Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Flows in greenback cutthroat trout recovery waters (the greenback is listed as threatened <br />under the Endangered Species Act) must also be preserved. If you do not already have a <br />listing of current and proposed recovery streams, I can provide that to you. <br /> <br />An additional approach that you should consider would be to look at alternatives and <br />identify where they may have potential for helping to protect or enhance stream flows. <br />For example, the proposed Halligan enlargement may be able to be designed and <br />operated so as to enhance conditions in Phantom Canyon. Such opportunities should be <br />identified wherever possible - highlighting areas where a project can serve multiple <br />purposes~ <br /> <br />(5) Alternatives. I continue to believe that instream flows need to be identified as <br />demands alongside M&I and agricultural uses. However, if instream flow proposals are <br />to be addressed as alternatives, then I suggest that you include the aforementioned flow <br />programs and more generic statements of flow protection for the aforementioned streams. <br />You've also listed a number of generic but potentially basin-wide al tern ati ves _ <br />conservation, reuse, and conjunctive use for example. It will be difficult to consider <br />these alternatives in a generic sense; I suggest that you break them out to specific <br />programs (aggressive conservation by Denver Water; reuse of effluent under the South <br />Metro Study; etc.) and maintain the generic alternatives as a place holder for those that <br />cannot be disaggregated. In terms of the magnitude of potential benefits from some of <br />these alternatives, the Metropolitan Water Supply Investigation offers a number of <br />options that should be included in SWSI. These include conjunctive use (up to 60,000 <br />AF); effluent management (up to 120,000 AF); inteffilptible supply agreements (up to <br />190,000 AF); and system integration (up to 20,000 AF). For some of these, specific <br />projects were analyzed while for others the analysis was at more of a reconnaissance <br />level.. <br /> <br />I would also suggest that you list specific alternatives from Denver's Integrated Resource <br />Plan rather than lumping all of these together. For example, you should identify Antero <br />enlargement and Elevenmile enlargement as specific alternatives that may have different <br />costs and benefits in terms of the different SWSI objectives. I also did not see Denver's <br />ongoing Moffat Collection System project (potential Gross Reservoir enlargement, <br />possible Leyden Gulch reservoir) in your list of projects, nor did I see the proposal for <br />development of a pipeline to the south metro area from the Beebe Draw that has been in <br />the press recently. These should both appear in the list of alternatives. <br /> <br />Finally, as you develop the list of alternatives and begin your analysis of them, it will be <br />helpful if you can share as much information as possible about how you characterize the <br />alternatives and weigh them against the SWSI objectives. The more information you can <br />provide to inform discussion, the more valuable will be the input that the roundtable can <br />provide.. <br /> <br />Again, if you have any questions regarding these comments please contact me at 303- <br />440-2937 or dnickum@tu"org. Thank you. <br />