Below are several key points identified by the Colorado Basin for other basins statewide to consider. CWP SHOULD ASSUME THAT NO ADDITIONAL WATER IS AVAILABLE FOR OTHER BASINS One of the themes that came from the 2014 Roundtable Summit was cooperation and balance within and between basins. The Colorado Basin is the State’s major “donor” basin of water, providing water to farms and cities of Eastern Colorado. The Colorado basin currently contributes approximately 400,000 to 600,000 AFY through transmountain diversions. It is currently estimated that up to an additional 140,000 AFY will be diverted in the future as Front Range diverters firm yields. These additional TMD yields will be developed from the following projects: the Moffat Collection System Project, Windy Gap Firming, Eagle River MOU, future Dillon Reservoir Diversions, firming in the Upper Roaring Fork and Fryingpan Rivers, and Colorado Springs Utilities expanded diversions from the upper Blue River. (See the figures in the Regional Breakdown Section for maps depicting the locations of the TMDs.) The Colorado Basin has played more of a role in solving Colorado’s water shortage than any other basin in the State. These TMDs have had dramatic impacts on the health of our ecosystems, the headwater counties of the Colorado Basin and in the middle and lower reaches of the river in Colorado. The Basin has realized the need for restoring and repairing our headwater streams already impacted by TMDs Before any additional TMDs are considered,. Local Basin entities have completed the planning and construction of many environmental and recreational projects to restore watersheds, streams and rivers at considerable investment of time and money. A small sampling of these projects (30 projects by NWCCOG) is shown in Exhibit F. Fifty-seven projects in Grand County alone are associated with restoring and protecting environmental and recreational needs from impacts from TMDs. The scale and expense of these projects are immense. These investments could be endangered with additional development of a new TMD project for the Front Range. One of the six themes of the BIP identified the need to develop projects, methods, policies, protections and repairs needed to protect stream health and restore our degraded rivers to a healthy condition. The Basin will continue to cooperate to the extent of firming projects identified above and to address mitigation of the impacts from existing and new TMDs. The Basin will simultaneously work towards retaining healthy watersheds which benefit the Colorado economy and water supply sources for other basins. In addition to the impacted streams in the headwaters and the Colorado River, the Basin feels that the long term availability of sufficient water supplies needed to meet in-basin consumptive agriculture, mining, industrial and environmental and recreational needs is highly uncertain. Much more work is needed to fully quantify and understand these needs and the uncertainties COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 135 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 5 Interbasin Reliance Report [cont.] associated with climate change and the cyclical variability of wet and dry conditions. Given the needs and uncertainties detailed below, the most prudent planning approach for the CWP is to assume that there is no more reliable water to develop for export from the Colorado Basin: • Basin agriculture currently has 100,000 AFY shortage of water (CDM, 2011b). SWSI projects that an additional 80,000 acres of West Slope agriculture will be lost to development within the Colorado Basin. • The CBRT has funded studies and projects to assist ranchers in the Kremmling area along the upper mainstem of the Colorado River where their intakes have been left high and dry due to loss of hydraulic grade of the Colorado River. • As much as 70% of the existing streams are listed as impaired based upon SWSI and the Nonconsumptive Needs Assessment prepared by the Colorado Basin Roundtable (CDM 2011a; CDM 2011b). • Recent studies show that continued development from the Colorado River towards full Compact entitlement is simply unsustainable. The Bureau of Reclamation “Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study” (BOR, 2012) concluded that between the seven states using the Colorado River “the long term projected imbalance in future supply and demand is about 3.2 MAF by 2060”. Any additional TMDs from the Colorado River Basin will increase that imbalance and hasten the time when a curtailment occurs which will have catastrophic impacts to the West Slope and East Slope. A Lower Basin Compact Call will curtail projects such as the C-BT Project, Dillon Reservoir, FryArk Project, Moffat Tunnel Collection System, Homestake Project, Twin Lakes, Wolford, Dallas Creek, Delores, and Central Utah Project, San Juan Chama, etc. They could not legally divert a drop of water (Kuhn, 2007). • Climate change is expected to further cause shortages across the southwestern US through declining water supply and increased water demand from warmer temperatures. The “Waages Group” calculated that the result could be as much as a 12% decrease in dry year water supply and a concurrent 6% increase in water use” (Woodhouse, 2007). Climate change will further cause shortages to the existing imbalance between supply and demand for the 35 million people that rely upon the Colorado River and among the seven states that border the Colorado River. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 136 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 5 Interbasin Reliance Report [cont.] • The CWCB’s study, “2008 Colorado Climate Change: A synthesis to Support Water Resource Management and Adaptation” (University of Colorado Boulder, 2008), concluded that future Colorado weather patterns are expected to change towards warmer average temperatures, shifting precipitation patterns and earlier runoffs. In Colorado, temperatures increased by approximately 2°F between 1977 and 2006. Current climate models projections forecast that Colorado will warm by 2.5°F by 2025 and 4°F by 2050. Summers are likely to warm more than winters. Warmer temperatures will affect evaporation rates in our rivers, streams and reservoirs, perhaps making less water available for beneficial use. The projected seasonal shift in precipitation may result in more mid-winter precipitation throughout the state and, in some areas, a decrease in late spring and summer precipitation. Lower elevation snowpack (below 8,200 feet) is likely to decline, with modest declines projected for high elevation snowpack (above 8,200 feet). The timing of runoff is projected to shift earlier in the spring, which may reduce late summer stream flows. These changes will probably occur regardless of changes in precipitation. • The middle and lower Colorado River within Colorado already experiences water quality problems due to the reduction in flows from TMDs. The lack of higher quality dilution from headwater flows has caused downstream increases in concentration of salinity, selenium, nutrients, hardness, total dissolved solids (TDS), emerging contaminants and endocrine disruptors. These water quality problems have caused a dramatic increase in expense to water and wastewater facilities in the middle and lower Colorado River region. • The lower Colorado River watershed has four warm water fish species that have been listed as endangered/threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. The Colorado Basin and East Slope water providers have worked to permanently supply 10,825 AFY to assist with the recovery. The conditions leading to the listing of these species have been caused in part to diversions out of the Colorado River and TMDs. Additional diversions out of the basin above this critical 15-Mile Reach would jeopardize the success rate of the recovery program. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 137 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 5 Interbasin Reliance Report [cont.] • Colorado is close to exceeding its Compact Entitlement. Based upon the BOR’s hydrologic determination the State is entitled to 3,208,500 AFY, while the 1931-1964 hydrology estimate concludes the State’s entitlement is closer to 2,432,000 AFY. Colorado is currently consuming in the range of 2.4 to 2.65 million AFY (Fleming, 2008). • If the 18,000 AF Moffatt Firming and 30,000 AF Windy Gap Firming projects are completed, any additional depletions from the Colorado River or its tributaries upstream of Grand Junction could trigger another Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act. In 1999, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) recommending that 10,825 AF be delivered each year during the late summer and fall in order to protect four endangered fish in the 15-Mile Reach on the Colorado River from the Grand Valley Irrigation Company Diversion Dam near Palisade downstream to the Gunnison River confluence in Grand Junction. This is known as the Recovery Program, and the four species atrisk of going extinct are the Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, razorback sucker and bonytail. The US Fish and Wildlife Service set a goal in the PBO for a population of 1,100 pikeminnow. The FWS’s best scientific judgment is that if this level is not reached by the earlier of 2015 or when 50,000 AF of new depletions are made from the Colorado River, this would be considered new information and a “consultation under Section 7” of the Endangered Species Act would be reinitiated. A Section 7 consultation requires the US Fish and Wildlife Service to undertake another scientific study to estimate the population of these fish, and to determine if their numbers are increasing, stable, or decreasing. If the Recovery Program fails (because the pikeminnow are not reaching a population of 1,100), Federal Agencies are still obligated to take measures to conserve the endangered fishes. Therefore, any additional depletions from the Colorado River are likely to trigger another Section 7 consultation. • The current hydrology, sustained drought, and administrative actions have reduced levels in Lake Powell and Lake Mead to historic lows levels. As of May of 2014, Lake Powell water levels had dropped to 39% of full pool to elevation 3,700. The level dropped to 3,571 feet on April 12, 2014 which is close to the water level elevation of 3,490 feet required to produce power. If power production is curtailed from Lake Powell the impacts will be felt across the Southwest US COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 138 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 5 Interbasin Reliance Report [cont.] and especially in Colorado. Colorado and other seven basin states purchase electricity produced from Lake Powell. In return, the federal government uses the funds from that electricity to maintain facilities and run programs in western Colorado including the Endangered Fish Recovery Program, salinity reduction programs, fish recovery programs in the Gunnison Basin. Urgent efforts are underway to prevent levels from dropping close to the elevation below which hydroelectric generating capacity is curtailed. Additional diversions out of the basin would further exacerbate the levels of Lake Powell. • Any new TMD would be prohibitively expensive as a result of the permitting process, especially compared with the wide range of alternative actions that should be taken to fill the Gap. Colorado citizens have consistently shown a strong aversion to fund large and expensive initiatives. • The Colorado Basin also has its own “Gap” to fill. It will be difficult to fill our gap while also being expected to help fill three other Basin “gaps”. RESOLVE ADMINISTRATION OF LOWER BASIN COMPACT CALL The Colorado Basin recommends that the issues related to Compact Compliance/ Curtailment Implementation begin immediately between the four Upper Basin States, the four west slope basins/roundtable, and within Division 5 of the State of Colorado. A memo attached in Exhibit G from the First Assistant Attorney General outlines the complexity of curtailment issues. It will take years to resolve these issues and it is imperative to outline with reasonable certainty the impact to Colorado Water users and managers so that proper proactive water planning can occur before reactive planning and crisis management has to be implemented. WATER SUPPLY SHOULD BE MET FROM WITHIN EACH BASIN The Colorado Basin recommends that water planning strategies in each basin rely upon the water available in that basin. Solutions to supply water for growth and development in one part of the state should not over-ride land use plans and regulations adopted by local governments in the part of the state from which water will be taken. Due to the facts and uncertainties described above, new TMDs are likely to conflict with local control (e.g., 1041 statutes) and may not be sustainable and reliable long term sources of supply for other basins. The CWP should identify a process and requirement for each basin to fully use available water supply within its own basin before planning diversions from another area of the state. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 139 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan SECTION 5 Interbasin Reliance Report [cont.] FUTURE DIVERSIONS WILL NOT SAVE EAST SLOPE AGRICULTURE Previous CWCB planning studies have referenced a portfolio tool which indicates that a new large state funded West Slope water supply project will prevent the loss of agricultural land in the Arkansas and South Platte Basins. That premise is flawed. A future diversion out of the Colorado Basin will hasten a Compact call which will curtail agricultural uses in both the West Slope and East Slope. South Platte officials have been on record as stating that a new diversion will not protect South Platte agricultural land from buy and dry practices. The exponential law of growth will only increase the demand on East Slope agricultural buy and dry practices. WATER CONSCIOUS LAND USE The BIP recommends the adoption of water conscious use policies across the state. These policies would be specific to each region; however, all would recognize the importance of ensuring that future and existing land use must consider impacts on water supplies on a local, regional, statewide and interstate basis. Several Colorado Basin municipalities have limited growth and new taps based upon a limited water supply and water providers and land use authorities are working together to require efficient use of water in new developments. Where is the same rational land use planning occurring in other parts of the State with even more limited supplies? The consequences of a doubling of population will have devastating consequences to the viability of agriculture, locally sourced foods, rivers, streams, tourism and recreation and all of the reasons we live in Colorado if land use planning strategies do not effectively address efficient use of water. Water conservation and land use best management practices (BMP) have to be implemented across the state. Incentive programs should be instituted to encourage implementation of BMPs. See Exhibit H for a list of BMPs. IMPLEMENTING WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES CAN LOWER THE STATE GAP The CWP should recognize that seriously lowering per capita water demand, decreasing outside watering of non-native plant species and water conscious practices will lower the statewide Gap and significantly reduce the need for future new water supply projects. These practices can occur today with very little expense. Three different studies also came to the same conclusion Currier, 2014b; Ransford, 2012; Western Resource Advocates, 2011. PROTECT ENVIRONMENTAL AND RECREATIONAL NEEDS The BIP recommends that all basins statewide should make protecting and improving the health of our rivers and streams at top priority. Historically, Colorado water planning, water law and institutional structure have revolved around consumptive diversions. The culture of our State must change to emphasis protection of and rehabilitation of healthy rivers and streams. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 140 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan NEXT STEPS The development of this Basin Implementation Plan for the Colorado River Basin establishes a framework which will allow the Colorado Basin Roundtable and stakeholders to move forward with the planning and implementation of projects to meet their vision up to 2050 and beyond. Initial drafting of this BIP occurred in less than six months. The process resulted in the development of broad policy statements, specific themes, goals, measurable outcomes, short term and long term needs, and projects and methods for each of the Basin’s seven regions. The challenge moving forward the effective coordination and implementation of identified projects and methods across the geographically diverse regions. Continued cooperation is across the Basin is critical for successful implementation of the BIP. Equally critical is cooperation and coordination Statewide. The Colorado Basin Roundtable understands that successful implementation of the next steps and actions will require more than policy discussions, including: • Focusing on the important projects and methods - pinpointing what must be done or everything else becomes unimportant • Acting on the lead measures - 20% of all activity generates 80% of results • Reporting metrics - keep a compelling scoreboard to motivate, incentivize and encourage successful implementation • Creating a culture of accountability - accountability that is repetitive, positive and self-regulating Regardless of how the Colorado Water Conservation Board and State move forward with projects, policies and processes, this BIP will guide future projects and methods for the Basin. The information contained within this BIP should be regularly reviewed and updated by the CBRT. Continued public engagement, especially those making long term water use decisions including politicians, land use planners, water providers, environmental awareness groups and the agricultural community is also necessary. Long term outreach activities will continue to build on the communication and partnerships developed through the BIP’s outreach efforts. The CBRT will strive to maintain a steady presence in both traditional and social media to ensure their members have the communication tools to both inform and listen to their constituencies about the issues the CBRT is addressing. The CBRT and BIP process developed a list of targeted solutions to support the six themes that will guide the next steps for meeting our future water demands. Over the next nine months the CWCB and nine basin roundtable will conduct public outreach on these BIPs. The final BIPs will incorporate and address this input and be submitted to the CWCB in April 2015 (See the CWCB Colorado’s Water Plan Timeline at the end of this section). COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 141 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan NEXT STEPS [cont.] The work of the CBRT is ongoing and will continue to focus on the six identified themes for the Basin. Each of these requires further refinement and work to fully realize the vision of the Basin. The Colorado River Basin Roundtable “envisions a Colorado River basin that is home to thriving communities benefiting from vibrant, healthy rivers and outstanding water quality that provides for all of the Colorado Basin’s needs. We acknowledge the interdependence of the varied Basin water users. Protecting the water and river flows that will ensure the future for all of us is a high priority. We also recognize that the influence of historic drought patterns, the uncertainty of climate change, population growth, energy development and Compact compliance are interwoven within this vision. Much of this vision’s success depends on how we collectively adapt to these forces” (CBRT, 2011). COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 142 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan ACRONYMS AF Acre-Feet DNR Department of Natural Resources AFY Acre-Feet/P er Year ATM Alternative Transfer Methods DWR Division of Water Resources Basin Colorado River Basin in EO Executive Order Colorado BIP Colorado Basin ERWC Eagle River Watershed Council ERWSD Eagle River Water and Implementation Plan Sanitation District BLM Bureau of Land Management ESA Endangered Species Act BMP Best Management Practice Fry-Ark BOR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Gap SWSI 2010 M&I Gap C-BT Colorado Big Thompson gpcd Gallons per Capita per Day Project GWUDI CBRT Colorado Basin Roundtable CRWCD Colorado River Water Conservation District Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Groundwater Under the Direct Influence GVIC Grand Valley Irrigation Company CDM CDM Smith HB House Bill CDOT Colorado Department of IBCC Interbasin Compact Transportation CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CFS Cubic Feet per Second COGA Colorado Oil and Gas Association CPW Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife CRCA Colorado River Cooperative Agreement CWA Clean Water Act CWCB Colorado Water Conservation Board CWP Colorado Water Plan DARCA Ditch and Reservoir Company Alliance COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E Committee IGA Intergovernmental Agreement ILVK Irrigators of Lands in the Vicinity of Kremmling IPPs Identified Projects and Processes ISF Instream Flow LBD Learning by Doing MAF Million Acre-Feet MCWC Middle Colorado Watershed Council M&I Municipal and Industrial mg/L Milligrams per Liter MOU Eagle River Memorandum of Understanding 143 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan ACRONYMS [cont.] NCNA Nonconsumptive Needs SWSI Statewide Water Supply Assessment NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NOSA National Oil Shale Association NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service Northern Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District OMID Orchard Mesa Irrigation District Initiative TDS Total Dissolved Solids TMD Transmountain Diversion TNC The Nature Conservancy UERWA Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority UPCO Upper Colorado River Study USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ORV Outstanding Remarkable Values USFS U.S. Forest Service PLT Project Leadership Team USFWS RFC Roaring Fork Conservancy USGS United States Geological Survey RICD Recreational In-Channel Diversion Ute Water Ute Water Conservancy District RFWC Roaring Fork Watershed Collaborative SB Senate Bill WGFP Windy Gap Firming Project WQCC Water Quality Control Commission SCAP Sediment Control Action Plan SCWWW Silver Creek Water and Wastewater Authority SSI Self-Supplied Industrial SEO State Engineer’s Office State line Colorado/Utah state line in Mesa County SMP Stream Management Plan COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WQCD Water Quality Control Division WFET Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool WRA Western Resource Advocates WSR Wild and Scenic River WSRA Water Supply Reserve Account 144 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan CITATIONS/REFERENCES 1 Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) Water Quality/Quantity Committee (QQ). March 10, 2014a. West Slope Principles for the Colorado Water Plan. BOR. December 2012. Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. 2 Colorado Agricultural Alliance. September 2008. Meeting Colorado’s Future Water Supply Needs…Opportunities and Challenges BOR. Website accessed May 2014. Silt Project Information. 3 Colorado Agricultural Alliance. 2009. Can Agricultural Water Conservation and Efficiency Provide the Water Needed for Colorado’s Future? Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). 2007. Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Storages and Coordinated for Lake Powell and Lake Mead. 4C olorado State University, Colorado Water Institute. 2011. Agricultural/Urban/Environmental Water Sharing: Innovative Strategies for the Colorado River Basin and the West CBRT. 2011. Draft Colorado Basin Roundtable Vision. 1996, Eagle County & The Eagle River Watershed Council updated May 15, 2013. Eagle River Watershed Plan. CDM. January 2011b. Colorado’s Water Supply Future, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI). Allen Best. May 8 2014. “Creating a new water normal in mountain towns.” CDM. July 2010. Nonconsumptive Needs Assessment Focus Mapping. AMEC. 2011. Energy Development Water Needs Assessment (Phase II). CDM. June 2011a. SWSI 2010 Colorado Basin Report Basinwide Consumptive and Nonconsumptive Water Supply Needs Assessment (NCNA). American Rivers, 2014. “America’s Most Endangered Rivers for 2014: Upper Colorado River.” CDSS, CWCB 2006. Colorado Water Conservation Board. Statewide Water Supply Initiative Fact Sheet - Colorado Basin American Whitewater website. Accessed June 26, 2014. Boatable segments. Chrissy Sloan. December 2004. The Effect of the Shoshone and Cameo Calls on the Roaring Fork Watershed August 29, 2013. Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan Climate Change in Colorado, A Synthesis of Water Resources, Management and Adaptation Avery, Kristen, Kelsey Cody, Eric Gordon, Roberta Klein, Jeff Lukas, Joel Smith, William Travis, Bradley Udall, and Jason Vogel. 2011. Western Water Assessment. Colorado Climate Preparedness Project – Final Report. Colorado Basin Roundtable (CBRT). 2014. White Paper (Draft 4.3.2). Providing for Colorado’s Statewide and West Slope Water Needs. Bill Hoblitzell and Holly Loff (May 21, 2015 email correspondence). Comments on the May 16, 2014 Draft BIP. Colorado Fishing.net. Accessed June 26, 2014. Gold Medal Streams. BOR. Accessed website June 26, 2014. Colorado BigThompson Project. Colorado General Assembly. 2005. House Bill 05-1177. Concerning the Negotiation of Interbasin Compacts Regarding the Equitable Division of the State’s Waters, and Making an Appropriation in Connection therewith. BOR. Lake Mead End of Month Elevations. May 2014. Projections from April 2014, 24 Month Study Inflow Scenarios. Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA). March 27, 2014. Position Paper on the Colorado Water Plan. BOR. May 2014. Colorado River Storage Project Memorandum of Agreement Planning Report for the State of Colorado Draft. Colorado River Water Bank Feasibility Study Phase 1 (Draft Report) COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 145 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan CITATIONS/REFERENCES [cont.] Colorado River Water Conservation District. No date. “What Happened 75 Years Ago in January - This time in our history 75 years ago.” Eagle River Watershed Council. June 9, 2014. Letter to SGM. Colorado State University. Accessed June 9, 2014. Community Wildfire Protection Plans EPA. Accessed June 26, 2014. Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). December 2013. Draft Basin Implementation Plan Guidance. Eric Kuhn. May 8 2007. The Colorado River: The Story of a Quest for Certainty on a Diminishing River (CRWCD) CWCB website. Accessed June 26, 2014. Instream Flow Program. Grand River Consulting Corporation. January 2008. 10825 Water Supply Alternatives Summary, Phase 2 Assessment CWCB website. Accessed June 26, 2014. Recreational In Channel Diversions. Great Western Institute, Denver CO. June 2010. SWSI Conservation Levels Analysis CWCB website. Accessed June 26, 2014. State Drought Planning. Hannah Holm. September 11, 2013. “Water Lines: East & West slope parties gear up for water plan negotiations”. CWCB. August 2013. Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response Plan Hydrosphere Resource Consultants. May 29, 2003. Upper Colorado River Basin Study, Phase II Final Report CWCB. Water Supply Reserve Account. Eagle River Watershed Council Water Activity Summary Sheet for Colorado River Inventory and Assessment. J.S. Sanderson, N. Rowan, T Wilding, B.P. Bledsoe, W.J. Miller, and N.L. Poff. March 2012. Colorado Basin Roundtable Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool Study. Dawn Thimany, Marthy Sullins, and Alex Ansteth, The 2006 Economic Contribution of Agritourism to Colorado: Estimates from a Survey of Colorado Tourists, Economic Development Report #24, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, November 2007. Carlyle Currier. July 8, 2014a. Email to Angie Fowler (SGM). Dennis Davidson. June 24, 2014. Email correspondence with Angie Fowler (SGM). John Currier. January 27, 2014b. SWSI Reality Check (presentation to the CBRT). Denver Water. May 15, 2012. Colorado River Cooperative Agreement. Ken Ransford. March 1, 2012. Demand Based Portfolio Tool (presentation). Denver Water. Website Accessed June 26, 2014. Moffat Collection System Project. Longwoods International 2011. “Colorado Travel Year 2010”, pages 19, 25, 44 and 45. DOE. June 18, 2014. Water-Energy Nexus: Challenges and Opportunities. Matt Jenkins. March 2, 2009. High Country News. “How low will it go?” Dr. Alan D. Bright, Warner College of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Public Attitudes about Agriculture in Colorado – 2006, June 2006, pages 32 and 39. McClow, February 4, 2014. Memorandum to the State of Colorado’s Colorado River Users. “Contingency Planning in the Colorado River Basin.” Eagle County. April 21, 1998. Middle Colorado Watershed Council (website). Accessed May 2014. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 146 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan Collaborating on Colorado’s Water Plan CITATIONS/REFERENCES [cont.] Norman E. Spahr, Lori E. Apodaca, Jeffrey R. Deacon, Jeffrey B. Bails, Nancy J. Bauch, Michelle Smith, Nancy E. Driver. 2000. Water Quality in the Upper Colorado River Basin, Colorado, 1996-98. USGS Circular 1214. Tetra Tech, Inc, Habitech, Inc, Walsh Aquatic Consultants, Inc. August 2010. Grand County Stream Management Plan Phase 3 Northern Water. Website Accessed June 26, 2014. Windy Gap Project. Trout Unlimited. May 2, 2014. Cover Sheet for Input Document, #74. Submitted to CWCB for the Colorado Water Plan. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) Water Quality/Quantity Committee (QQ). May 7, 2014b. Land Use and Water Conservation Workshop Summary. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 2008. EPA 841-B-08-002. Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG). January 2012. 2012 Study: Water and Its Relationship to the Economies of the Headwaters Counties University of Colorado Boulder, Western Water Assessment. 2008. “2008 Colorado Climate Change: A synthesis to Support Water Resource Management and Adaptation” Office of the Governor. May 14, 2013. Executive Order D2013005. Directing the Colorado Water Conservation Board to Commence Work on the Colorado Water Plan. URS. September 2008. Energy Development Water Needs Assessment (Phase I) Peter Fleming. March 14, 2008. Colorado River Management A West Slope Perspective. Ute Water. May 2014. About Ute Water Conservancy District (website). Ramsey Kropf. June 24, 2014. Draft memo to SGM, Town of Gypsum, Eagle River Region, Colorado Basin Roundtable & Colorado Water Plan Comments Western Resource Advocates. February 2011. Filling the Gap. Commonsense Solutions for Meeting Front Range Water Needs. Roaring Fork Conservancy (from Richard Lofaro to Jim Pokrandt). May 1, 2014. “Comments to be Considered in the Development of the Colorado Basin Implementation Plan and Colorado’s Statewide Water Plan”. Western Water Assessment for the State of Colorado. Colorado Climate Preparedness Project-Final Report. 2011. Roaring Fork Conservancy. March 2012. Roaring Fork Watershed Plan. Woodhouse. January/February 2007. “Climate Change Through the Eyes of Water Managers”. Southwest Hydrology. COLORA DO BASIN R OUN DTA BL E 147