Michael is an Associate Vice-President with AECOM and a presenter at Alberta’s Watershed Management Symposium: Flood and Drought Mitigation. Using the Colorado River and recent flood events in the State of Colorado as backdrops, Michael talked about bringing diverse stakeholders together to create an effective total watershed management plan.

1. April 29, 2014
Alberta Watershed Management Symposium

2. Watershed Management
Colorado River
-Minute 319
-WaterSMART
-Adaptive Management
Michael Gabaldon
Associate Vice President, Senior Manager
AECOM
April 29, 2014

3. Who is AECOM?
Top 4 Program Management
Firm for more than 5 Years
#1
Program Management and Program Design
Professional Services
#3
International Program Management
#5
US Program Management

4. www.aecom.com
aecom I advancing hydropower
Global Resources and Technical Expertise
Americas
Canada
Mexico
Latin America
United States
U.K./Europe
CIS
England
France
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Poland
Scotland
Asia-Pacific
Australia
China
Hong Kong
Malaysia
New Zealand
Singapore
Middle East/Africa
Afghanistan
Egypt
Iraq
Kuwait
Libya
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
45,000 Staff 500+ Offices More Than 125 Countries

5. North America Locations
Denver,
Colorado
Montreal,
Quebec
New York, NY

6. Photo credit: Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
World Trade Center, New York City, U.S.A.
Services: Construction manager | Site and streetscape design
for our clients’
most important
projects,

7. all over the world,
2012 London Olympics Masterplan, London, United Kingdom Services: Masterplanning

8. in your region,
Grand-Mere Powerhouse (230 MW), Quebec, Canada: Engineering | Planning | Construction Observation | Construction Administration

9. April 2014
Total Watershed Management --
The Colorado River

10. April 2014
Annual Precipitation

11. Glen Canyon Dam

12. Hoover Dam

13. Colorado River Basin Overview
• Over 1,450 miles in length
• Basin makes up about 12% of total U.S.
lands
• 60 MAF of total storage
• Average annual inflow of 15 MAF
• Irrigates 3 million acres
• Serves 30 million people
• Generates 10 billion KWh of electricity
• Provides more than 30 million visitor-
days of recreation

14. Background: Key Elements of the
Law of the River
• Colorado River Compact, 1922
• Boulder Canyon Project Act, 1928
• Mexican Water Treaty, 1944
• Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, 1948
• Colorado River Storage Project Act, 1956
• Supreme Court Decree, Arizona v. California, 1964
• Colorado River Basin Project Act, 1968
IIa

15. Meeting Short and Long Term
Challenges
• Storage
– Dams and Reservoirs
• Operations
– Coordinated Operations and Reservoirs
– Interim Surplus Guidelines
– Shortage Guidelines
• Conservation Actions
– Canal Lining
– Water Transfers
– Offstream Banking

16. Colorado River Operations
and Hydrology

17. Historic Colorado River Water Supply & Use
(Annual)

18. 14%
51.75%
11.25%
23%
2.8 maf
300,000 af
4.4 maf

19. Colorado River Demands by State
Colorado
Arizona
California
Nevada
New
Mexico
Utah
Mexico

20. Colorado River Basin
Hydrology
• 16.5 million acre-feet (maf)
allocated annually
• 13 to 14.5 maf of consumptive
use annually
• 60 maf of storage
• 15.0 maf average annual
“natural” inflow into Lake Powell
over past 100 years
• Inflows are highly variable
year-to-year

21. Natural Flow
Colorado River at Lees Ferry Gaging Station, Arizona
Water Year 1906 to 2013
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
AnnualFlow(MAF)
Water Year
Colorado River at Lees Ferry, AZ - Natural Flow
Average 10-yr Average
Provisional data, subject to change Estimated values for 2009-2011

22. Colorado River Drought
• 2000-2013 was the driest 12-year period in the
100-year historical record (WYs 2009 and 2010
data are estimated)
• Tree-ring reconstructions show more severe
droughts have occurred over the past 1200
years (e.g., drought in the mid 1100s)
• Observed 2013 April through July runoff was
163% of average as of September 6
• Not unusual to have a few years of above
average inflow during longer-term droughts
(e.g., the 1950s)

23. Colorado River Basin Storage
(as of September 11, 2013)
Current Storage
Percent
Full
MAF
Elevation
(Feet)
Lake Powell 73% 17.75 3,654
Lake Mead 49% 12.80 1,114
Total System
Storage*
65% 38.85 NA
*Total system storage was 33.50 maf or 56% this time last year

24. April 2014
Watershed Management -- The Colorado River
Minute 319

25. As part of the ongoing dialogue on Colorado River issues,
delegations from the United States and Mexico worked over
three years to reach an agreement on a set of cooperative
measures for management for the next five years.
Principals to the agreement: Seven Colorado River Basin
states, representatives from the U.S. Department of State and
the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. IBWC, Mexico IBWC,
and Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner.
Minute 319 demonstrates commitment and the potential
opportunities for future cooperation between the United
States and Mexico on water conservation, system operations,
environmental restoration, and new water sources projects.

26. The five-year agreement approved by both governments
provides for a series of joint cooperative actions between
the United States and Mexico. Elements of the agreement
include:
•Implementing efforts to enhance water infrastructure and
promote sharing, storing, and conserving water as needed
during both shortages and surpluses;
•Establishing proactive basin operations by applying water
delivery reductions when Lake Mead reservoir conditions
are low in order to deter more severe reductions in the
future;
•Promoting the ecological health of the Colorado River
Delta;

27. •Extending humanitarian measures from a 2010 agreement,
Minute 318, to allow Mexico to defer delivery of a portion of its
Colorado River allotment while it continues to make repairs to
earthquake-damaged infrastructure;
•Establishing a program of Intentionally Created Mexican
Allocation (ICMA) whereby Mexico could temporarily reduce
its order of Colorado River water, allowing that water to be
delivered to Mexico in the future;
Establishes a pilot exchange program under which U.S.
entities assist in funding water infrastructure and
environmental projects in Mexico. These investments provide
water benefits to the U.S. agencies in exchange for their
funding and generate water for Mexico.

28. Partnerships and Many Meetings
Seven Basin States
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
International Boundary and Water Commission,
U.S. and Mexico

29. WaterSMART
Secure and Manage America’s Resources for
Tomorrow

30. WaterSMART
(Sustain and Manage America’s Resources for Tomorrow)
Established by Secretarial Order 3297 in
February 2010:
“To secure and stretch water supplies for
use by existing and future generations to
benefit people, the economy, and the
environment…”

31. Reclamation’s WaterSMART Programs
• Climate Change Studies and Adaptation
– West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments
– Basin Studies
– Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
• Water Conservation and Water Management
– WaterSMART Grants
– Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program
– Cooperative Watershed Management Program
• WaterSMART Clearinghouse

32. The Secure Water Act
(Subtitle F of Title IX of P.L. 111-11, March 2009)
• Authorized creation of Climate Adaptation Program
• Expanded authorization for water management
improvements
• Requires reporting to Congress on impacts to water
supply
• Addresses water data enhancement by the USGS

33. SECURE Water Act Report
• In April of 2011 Reclamation submitted the
first report to Congress required by Section
9503(c) of the SECURE Water Act.
• The report includes present quantitative projections of future
temperature, precipitation, snowpack, and water supplies; as well as
a qualitative discussion of impacts to future demands, water
deliveries, floods, ecological issues, and hydropower across eight
major Reclamation river basins developed through the WWCRAs.
• Future reports under the SECURE Water Act will incorporate more
information developed through the Basin Studies as they are
completed.

34. Reclamation Components of
WaterSMART
• WaterSMART Grants
– Water and Energy Efficiency
– System Optimization Review
– Advanced Water Treatment
– Climate Analysis Tools
• Basin Study Program
– Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
– West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments
– Basin Studies
• Title XVI
• Cooperative Watershed Management Program
• WaterSMART Clearinghouse

35. Basin Study Program
• West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments
• Basin Studies
– Basin Studies
• Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

36. Risks Impacts
Adaptation
/ Mitigation
Feasibility
WWCRA Basin Studies and
LCCs
Basin Study Program

37. West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments
• Conducted by Reclamation
• Reconnaissance-level water supply and demand analyses in eight
Reclamation river basins
• Projections of climate change impacts to water supply and demand
and baseline risk assessments to evaluate the impacts of climate
change to water uses
• Baseline for more in-depth analyses performed through Basin
Studies

38. Basin Studies
• Purpose  to work with state and local partners in the 17 Western
States to evaluate future water supply and demand imbalances in a
changing climate
• Basin Studies Include:
– Assessments of the risks and impacts of
climate change on water resources, and
– Development of potential mitigation and
adaptation strategies to meet future demands

39. FY 2011 Basin Studies Highlights
• Reclamation selected four full Basin Studies and three
plans of study in FY 2011, for a total of over $1.8 million
in Federal funding.
• The Yakima River Basin Study was completed in FY
2011, and a final report addressing the requirements of
Section 9503 of the SECURE Water Act has been
completed.
• In June of 2011 Reclamation released the first Colorado
River Basin Study Interim Report. The interim report
provides a quantified assessment of four water supply
scenarios.

40. April 2014
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program
Watershed Conflicts -- Stakeholder Cooperation

41. Glen Canyon Dam and Powerplant
Concrete Arch Dam
• 710 feet high
• 26.5 MAF Storage
• Eight Francis turbines
• 1,320 MW capacity
Located in Page, Arizona
Colorado River
Lake Powell

43. Legal/Policy Background
• 1963 Glen Canyon Dam completed
• 1970s Initial concern over dam effects
• 1989 EIS initiated on operation of GCD
• 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act
• 1995 EIS completed
• 1994 FWS Biological Opinion
• 1996 ROD signed
• 1997 AMWG chartered

44. Resource Conflicts Below
Glen Canyon Dam
1952 1995
Fine Sediment and Beaches

45. Biological Opinion on the Operation of
Glen Canyon Dam
Fish and Wildlife Service
1994
Humpback chub Razorback sucker
Endangered Species

46. Expected outcome of ROD operations
• No change to Compact
water deliveries
• Minimum reduction of
power benefits to
achieve ecosystem
goals
• Benefit native and
endangered species
• Positive sand
storage and
improved physical
habitat
• Protection of tribal
cultural resources
• Improve aquatic and
terrestrial resources
• Recreation –
increased safety and
improved experience

47. Did everyone agree? No
• 9 alternatives considered in the EIS
• Ranged from maximizing hydropower
to seasonally adjusted steady flows
• FWS issued jeopardy Biological
Opinion
• Stalemate and deadlock
• Compromise: adaptive management

48. Adaptive Management Process
Assess Problem
Design
Management Plan
Implement Plan
Monitor
Evaluate
Adjust
Stakeholder
Input

49. Structure of the GCDAMP
Secretary of
the Interior
Adaptive Management
Work Group
GCMRC
Technical
Work Group
Independent
Review Panel(s)
Designee

50. AMP stakeholders
• 5 DOI agencies (USBR, USGS, FWS, NPS,
BIA) and DOE (WAPA)
• 7 Colorado River Basin States (WY, CO,
UT, NM, AZ, NV, CA) and AZ Game and Fish
• 5 Indian tribes (Hopi, Paiute, Hualapai,
Navajo, Zuni)
• 2 Power user groups (CREDA and UAMPS)
• 2 Recreation groups (Grand Canyon River
Guides and Federation of Flyfishers)
• 2 Environmental groups (Grand Canyon
Trust and Grand Canyon Wildlands Council)

51. Is it working?
• Knowledge improvement
• Resource status
• Stakeholder cooperation

52. Knowledge improvement
• Science institution in USGS
• Competitive awarding of contracts (peer review)
• Development of conceptual models
• Careful consideration of Adaptive Management
program protocols
– How should managers and scientists interact?
– How should recommendations or decisions be made?
– External protocol evaluation panels
– Oversight from Science Advisors

53. High Flow Test

54. Status of selected resources
• Water compact requirements
continue to be met
• Greater aquatic productivity in the
Lees Ferry reach
• Increased Lees Ferry rainbow
trout and more trout throughout the
Grand Canyon
• Increasing population of
endangered humpback chub
• Temporary beach-building
followed by ongoing erosion of
sediment resources and cultural
resource sites

55. Stakeholder Cooperation
• Disparate interests and values remain, but
willing to engage, discuss and plan
• Major experiments agreed to and
recommended to Secretary of the Interior
• Willingness to look beyond dam
operations for resource protection
• Development of comprehensive plan for
humpback chub recovery actions

56. Watershed Management - Conclusion
• Stakeholder Cooperation
• Long-Term Commitment to Process
• Willingness to Look Beyond Your Own
Agenda
• Willingness to Look at Other Point of View

57. Thank you.
April 29, 2014