Category: Castle Creek Watershed

Energy policy — hydroelectric: Aspen’s proposed Castle Creek hydroelectric power generation facility update

A picture named microhydroelectricplant

From the Aspen Daily News (Curtis Wackerle):

The [Aspen City Council] did not vote on an ordinance at Monday’s meeting that would approve a new building on Power Plant Road which would house a turbine for a new hydroelectric power-generating facility. Instead, council members wanted more information on current streamflows in Castle Creek and more details on how much water would be removed from the creek and when to run the plant. That water would be discharged back into the creek below the hydro facility…

A primary issue is a study from Miller Ecological Consultants that finds that 13.3 cubic feet per second is the minimum amount of water that can be left in the creek to support a healthy environment. The maximum amount of water that the hydro power plant can use is 25 cfs. There seemed to be confusion around what duration of time the creek would be lowered to the minimum streamflow of 13.3 cfs. Council members sought clarity on this issue before they could vote.

Councilman Torre suggested that perhaps the city could develop minimum streamflows that vary by month, since in-stream flows fluctuate throughout the year. Torre said he wanted to move forward on the project, but only if he was assured that the stream would not be jeopardized. “I think we can have both,” he said. He also added that he didn’t think he fully understood the implications of the project when he voted for it…

One of the city’s main points in favor of the hydro facility is that it uses city water rights that could otherwise be claimed by other parties. If a senior water right holder does not use that right, those rights can be considered abandoned under Colorado water law…

“I don’t trust the Front Range,” [Aspen Mayor Mick Ireland] said.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Energy policy — hydroelectric: Proposed Aspen hydroelectric plant update

A picture named hydroelectricdam

From the Aspen Daily News (Curtis Wackerle):

The city of Aspen is about $3.3 million into the Castle Creek hydroelectric project so far, with officials hoping to apply this summer for federal permission to construct the power facility. The project, if granted a “conduit exemption” by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is expected to remain within its $6.19 million budget, Aspen public works director Phil Overeynder said. “The unknown cost is permitting and what it will take to complete the permitting,” Overeynder said.

The conduit exemption would allow the city to bypass the more complex federal licensing process. In deciding whether or not the city qualifies, FERC “puts a high degree of deference” to state agencies which monitor natural resources, such as the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Overeynder said. The DOW has looked at the project, and requested that the city obtain a study to determine minimum baseline water levels in Castle Creek. That study is nearly complete and established a minimum flow of 13.3 cubic feet per second to protect fish and other aquatic life. Once FERC gets the application, Overeynder said he hopes to have a decision within six months, although there is no guaranteed timeframe for a ruling.

The city has spent $632,653 on design of the “energy center,” which would house the turbine; $272,850 on planning; and $99,091 on studies related to the project, according to information provided by the city of Aspen…

The city has budgeted $665,000 for construction of the energy center, including controls inside the building and a pipe to return water to Castle Creek. The turbine itself is expected to cost about $1.4 million, including a pressure-reducing valve, Overeynder said.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Energy policy — hydroelectric: How will the city’s proposed hydroelectric plant impact the riparian and aquatic environment?

A picture named microhydroelectricplant

From The Aspen Times (Aaron Hedge):

“This project is an ecological train wreck,” said Tom Starodoj, a resident of the area, during Wednesday’s public meeting.

The study established that Castle Creek needs at least 13.3 cubic feet per second at its lowest point of the year, which is typically between January and April when the cfs hovers around 20. Phil Overeynder, the city’s public works director, said in the meeting that figure is easily sustainable.

Overeynder said the city remains confident in the numbers the study relies on, which were generate in the early 1990s. Bill Miller of Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc., which conducted the study, said the life of the waterway will remain healthy if the project is completed.

Miller assured skeptics that the vibrancy of the stream depends not on a certain cfs during dry times, but on the complex cycle of peaks and furloughs it goes through every year. He said the city would not have the flexibility to drain the stream, though it is legally within its right to do so.

More coverage from Curtis Wackerle writing for the Aspen Daily News. From the article:

a group of homeowners who live along the creek are skeptical of the effect a proposed hydropower facility would have that would draw up to 25 cfs from the creek. What happens when the creek is running at 50 cfs? Will the plant still take its 25 cfs? And how is that not going to adversely affect the stream?

Those questions and others were posed in a meeting on the Castle Creek hydropower facility Wednesday night at the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies. Most of the 17 or so members of the public in attendance were Castle Creek homeowners who question whether the project is the right thing to do…

Miller noted, however, that in a naturally flowing mountain stream like Castle Creek, the peak flows seen during the spring runoff are the most critical to ecology. Spring flows on Castle Creek tend to peak in the 700 cfs to 800 cfs range. This year, the creek peaked above 900 cfs. This inundation of water helps reinvigorate the channel and the plant life on the sides, Miller said. “Protecting that peak is probably as important or more important than preserving minimum flows,” he said.

Mark Uppendahl with the Colorado Division of Wildlife defended the 13.3 number, calling it the “amount of water we feel preserves the natural environment to a reasonable degree.”

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Energy policy — hydroelectric: Aspen Castle Creek hydroelectric project in conflict with instream flow needs

A picture named microhydroelectricplant

From the Aspen Daily News (Curtis Wackerle):

A city-commissioned report from Miller Ecological Consultants of Fort Collins found that that a minimum of 13.3 cubic feet per second of water needs to be in Castle Creek to ensure healthy fish and plant life, although the stream often doesn’t contain much more water than that…

The city plans to divert a maximum of 25 cfs from Castle Creek to run the turbine of the proposed facility, which would be located in a new building under the Castle Creek Bridge on Power Plant Road. After running the turbine, water would be fed back into Castle Creek. The plant could generate up to 5.5 million kilowatt hours of electricity annually. During spring runoff, Castle Creek can peak between 700 and 900 cfs, or even above like it did this year. But by August in an average year, the creek is running back below 100 cfs. Flows hang around 40 cfs for most of the fall. From about December until the runoff starts again in the spring, water levels in the creek are typically below 20 cfs.

If the Castle Creek hydro plant is built, water levels would be pushed to the minimum stream flow level for a few additional weeks at the beginning and end of the low water season before diversions were reduced or stopped altogether. “With the project in place, you’ll get a longer time period in the fall and spring when (low water) conditions occur,” city public works director Phil Overeynder said. “We’ll have conditions for months at a time when there simply isn’t enough water” and the plant will have to be shut down. The city is committed to maintaining a healthy instream flow in Castle Creek, Overeynder said. “We’re not about to back off of that,” he said…

The city has been working with the Colorado Division of Wildlife on the environmental impacts of the hydropower proposal. It is hoping to get a “conduit exemption” from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which would not require a formal environmental impact statement or environmental analysis. City officials insist that this will save time and money, and that there will still be ample environmental review for the conduit exemption and at the state level.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Energy policy — hydroelectric: Aspen city council approves $2.3 million for Castle Creek hydropower project

A picture named hydroelectricdam.jpg

From The Aspen Times (Carolyn Sackariason):

The council approved a contract with Denver-based Western Summit Constructors to build a pipeline that will deliver water from Castle Creek via the Thomas Reservoir to the plant, which will be located below the Castle Creek bridge.

The city plans to circumvent a full-blown environmental analysis and instead apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for what’s called a “conduit exemption” to build the hydroelectric plant once the pipeline is under construction. Officials say by delivering water from the reservoir to the plant, the city can take advantage of water for hydropower while providing needed flood protection to properties downhill of the Thomas Reservoir, such as the hospital.

The council also approved a $48,400 contract with Miller Ecological Associates to conduct an aquatic biology study to determine the effects of taking water from the creek. The study was requested by the Colorado Division of Wildlife to evaluate the effect of stream-flow changes between the point of diversion and the point of return in the creek…

Several people said they were concerned about a decreased flow in Castle and Maroon creeks because water will be drained out of both to generate power. Under an agreement with the state, the city of Aspen would never go below 12 cfs in Castle Creek and 14 cfs in Maroon Creek…

If approved, the water would travel down a 42-inch pipe, supplying the hydro plant with approximately 25 cubic feet per second (cfs) coming from Castle Creek and 60 cfs out of Maroon Creek. The city diverts water from both creeks for the primary purpose of supplying municipal water and maintains the in-stream flow of 12 and 14 cfs. The third priority would be for hydroelectricity, but if there isn’t enough water available in a dry year or during certain times of the year, it wouldn’t be diverted, officials have said. The project would utilize existing water rights, head gates and water storage of the original Castle Creek hydroelectric plant, which met all of Aspen’s electric power needs from 1892 through 1958, when the plant was decommissioned…

The electricity would be placed on the city’s grid and taken up to the water treatment campus to power those facilities, and to potentially produce hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen vehicles. When completed, the 1.05 mega-watt facility is expected to increase electric production by 5.5 million kilowatt hours annually. That power production will prevent more than 5,000 tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year, officials said. It would generate renewable energy for the city and increase its supplies by 8 percent over its current level of about 75 percent. City officials say that switching from primarily coal-fired energy purchases to hydroelectric power production would represent a 0.6 percent community-wide reduction in carbon emissions based on a 2004 greenhouse gas emission inventory.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Aspen: City and area residents debating the benefits and possible streamflow loss of proposed hydroelectric facility

A picture named hydroelectricdam.jpg

From the Associated Press via The Aspen Times via the Grand Junction Free Press:

City officials are taking public comments on the proposal and say a more comprehensive review is possible if there is enough concern or there are issues they haven’t considered. Aspen wants to build a 1,880-square-foot hydropower plant that would draw water from Castle and Maroon creeks to generate electricity. The 1.05 megawatt plant is expected to increase production of electricity by 5.5 million kilowatt hours annually. That would provide energy for several hundred households. City officials say getting that much electricity from a renewable source would eliminate an estimated 5,167 tons of carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power for a 0.6 percent communitywide decrease.

Some area residents, however, are concerned about the potential effects on wildlife and water rights if too much water is diverted from the creeks. Paul Noto, an Aspen-based water attorney, who represents several residents who live along Castle Creek, said if Aspen touts itself as an environmental leader, it ought to submit the project to a full environmental review.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Aspen: Recap of public meeting for planned hydroelectric installation on Castle Creek

A picture named hydroelectricdam.jpg

From The Aspen Times (Carolyn Sackariason):

Nearly two dozen people attended a public meeting held Friday concerning the Castle Creek Hydroelectric Project. City officials, paid consultants, hydrologists and aquatic biologists were on hand to explain the project and answer questions about the project. The purpose of the meeting was to determine whether the city should circumvent a full environmental review through a permit process with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). As it stands now, the city plans to apply for what’s known as a “conduit exemption,” which wouldn’t require a full-blown environmental review. But the city’s public works director Phil Overeyender said if public comment, which will be taken for the next 60 days, raises enough concern or potential effects that the city hasn’t considered, a full environmental review could be possible.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Energy policy — hydroelectric: Aspen’s Castle Creek hydroelectric generation station update

A picture named hydroelectricdam.jpg

Nearly three years ago Aspen residents approved bonding to fund a hydroelectric generation station on Castle Creek in town. Here’s an update on progress towards building the facility, from Carolyn Sackariason writing for the Glenwood Springs Independent. From the article:

John Hines, the city’s renewable energy utility manager, said the 1,880-square-foot facility will go through public review for final approval starting next month. If it’s approved by the Aspen City Council, construction could begin as early as the spring…

There has been minimal opposition to the facility, but some people are concerned about a decreased flow in the nearby stream because water will be drained out of it to generate power. Hines said the city will host a neighborhood meeting after Labor Day in which a hydrologist and an engineer will address water-flow concerns. He added that neighbors are generally in favor of the facility but are watching the design of it closely. “They are in favor of the hydro facility, but they want it done right; I don’t blame them,” Hines said.

A new water line is being built to replace the old one, as well as to accommodate the new plant, which will generate renewable energy for the city and increase its supplies by 8 percent over its current level of about 75 percent. The project would utilize existing water rights, head gates, and water storage of the original Castle Creek hydroelectric plant, which met all of Aspen’s electric power needs from 1892 through 1958, when the plant was decommissioned. When completed, the 1.05 mega-watt facility is expected to increase electric production by 5.5 million kilowatt hours annually.

City officials say that switching from primarily coal-fired energy purchases to hydroelectric power production would eliminate an estimated 5,167 tons of CO2 emissions — representing a 0.6 percent community-wide reduction in carbon emissions based on the 2004 greenhouse gas emission inventory.

The facility’s turbine and generator will be designed to convert the force of falling water into electric power. The water comes from the Thomas Reservoir, which is located at the top of Doolittle Drive and is the home of the water treatment facility. The water will travel down a 42-inch pipe, supplying the hydro plant with approximately 52 cubic feet per second. There are nearly 4.9 million gallons of water sitting above some residential areas and the hospital. The pipe would allow the city to quickly evacuate the water should the walls of the reservoir ever be breached. The electricity will be placed on the city’s grid and taken up to the water treatment campus to power those facilities, and to potentially produce hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen vehicles.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Energy policy — hydroelectric: Aspen’s new Castle Creek plant

A picture named microhydroelectricplant.jpg

Here’s a letter to the editor — running in the Aspen Times — written by Phil Overeynder, Utilities and Environmental Initiatives Director, City of Aspen, explaining the benefits of the new hydroelectric plant approved in 2007 by Aspen voters, along with the City’s committment to instream flow in Castle Creek:

In the near future we plan to provide additional information about this important and environmentally responsible project. What Aspenites gained in approving this project on the 2007 ballot is the annual production of 5.5 million kilowatt-hours of environmentally responsible electricity. That power production will prevent more than 5,000 tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere every year. This represents more than 25 percent of the remaining carbon emissions resulting from power generation for Aspen’s electric utility.

The production of clean, renewable energy at the Castle Creek Hydroelectric Project will depend on the use of water drawn from Castle Creek. There is simply no way around this basic fact. However, the city is doing its best to limit the impact on Castle Creek. The only change the hydroelectric project will make in the city’s water use regime is that a portion of the water diverted by the city will return to the creek at a point approximately three-fourths of a mile downstream of the present point of return, which is below Thomas Reservoir. The new point of return will be at the Castle Creek Bridge.

From the beginning of the Castle Creek Hydroelectric Project, the city of Aspen has been aware of the critical importance of maintaining a viable, healthy stream in Castle Creek. The Colorado Water Conservation Board’s (CWCB) decreed instream flow right for Castle Creek is 12 cubic feet per second (cfs), and is decreed for the purpose of protecting the natural environment.

This is a fairly junior water right. To help assure that Castle Creek actually receives this instream flow, which applies to all of Castle Creek, the city has already voluntarily committed to operate its own, more senior, water rights in a way that will support the 12 cfs instream flow. The city currently honors this commitment, and the proposed Castle Creek Hydroelectric Project will not alter this commitment. This means it is possible that, under certain conditions, the flow in Castle Creek upstream of the hydroplant will be 12 cfs. Historical low stream flow conditions in Castle Creek (generally reaching the lowest values in late winter) have averaged in the range of 20 cfs. When the hydroplant is operating in times of low flow in Castle Creek, flows in the reach of the creek between the hydroplant intake and the plant may be reduced to 12 cfs instead (the value established by the CWCB as necessary to protect the natural environment).