Upper Colorado River Basin Water Forum : Stories from the Field - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Upper Colorado River Basin Water Forum : Stories from the Field

Orchard Mesa Irrig. Improvements to Benefit Endangered Fish and Water Users

November 1, 2017

• Max Schmidt, Orchard Mesa Irrigation Distr.
• Brent Uilenberg, Bureau of Reclamation – WCAO
• Tom Chart, USFWS

2

Endangered Species Act Milestones

 Mid 1970’s: ESA compliance required for federal

water projects impacting listed endangered fish

 1981: Windy Gap Project consultation for

endangered fish set the stage for 40 Section 7 consultations using the Windy Gap approach, but did not provide an “acceptable” long term solution.

 Mid-1983: USFWS proposed no further net

depletions in the Upper Colorado River Basin to protect endangered fish

3

Milestones (cont’d)

 December 1, 1983: Colorado Water Congress Special

Project on Threatened and Endangered Species

• rganized:
• Goal: Define an administrative solution to potential conflicts

between ESA and water development

 March 1984: Upper Colorado River Coordinating

Committee established to address possible conflicts and solutions (USFWS, Reclamation, states of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, water users, environmentalists)

 Established in 1988  Partners

 State of Colorado  State of Utah  State of Wyoming  Bureau of Reclamation  Colorado River Energy

Distributors Association

 Colorado Water Congress  National Park Service  The Nature Conservancy  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  Utah Water Users Association  Western Area Power

Administration

 Western Resource Advocates  Wyoming Water Association

Fish Illustrations by Joe Tomelleri

The Goal of the Recovery Program

 The purpose of this

Recovery Program is to recover the endangered fishes while water development proceeds in compliance with all applicable Federal and State laws.

 Providing Endangered

Species Act compliance for federal, tribal, state and private existing and new water projects throughout the Colorado River Basin above Lake Powell.

Endangered Species Act Law of the River

Recovery Program Provides ESA compliance for Historic and New Water Depletion Projects

* Amount included in individual state’s new depletions

Summary of Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultations (1/1988 through 12/31/2016) State Number of Projects Historic Depletions (Acre-Feet/Yr) New Depletions (Acre-Feet/Yr) Total Depletions (Acre-Feet/Yr) Colorado 1224 1,915,682 207,195 2,122,877 Utah 250 517,898 97,622 615,520 Wyoming 410 83,498 36,013 119,511 Regional* 238 (regional) (regional) Total 2,122 2,517,078 340,830 2,857,908

The Endangered Colorado River fish

Humpback chub (Gila cypha) Bonytail (Gila elegans) Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus)

Stocking Endangered Fish Managing Nonnative fish Research and Monitoring Habitat Flow Management Habitat Development

Recovery Elements

Instream Flow Management Occurs Throughout the Upper Basin

Points of flow control

Elkhead Reservoir (Yampa River): Cooperators: CRWCD, City of Craig, TriState Power Upper Colorado Reservoirs: Cooperators: CRWCD, East Slope Water Users (NCWCD, City of Denver, Colorado Springs), West Slope Water Users (Cities of Grand Junction, Palisade), BOR, Grand Valley irrigators Aspinall Unit (Gunnison River): Cooperators: BOR Navajo Reservoir (San Juan River): Cooperators: BOR Flaming Gorge Reservoir (Green River): Cooperators: BOR Duchesne River Reservoirs: Cooperators: CUWCD, BOR

Habitat Development: Capital Projects to Reconnect Habitat and Reduce Entrainment

Species Status: Colorado Pikeminnow

• SELF-SUSTAINING
• Adults in Green and Colorado rivers

are currently at low levels

• Future Management will focus on:
• Successful NNF control to

rebuild forage for adults in Yampa River and other rivers

• Better management of base flows

to improve survival of young of year

Upper Colorado River Basin

Osmundson, D. B., P. Nelson, et al. (1995). Relationships Between Flow and Rare fish Habitat in the '15-Mile Reach' of the Upper Colorado River, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation: 81.

Base Flow Targets

Reservoirs Decreed Capacity (acft) Inflow (cfs) Remaining or Total Content (acft) Total Rel. (cfs)

Remarks

Granby Res. 543,758 203 520,259 41 Adams Tunnel = 45 cfs 5,412 E. Slope pool 5,412 40 20 Williams Fork Res. 93,637 92 72,171 222 Moffat Tunnel=35 cfs Meadow Ck Del=0 cfs Upper Blue Res. 2,140 1,700 Con-Hoosier Tunnel = 32 cfs Dillon Res. 252,678 145 247,059 98 Roberts Tunnel = 7 cfs Green Mtn. Res. 154,645 216 96,437 550 HUP 66,000 19,730 275 HUP Repl = 16 cfs GVIC Direct Del = 0 cfs Contract 20,000 19,287 6 Silt = 0 cfs C-BT 52,000 44,685 Wolford Res. 65,993 25 56,710 22 Contract Release = 3.5 cfs West Slope Fish 6,000 DWB Pool 24,000 24,000 Ruedi Res. 102,369 93 78,236 156 +3 from Rocky Fork = 159 cfs Total Contracts Boustead Tunnel = 2 cfs 5k Firm 5,000 Twin Lakes Tunnel = 20 cfs 5,412 W. slope pool 5,412 5k (4/5 Years) 5,000 Ute WCD 6,000 800 62 2K Granby Insurance 2,000 2,000

Peak flows in the 15-Mile Reach Colorado River were successfully boosted for the third year in a row with Coordinate Reservoir OperationS (CROS) releases:

About 2,400 cfs

Base flows are being substantially augmented to improve 15-Mile Reach Colorado River flow conditions

Orchard Mesa Irrigation District

Orchard Mesa ID Canals #1 and #2 Water Diversions (2000-2006) compared to Net Irrigation Water Requirement

10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Acre-Feet

Total Canal Diversions (Canals #1 and #2) Estimated Net Irrigation Water Requirement

OMID Urban Laterals

Water Management Objectives

• Operation with minimal canal spill. Spill

water is recirculated without increased pumping.

• Water service that is more equitable,

reliable, flexible AND drought resilient.

• Increased hydropower production AND

river flows.

Water Conservation Estimates

(Acre-Feet)

• Reducing lateral spill in the upper agricultural areas =

1,000

• Recovering spill from main canals in urban areas =

1,600

• Eliminating spill from the MML system =

900

• Reducing spill from the main canals =

4,000

• Recovering spill water from urban laterals =

9,500 Total: 17,000

Projected Water Savings on a Monthly Basis

April May June July Aug Sep Oct Total Volume (AF) 2,242 2,159 1,511 1,679 2,207 3,080 4,121 17,000 Flow Rate (CFS) 37 36 25 28 37 51 69 NA

Typical Canal Check Structure

Legal Protection Strategy

• Reroute reduced spills to increase hydro-

electric production

• Increased reliance on hydro-electric power

water rights v. irrigation water rights (slight reduction in relative priority of water right administration with minimal impact)

YEAR OMID Irrigation Water Diversions (Includes Hydraulic Pumps) (Acre-Feet) OMID Power Plant Diversions (Acre-Feet Total OMID Diversions (Acre-Feet) Check 1997 147,660 371,043 519,633 518,703 2004 147,491 182,996 330,487 330,487 2005 158,508 193,664 352,172 352,172 2006 131,155 373,785 504,940 504,940 2007 157,698 351,243 508,940 508,941 2008 161,642 179,423 341,065 341,065 2009 164,287 351,110 515,397 515,397 2010 156,291 363,810 520,101 520,101 2011 147,304 307,955 455,259 455,259 2012 157,716 238,568 x 396,284 2013 141,568 226,607 x 368,175 2014 140,115 342,317 x 482,432 2015 151,478 404,265 x 555,743 2016 145,482 362,893 x 508,375 Average 150,600 303,549 454,148 Median 149,569 346,714 493,686 Standard Deviation 8,988 77,920 76,126 1997 - 2012 Average 152,975 291,360 444,335 Median 156,995 329,533 480,100 Standard Deviation 9,252 79,011 76,626 2013 -2016 Average 144,661 334,021 478,681 Median 143,525 352,605 495,404 Standard Deviation 4,398 65,906 69,003 Delta Average (8,314) 42,661 34,346 Median (13,470) 23,073 15,304

Grand Valley Water Management Project Actual Results

Water Year (Units in Acre-Feet) 1998 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average Irrigation Diversion 285,217 240,424 252,289 256,289 249,318 277,994 245,927 249,223 206,105 261,216 295,587 267,776 332,753 234,545 236,147 226,687 255,485 Reduced Diversion as Compared to 1998 (Pre-Project) 44,793 32,928 28,928 35,899 7,223 39,290 35,994 79,112 24,001

• 10,370

17,441

• 47,536

50,672 49,070 58,530 29,732 Palisade Pipeline 2,053 10,161 13,654 19,143 10,812 10,625 15,997 18,302 20,617 20,466 14,616 15,937 19,317 19,520 20,186 15,427 Total Potential Benefit to 15-Mile Reach Flows 46,846 43,089 42,582 55,042 18,035 49,915 51,991 97,414 44,618 10,096 32,057

• 31,599

69,989 68,590 78,716 45,159 Capital Cost = $7,988,000 Capitalized Annual Cost = $1,250,000 Total = $9,238,000 Assumes 50 year life cycle and 6 percent interest rate Average Unit annual cost (per acre foot of potential benefit) = $12.98 per acre-foot per year