09d - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

UPDATE ON TACOMA POWER PLANT RELICENSING PROCESS -The Public Service Company of Colorado d/b/a Xcel Energy is in the process of relicensing its Tacoma Hydroelectric Project before FERC. The Tacoma Project is located on Cascade Creek and the Animas River just north of Durango. Xcel owns the water rights to divert the flows of Cascade Creek into a conduit that then delivers those flows to the Little Cascade Creek watershed, and hence into Electra Lake. From Electra Lake, the water is diverted into a penstock to the Tacoma Powerhouse in the Animas River canyon. The relicensing process, which started in July 2004, is scheduled for completion in February 2010. Xcel believes that the MOU between the USFS and the State of Colorado dated April 2004 could play a major role in the relicensing process, and has asked the state to actively participate in the process. Based upon informal discussions between CWCB staff and USFS staff about this matter, CWCB staff believes that it may be feasible to address flow needs through the ISF Program rather than through federal imposition of bypass flow requirements. An instream flow study jointly developed and conducted by Xcel, its consultant, the USFS and the CDOW ("the Delphi Report") was issued on July 9, 2007. The USFS has deemed the Report sufficient to serve as substantial evidence to support internal USFS analysis of ongoing environmental effects and identification of commensurate mitigation. In late October, in response to concerns expressed by the Southwestern Water Conservation District about this matter, Harris Sherman, Executive Director of the DNR, sent a letter to Rick Cables, Regional Forester, requesting initiation of consultation between the USFS and the DNR under the April 16, 2004, MOU between the DNR, CWCB and USFS to explore ways to resolve this matter in a mutually acceptable way. On December 14, 2007, Rick Cables sent a response indicating that the USFS is willing to meet to discuss these issues and is "committed to adhering to the spirit and intent of our 2004 MOU." On December 11, 2007, Xcel Energy filed its Preliminary Licensing Proposal (PLP) for the Tacoma Project (FERC No. 12589) with FERC. The PLP contains no proposed mitigation measures for the ongoing environmental effects of project operations on aquatic resources on Cascade Creek, nor any alternative mitigation measures to the instream flow needs suggested in the Delphi Report. The Proposal and the Final Study Reports are posted on the Tacoma-Ames.com website. A copy of the Tacoma PLP is also available on FERC's E-Library (www.ferc.gov). The USFS is required to issue license conditions to FERC by November 2008. On February 29, 20008, representatives of the USFS, DNR and CWCB met to discuss several issues, including Tacoma Power Plant relicensing process. The CWCB and DNR staff, USFS staff, and representatives of Xcel Energy and the Southwestern Water Conservation District met on March 6, 2008 to discuss issues related to the Tacoma PLP (subsequent to submittal of this report). Comments to the USFS on the PLP were due March 15, 2008. CDOW and CWCB staff will coordinate with the DNR on developing and submitting comments. PINE RIVER WATER COURT APPLICATION - On December 27, 2007, the Pine River Irrigation District, Southern Ute Indian Tribe, and CWCB jointly filed an application in the Division 7 Water Court fora 200,000 acre-feet refill right for the Vallecito Reservoir for numerous uses, including instream flow use by the CWCB of water released from the Resen~oir to preserve or improve the natural environment of the Pine River pursuant to the Donation Agreement entered into between the District, the Tribe, and CWCB. Statements of Opposition were filed by Jeff and Caroline Munger (stakeholders in the Sullivan Ditch); 0ldcastle Southwest Group, Inc.; the State and Division Engineers; the U.S. Forest Service; Forest Lakes Metropolitan District and the Town of Bayfield; and Opponents of the Gopher Hole Project, LLC. Issues raised in the Statements of Opposition include the need to justify the requested appropriation dates; evidence that water will be placed to beneficial use; proof that claims are not speculative; evidence that the requested flow rates are needed to preserve the natural environment to a .,.27.,.