27 (5) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Comparison of 10825 Water Supply Alternatives for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE 10825 WATER SUPPLY STUDY SUMMARY (JANUARY 2008) 1. 10825 Water provided by the East and West Slope is only one small part of the puzzle for the Recovery Program. USFWS biological flow targets will not be met in drier years using all of the water available to the Recovery Program. Other elements--including fish passages, non-native fish removal, and hatcheries, are all key pieces of success of the Recovery Program. 2. Coordinated timing of the releases from all of the sources. available to the Recovery Program is very important. Recovery Program water is needed July throulgh October while the portion needed from the 10825 Water is needed primarily in July and August in order to optimize coordinated releases. 3. An earlier declaration of the surplus in the Historic User Pool in Green Mountain Reservoir would be beneficial, since so much of the available Recovery Program water is sitting up in Green Mountain until late August or early September in most years. 4. Where the Colorado River is still small between Granby Reservoir and Hot Sulphur Springs, releases from Granby can really help the stream flow and aquatic biology. Releases of just 10-20 cfs would double the amount of water in the river in this segment from August through September. 5. Potentially using water from Granby Reservoir is complicated. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the US Bureau of Reclamation are exploring solutions to complex institutional and legal issues that must be solved for this element to be included in an alternative. They will report back on their progress in June. 6. In the Fryingpan River, a lot of water released atone time is bad, although a little more probably isn't detrimental to the aquatic biology or the wade fishermen. The Fryingpan will be a great place to fish even if a lot of water is released in very dry years-for example, one or two years out often. 7. If 10825 Water is released from Ruedi, flows may not be much different than what we see in the Fryingpan now. When demand for contract water increases in the future, flows will increase. If Ruedi water is obligated for the Recovery Program, future yield may be affected. 8. Improvements in the Orchard Mesa Irrigation District system will save a lot of water. More water in the Historic User Poo! is good-especially if it could be used in July or August. If not, it meets the 10825 objectives, although it may not help the Recovery Program as much. 9. The negative aquatic impacts on the Fryingpan River from releasing all the water from Ruedi Reservoir may be larger than the impacts of building a ne~ro reservoir at Sulphur Gulch. Sulphur Gulch Reservoir is likely the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative, (LEDPA). 10. Adverse water quality is not anticipated on-site or off-site with any of the six most promising alternatives being considered. _- For more information visit www.grandriver.us/70825