1102-0004-92-038
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
ARKANSAS RIVER WATER NEEDS ASSESSMENT U.S.D.I. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
U.S.D.I. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CO-050-1P8-8350
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The Arkansas River and its relatedreservoirs between Leadville and Pueblo are an important hydrological, biological, and recreational resource. Competing demands for water have made it necessary for management agencies to thoroughly understand and carefully weigh the tradeoffs associated with decisions that affect water uses, stream flows, and reservoir levels. Current and comprehensive information is
essential to support sound decision making.
The study area for the Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment comprises Twin Lakes, Turquoise and Clear Creek Reservoirs; the mainstem of the Arkansas River downstream from Leadville to the dam at Pueblo Reservoir; and Pueblo Reservoir.
The Parties to this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) affirm the need for
cooperation and collaboration in developing an understanding of the water resource values, as identified herein, and related management objectives within the study area. The Parties, acknowledging their various authorities and management
responsibilities, agree to design and conduct cooperative evaluations of water-dependent resource values within the study area.
The Parties affirm that the Colorado Constitution recognizes the doctrine of prior appropriation as the principle means of allocating the usage of the waters of the State. Around this doctrine a body of law has been developed to protect property rights in water usage, including the right to determine management practices that are in the best interests of water right holders. The Parties recognize that numerous water rights exist and are held by various entities whose interests lie within the study area and who rely upon these protections. The Parties agree that the Water Needs Assessment should not be used to justify actions that result in injury to water right owners.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of the Water Needs Assessment is to provide useful information (a data base) about resource needs, water use constraints, and management
opportunities to planners and decision makers. Specific objectives of the Assessment are:
1. Develop an understanding of the hydrology and geomorphology
of the river, and the reservoir operations that affect the river flows.
2.
Develop an understanding of the relationships between streamf lows, reservoir levels, and the resource values they affect. The resource values to be considered include: fish and wildlife habitat; fishing recreation; boating recreation; water quality; riparian habitat; and aesthetics.
3. Identify and evaluate the management opportunities
and strategies to prcivide water for maintaining and improving the resource values.
4. Determine the physical, legal, and institutional
factors that influence the ability to implement the management opportunities and strategies.
2 RESPONSIBILITIES
1. In order to meet these objectives, the Parties agree to develop an Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment Project statement of Work. The Statement will be a plan of study that includes the following investigations:
(a) preliminary assessment and detailed study design; (b) hydrologic investigation of streamf
low and reservoir levels;
(c) evaluation of flow- and reservoir level- dependent resource values and the flows and levels required to support those values;
(d) analysis of the legal and institutional framework for providing stream flows and maintaining reservoir levels; and
(e)
presentation of opportunities for providing and maintaining desired flows and water levels, including scenarios that describe tradeoffs associated with a range of management options.
2. The Parties are to meet as necessary to develop the study design, coordinate work on the study, and evaluate progress. Each signer of this MOU will designate a person to act in their behalf. Exhibit 1 lists the persons responsible for
coordinating the study activities included in this MOU.
3. The Parties will discuss and concur on specific work tasks to be performed under this MOU. The Parties will address other study-related matters, such as
administration, subcontracting, and publications, in the Project Statement of Work. 4. The Parties agree to cooperate in supporting this project through funding, personnel, and other means; however, this MOU does not commit any Party to any specific commitment of funds, personnel, or other assistance. Participation by the Parties in the Water Needs Assessment will reflect their expertise and their ability to participate given the resources available to them processes. through normal budget
5. The Parties agree to consult with and keep informed the water users,
recreational interests, local governments, and others during the development and implementation of the Water Needs Assessment.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. This memorandum shall be effective from the date of latest signature and shall continue in force for a period of five years unless mutually or unilaterally
terminated.
2. Any party may withdraw from this MOU upon thirty (30) days notice to the other signatory agencies. Any separate Purchase Order or Contract entered into relating to this memorandum shall not affect this memorandum.
3. Changes or modifications of this memorandum may be initiated by any party. The changes or modification shall not be incorporated until all Parties agree, they are specified in an amendment to the memorandum, and signed by all
Parties.
4. No member of or delegate to Congress, or resident commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of the MOU, or to any benefit that may arise
therefrom; but this provision shall not be construed to extend to this MOU if made with a corporation for its general benefit.
3 5. During the performance of activities and projects initiated pursuant to this MOU, or any separate agreement entered into pursuant to this MOU, the Parties agree to abide by the terms of Executive Order 11246 on non-discrimination and will not discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Parties will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
SIGNATURES
017\02---
)
7
92_
U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management
Date State Director, Colorado
U.S.D.I. Bureau of Reclamation Date
Regional Director, Great Plains Region
U. .D.A. Forest Service
Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region
July 22, 1992
g
qz--Date
_-) Colorado Department of Natural Resources Date Executive Director
C.
•••
4 Exhibit 1
The following persons will be responsible for coordinating the study activities included in the MOU for the Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment.
For the U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management:
name Pete Zwaneveld
address Royal Gorge Resource Area
P.O. Box 2200
Canon City, CO 81215-2200
telephone (719) 275-0631
For the U.S.D.I. Bureau of Reclamation:
name A. Jack Garner/Roger Weidelman telephone (303) 667-4410 address Eastern Colorado Projects Office
11056 West County Road 18E Loveland CO 80537-9711
For the U.S.D.A. Forest Service: name Marsha Kearney
address Pike & San Isabels NF's
1920 Valley Drive Pueblo, CO 81008
telephone (719) 545-8737
For the Colorado Department of Natural Resources: name Steve Morris
1313 Sherman Rm 718 address
Denver, CO 80302
telephone 303 866-3311
Duplicate pages
not
scanned
See originals in folder
Water Resources Archive
Arkansas River Basin/SECWCD Water and Storage Needs Assessment
Local Participants
Bessemer Irrigating Ditch Co. City of Las Animas
Arkansas Groundwater Users Association City of Lamar
Holbrook Mutual Irrigating Company City of Canon City
City of Fountain
Widefield Water and Sanitation District Colorado Canal Co.
St. Charles Mesa Water District Pueblo Board of Water Works City of Florence
City of Rocky Ford
City of Colorado Springs Utilities Water Resources Department Security Water and Sanitation District
Catlin Canal Co. Public Service Co.
Stratmoor Hills Water and Sanitation District
Colorado Water Protective and Development Association City of Aurora
City of La Junta City of Salida
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District LAWMA
Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District Pueblo West Metro District
Fort Lyon Canal Company
Verbal Commitment Penrose Water District
.1, Southeastern Colorado Water and Storage
Needs Assessment Enterprise
Project Time-Line (Draft)
Work Team / Storage Study Committee Preliminary Work—
February 14- Storage Study Committee/Local Participants Approves
Scope of Work, RFQ and Selection Process
February 14-Issue Request for Qualifications to Contractor List
February 20- Enterprise Board Approval of Scope of Work
March 3- RFQ Responses Due
March 7-14 Project Work Team Designees Score SOQs-Due Mar. 14
March 17—Storage Study Committee/Local Participants Review Scoring
and Recommended Bidder and Review Draft RFP (Mtg)
March 18—Release RFP to Selected Bidders at Q&A Meeting(Mtg)
April 11- Due Date for RFP Responses
April 14-18—Work Team Review RFP Responses (Mtg)
April 24 or 25- Work Team Interview Bidders and Develop
Recommendation for Contractor Negotiations (Mtg)
May 6 or 7-Storage Study Committee/Local Participants Review Work
Team Recommendation and Finalize for Enterprise Board Action (Mtg)
May 15- Enterprise Board takes Action on Recommendation to Begin
Contract Negotiations with Selected Contractor (Mtg)
May 16-Notify Successful Bidder and Others, and Begin Contract Negotiations
May 29 or 30- Storage Study Committee Reviews Final Contract and
Make Recommendation to Enterprise Board (Mtg) June 19- Enterprise Board Takes Action on Contract
June 20- Contractor Begins Work on Assessment Project
Contractor / Work Team Assessment Project
Work-(8 to 12 months to complete the Project--Final Report due May 21, 1998)
June- Work Team Meets with Contractor to Review Scope of Work Priorities (Mtg)
August- Storage Study Committee/Local Participants-- Contractor Written Progress Report
September- Storage Study Committee/Local
Participants--Contractor Progress Report and September 18' Progress
Report to Enterprise Board (Mtg)
November- Storage Study Committee/Local Participants-- Contractor Written Progress Report
January '98- Storage Study Committee/Local Participants and Enterprise
Board--Contractor Progress Report (Mtg)
February '98- Contractor Provides 1st Draft of Water and Storage
Needs Assessment to Storage Study Committee/Local
Participants and Enterprise Board (Mtg)
February '98- Storage Study Committee/Local Participants Reviews Draft
Report (Mtg)
March '98 (first week)- Storage Study Committee/Local participants and Enterprise Board Provide Written Response to Contractor on Draft Report
April '98- Contractor Provides Final Draft Report to Storage Study Committee—Recommendation to Accept or Revise to
Enterprise Board (Mtg)
April '98- Enterprise Board Reviews Final Draft Report-Directs Committee
to Accept Report or Calls for Additional Revisions (Mtg)
May 21, 1998- Final Water and Storage Needs Assessment Report is
FINAL
DRAFT
March 19, 1997
SCOPE OF WORK
WATER AND STORAGE NEEDS ASSESSMENT
ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN
SOUTHEASTERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
The contractor shall complete the task as stated in this Scope of Work and present findings and recommendations concerning the future water and water storage requirements of the
entities identified on (Exhibit A).
1. Review of existing studies and reports for proper incorporation into the assessment.
Relevant existing information should be used whenever appropriate. The contractor shall review existing studies and reports for the proper incorporation into the assessment. The review shall include but not be limited to the studies and reports
identified on (Exhibit B).
2. Describe current water systems for municipal and industrial entities.
The contractor shall provide a description of each municipal and industrial entities current water system. Identify specific sources of water, water rights, conveyance facilities, treatment facilities, and storage facilities. The contractor shall document each municipal and industrial entities firm yield for the period 1966-1995. The contractor shall document the water usage over the most recent ten years for each municipal entity, and determine the current per capita water usage.
3. Population projections.
The contractor shall obtain the Colorado State Demographers population projections and any population projections available from the municipal entities, reconcile such projections, and project the population growth for each municipal
entity for the years 2000, 2010, 2020 and 2040.
4. Agricultural water use.
The contractor shall compile from existing official records and other reports, by source, the monthly use of supplemental water, and total headgate diversions of each agricultural entity, including groundwater diversions for the period 1966-1995. The contractor shall determine the storage requirements of the agricultural entities that store Winter Storage Program water in Pueblo Reservoir, and the replacement water demand and storage requirements for irrigation well augmentation. The contractor shall provide annual estimates of acreage served by each agricultural entity for the period 1966-1995. The contractor shall use the current agricultural demand for future water and water storage demand projections.
5. Determine current and potential water conservation efforts.
The contractor shall identify current and potential water conservation efforts of the
entities and present findings and recommendations concerning the effectiveness of such efforts in providing additional water for future municipal and agricultural demands. The contractor shall consult with the CWCB Office of Water Conservation in identifying current and potential water conservation efforts.
6. Project monthly water demand through year 2040 for each municipal and industrial entity.
The contractor shall present findings and recommendations concerning the monthly water demand for each municipal and industrial entity for the years 2000, 2010, 2020 and 2040.
7. Compare monthly water use projections with current system monthly firm yield for each entity.
The contractor shall compare the monthly water use projections with the current monthly firm yield for each entity.
8. Determine the need for additional water supplies for each entity.
The contractor shall present findings and recommendations concerning the need for additional water supplies for each entity. The contractor shall recognize that the
availability of supplemental water for agriculture may be diminished in the future
due to increases in municipal demands for supplemental water. 9. Determine the storage requirements for each entity.
The contractor shall present findings and recommendations concerning the monthly
storage requirements for each entity for the years 2000, 2010, 2020 and 2040.
10. Determine the extent to which Fryinpan-Arkansas Project supplies and facilities assist in meeting projected demands.
The contractor shall present findings and recommendations concerning the extent to which Fryingpan-Arkansas Project supplies and facilities assist in meeting projected demands under the current provisions of the Contract between the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the operating principles of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, and the
allocation principles and policies of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy
District. The contractor shall also identify any alternatives to the current operations of Project facilities that will assist in meeting projected demands.
,
11. Perform reconnaissance level investigations of potential water storage and supply
alternatives.
The contractor shall perform reconnaissance level investigations of potential water storage and supply alternatives. The alternatives shall include but not limited to those identified on (Exhibit C). The contractor shall describe and evaluate each alternative by determining potential size, cost and yield.
12. Identify factors to be considered for each water storage and supply alternative.
The contractor shall identify factors which will need to be considered for each water storage and supply alternative. These factors should include but not limited to, Colorado water law, the Arkansas River Compact, socioeconomic factors, water quality issues, and other permitting and regulatory requirements.
.. ,
f
Muncipal Entities
City of Salida City of Canon City Park Center Water District City of Florence
Penrose Water District City of Colorado Springs Stratmoor Hills Water District
Widefield Water and Sanitation District Security Water District
City of Fountain
Pueblo Board of Water Works Pueblo West Metropolitan District St. Charles Mesa Water District Crowley County Water Association Town of Ordway
Town of Fowler City of Rocky Ford City of La Junta
Bents Fort Water Association Town of Las Animas City of Lamar
May Valley Water Association
The Following Municipal Entities Should be Aggregated in Their Respective Counties Chaffe County
Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District Town of Poncha Springs
Fremont County
Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District Brookside Water Company
Orchard Park Water Company • East Florence Water Company Pueblo County
Avondale Water and Sanitation District Town of Boone
O'Neal Water Works Joseph Water Company Sunset View Water Association Crowley County
Crowley County Water System Town of Crowley
96 Pipeline
Town of Olney Springs Town of Sugar City Otero County Town of Cheraw Town of Manzanola Town of Swink
Beehive Water Company East End Water Company Eureka Water Company Fayette Water Association Hancock Water Company
Exhibit A
Hilltop Water Company Holbrook Center Soft Water Homestead Improvement Hunnicutt Water Company
Newdale-Grand Valley Water Company North Holbrook Water Company Parkdale Water Company
Patterson Valley Water Association Riverside Water Company
Southside Water Association South Swink Water Company Valley Water Company Vroman Water Company West Grand Valley Inc.
Bent County
Fort Lyon VA Medical Center Hasty Water Company. McClave Water Association Prowers & Kiciwa Counties Town of Eads
Town of Wiley
Prosperity Lane Water Association
Municipal Entities Outside District Boundaries City of Aurora-The contractor shall not determine current water use or the future water and water storage needs for the City of Aurora, but will take into consideration water storage requirements in the Arkansas River Basin as provided by the City of Aurora. _
Industrial Entities
Public Service Company Agricultural Entities
Bessemer Irrigating Ditch Company Excelsior Ditch Company
Colorado Canal Company
Rocky Ford High Line Canal Company Oxford Farmers Ditch Company Otero Ditch Company
Catlin Canal Company
Holbrook Mutual Ditch Company Fort Lyon Canal Company
Las Animas Consolidated Ditch Company Arkansas Ground Water Users Association
Colorado Water Protective and Development Association Fort Lyon Well Users Group
Lower Arkansas Water Management Association* Irrigated Area above Pueb;o-as an aggregate* Irrigated Area Fountain Creek-as an aggregate*
* Only those irrigated lands within the Boundaries of the SEC WCD
, ..
Exhibit B
Relevant Documents, Studies and Reports
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy Districts Contract with the United States
Bureau of Reclamation
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy Districts decrees for the Fryingpan-Arkansas
Project, the Sangre De Cristo Power System, and the Winter Water Storage Program.
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy Districts Water Allocation Principles and Policies.
Rewiew of Operations - Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Colorado - September 1990
Prepared by United States Department of the Interior - Bureau of Reclamation
In cooperation with - Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District Report on Arkansas Valley Conduit - 1972
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Four Corners Regional Commission and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
V .
Exhibit C
POTENTIAL WATER STORAGE AND SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES 1. Develop long term If-and-When contracts through United States Bureau of
Reclamation.
2. Allow for storage of Non-Project water in dedicated Project space under a permanent contract.
3. Re-allocation of Project storage space and spill priority. 4. Re-allocation of John Martin Reservoir Flood Pool.
5. Interruptible supply concept with agriculture and municipal cooperation. 6. Project Water Storage in Lake Meredith.
7. Lake Meredith enlargement 8. CF&I storage reservoirs.
9. Leadville storage site - Pueblo Board of Water Works 10. Halfrnoon new storage right
11. Fryingpan.-Arkansas Project storage decrees for power. 12. 4-Mile and Badger Creek upper basin storage.
13. Expansion of facilities throughout system. 14. Underground storage recharge.
,
3,azz1 PROJECT STATEMENT OF WORK
COLoRADO WATER
ARKANSAS RIVER WATER NEEDS ASSESSMENI CONSERVANCY Dar=
SPONSORING AGENCIES: USDI Bureau of Land Management
USDI Bureau of Reclamation USDA Forest Service
Colorado Department of Natural Resources
August, 1993
MAR
15 1994
•
•••••••••••• • .• •••••••••••
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purpose and Objectives 1
Existing Management and Institutional Framework 2
Approach to the Assessment 5
Project Controls and Deliverables..•••••••••••••••••.••••••••• OOOOO • ...7 Appendixes
Appendix A.: Schedule 1993-98... ... . OOOOOOOOOO ...8
Appendix B: Cost/Labor Estimates 15
• •
...•••••••••••
Appendix C: Team Responsibilities 23
In July and August 1992, managers from the sponsoring agencies signed an MOU authorizing a water needs assessment for the Arkansas River, in accordance with established management direction for the River. The results of several scoping meetings and additional coordination with agency personnel were used to develop the following statement of work. The statement addresses a six year effort to provide a report documenting river flow and reservoir level information for specific resource values and opportunities for improving the management of those values. This assessment and its findings will fully recognize the existing system of water law and other leoal obligations. In addition, every attempt will be made to coordinate this assessment with other studies to ensure efficiency in data collection and analysis.
Specific contents of this statement of work are: (1) purpose of the assessment and project objectives; (2) management justification describing the scope of the assessment and the management situation; (3) general approach to conducting the assessment; and (4) identification of project controls (e.g., cost estimates, schedules, personnel). An interdisciplinary team approach is suggested by this statement of work; the team being comprised of principle agency personnel, and may include additional input from contractors and/or other agencies.
Purpose and Objectives
The Arkansas River and its related reservoirs between Leadville and Pueblo is an important hydrological, biological and recreational resource. Competing demands for water have made it necessary for management agencies to thoroughly understand and carefully weigh the tradeoffs associated with decisions that affect water uses, stream flows, and reservoir levels. Current and comprehensive information is essential to support sound decision making.
The Arkansas River is the major drainage system in southeastern Colorado. Its headwaters are located in the Sawatch and Mosquito Ranges near Leadville, and Sangre de Cristo Mountains southwest of Canon City. In the upper basin, within Lake County, are three storage reservoirs of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project: Twin Lakes and Turquoise Reservoirs and Mount Elbert Forebay. The Pueblo Water Board also operates a small storage reservoir on Clear Creek. From the Leadville area, the River flows in a southerly direction through Browns Canyon and turns east as it flows from Salida towards Canon City. The 'landscape is rugged as the river flows between narrow canyons and open parks. Below Canon City, the river enters the eastern plains landscape' as it continues its course towards Pueblo Reservoir. The assessment area comprises Twin Lakes, Turquoise and Clear Creek Reservoirs; the mainstem of the Arkansas River downstream from those reservoirs to Pueblo Reservoir; and Pueblo Reservoir, for a total of about 150 river miles (see Maps 1 and 2). The purpose of this assessment is to develop a clear understanding of the water resource conditions required to support resource values and management objectives related to a portion of the Arkansas River and its related reservoirs, as described 'above:
The primary objective of the Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment is to provide useful information about resource needs, water use constraints, and management opportunities to planners and decision makers. Specific objectives of the Assessment are:
(1) Develop an understanding of the hydrology and geomorphology of the river in conjunction with physical water management (i.e., streamflow, water storage, and release operations of the reservoirs).
(2) Develop an understanding of the relationships between streamflows, reservoir levels, and the resource values they affect. The resource values to be considered include: fish and wildlife habitat; recreational boating; fishing recreation; water quality; riparian habitat; and aesthetics.
(3) Analyze legal and institutional availability of water for management purposes.
. (4) Identify and explain opportunities for meeting the needs of water dependent resources in the river and the reservoirs.
Existing Management and Institutional Framework
Colorado water law, numerous plans, and institutional arrangements direct management of reservoir operations, water allocation, and natural resources in or adjacent to the Arkansas River. This legal and management framework identifies resource values and water management constraints to be considered in the assessment.
The Arkansas River streamflows include both native water originating within the Basin and West Slope (Colorado River Basin) water imported into the Basin by the Bureau of Reclamation's Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and several other non-Federal diversion projects. The operation of the trans-basin diversion projects and several reservoirs located in the Basin directly affects these streamflows. The Constitution of the State of Colorado recognizes the doctrine of prior appropriation as the principle means of allocating the usage of the waters of the State. Around this doctrine a body of law has been developed to protect property rights in water usage, including the right to determine management practices that are in the best interests of water right holders. Numerous water rights have been established by agricultural, municipal, industrial, and other interests with reliance upon this protection.
It is unlikely that any surface water remains available for appropriation in the Arkansas River Basin at this time. Water management in the Upper Arkansas River Basin is complex and highly regulated under the authority of the State Engineer (CRS 37-92-301 and 501 et. seq.). There may be opportunities, however, for maintaining and improving resource .values within the existing legal, institutional, and management framework. Arrangements have been negotiated in the past to enhance certain water-dependent resource values (i.e., fisheries and float-boating activities on the Arkansas River). The use of reservoir storage water for these purposes impacts the. water levels in the reservoirs from which the water is released. Negotiated agreements for reservoir releases, special-use permit stipulations, river exchanges, reservoir release substitutions, or point-of-diversion transfers are some of the options that may be available to preserve and enhance the various key resource values.
Fryincroan-Arkansas Project: The Bureau of Reclamation's Fryingpan-Arkansas Project was authorized by Congress "...for the purposes of supplying water for irrigation, municipal, domestic, and industrial uses., generating and transmitting hydroelectric power and energy, and controlling floods, and for other useful and beneficial purposes incidental thereto, including recreation and the conservation and development of fish and wildlife," (Act of August 16, 1962, P.L. 87-590, 76 Stat. 389). Users of Project water are located in the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Project reservoirs located in the Arkansas River Basin are Turquoise Lake and Twin Lakes near Leadville and Pueblo Reservoir near Pueblo. Recreation facilities and activities at the former two reservoirs are administered by the U.S. Forest Service and at the latter reservoir by the Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.
Arkansas River Recreation Manacement Plan: Under a cooperative management plan, the Bureau of Land Management and Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation recognize the interrelationships of recreation (e.g., boating, fishing) with the fisheries, aquatic habitats, aquatic ecosystems, riparian vegetation, and water quality of the Arkansas River. The agencies direct specific actions to maintain the quality of these resources. The Plan directs recreation management on the mainstem from Leadville to Pueblo Reservoir and lt recognizes the known and potential conflicts between resource users.
\ • . 0 tPD ci I D I north • • 11111' L.‘ 4,1111 . . R..0
•
•
• 3 1.1 ! 7 i-j. • I • I I 4 CANON CITYEP
.
\
, \\
•
• ARKANSAS RIVER '\:1..; 0 ; , a ,\ \•.,,\ a • • a • a \, \ .„MAP
2
ARKANSAS
RIVER
WATER
NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
•••••• •••• ••• Di Features Map of the Upper Arkansas River Valley Bureau of Land Management Forest Service State --- rivers/streams --- highways/roads IP communities -r Du a : El PUEBLO RES . 0 8 a.. • 11 1nip
nTD
PUEBLO ea ••• •••••
Pike and San Isabel National Forest Plan: This U.S. Forest Service land-use plan provides general direction for water resources, including management adjacent to Twin Lakes and Turquoise Reservoirs. Specific management goals are to provide healthy, self-perpetuating plant communities, meet water quality standards, provide habitats for viable populations of wildlife and fish, and provide stable stream channels and still water-body shorelines. An earlier agreement with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation states that efforts will be made to maintain specified minimum pool elevations for Turquoise Reservoir, however, project needs could dictate further lowering (1976 Memorandum of Understanding) . This agreement also states that the Forest Service is responsible for administration and management of all recreation activities associated with the water surface of Turquoise Reservoir.
Lake Pueblo State Park Management Plan: This Plan governs the management of the 4,646 surface acre reservoir and its adjacent lands. The reservoir is part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, operated by the Bureau of Reclamation. Goals of the management plan are to maintain: safe water-based recreation activities, a variety of complimentary land-based recreation facilities, the quality of the reservoir fishery, and the viability of reservoir based concessionaires. Management is by agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation.
Division of Wildlife Management Guidelines for Ulmer Arkansas River Basin: Under these guidelines, the Division of Wildlife has set management objectives for the upper Arkansas River, upper Fryingpan-Arkansas Reservoirs, and Pueblo Reservoir. Direction for the mainstem is to optimize the production of self-reproducing brown trout populations and encourage the development of self-reproducing rainbow trout fisheries. Within the basin the Division will maintain healthy populations of bighorn sheep, deer, turkey, and waterfowl, while also protecting and enhancing blue herons, peregrine falcons, and bald eagles. For the upper reservoirs, the objective is to sustain and develop lake trout populations. The objective for Pueblo Reservoir is to optimize the production of warm water fish populations.
Approach to the Assessment
The approach involves five steps: (1) preliminary evaluation and design of specific studies; (2) hydrologic investigation of stream flows and reservoir levels; (3) evaluation of river flow- and reservoir level-dependent values and the water required to support those values; (4) analysis of the legal and institutional framework for providing stream flows and reservoir levels; and (5) presentation of opportunities for providing desired flows and water levels, including scenarios that describe tradeoffs associated with a range of management options.
Preliminary Assessment
The preliminary assessment involves a thorough review of literature, discussions with pertinent field personnel, and a reconnaissance-level field assessment. Aerial photographs and maps are used to assist with designing specific studies. During this step, any necessary interagency cooperative agreements will be arranged, and specific techniques or methods will be selected. This step will involve careful coordination with sponsoring agency's field personnel and other affected agencies, including offices of the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Colorado Department of Health. The result of the preliminary assessment should be documented summaries of literature reviews and selected methods.
Hydrologic Investigation
The hydrologic investigation will include analysis of historic streamflow and reservoir operations data to determine typical and extreme levels of river flow and reservoir storage contents. This data is relatively abundant in the Basin and will be analyzed to determine historical trends reflective of water management and use. Reservoir operation and river flow models may be used to simulate various manacement opportunities. Water-quality models may be used to simulate conditions that may be expected to occur due to changes in contaminant loading and reservoir operations within the Basin. The hycrolcgic investigation
will provide the physical and chemical resource background for analyzing the water, both river and reservoir, dependency of the resource values identified in the next step. The results of the hydrologic investigation will be documented as part of the description of existing water management.
Resource Values Assessment
Resource values are evaluated relative to dependence on reservoir levels, river flows or other water-related conditions. This step involves close interaction between resource disciplines represented on the project team. Results of the hydrologic investigation, including hydraulic, geomorphic, and chemical analyses, are used in conjunction with evaluations of resource values to develop resource-specific river flow and reservoir level requirements. Data collection needed to supplement available literature and other information will be performed during this step. The results of resource assessments will be documented as water needs for specific resource values.
The approach will be to evaluate and identify reservoir levels and river flows to support the following:
Fisheries - flow requirements for brown trout fishery and to develop the rainbow trout fishery in the Arkansas River
- upper reservoir levels and conditions to sustain and develop lake and rainbow trout populations
- Pueblo reservoir levels and conditions for black bass and crappie warm water fish production
Wildlife - flow and Pueblo Reservoir level requirements to maintain habitat for heron populations
- reservoir levels to maintain waterfowl and shorebird populations
- flows and reservoir levels to protect bighorn sheep,
peregrine falcons, bald eagles, osprey, golden eagles, and other sensitive, threatened, or endangered species; and maintain habitat associated with these animals
Boating - flows for various types of experiences and boats on the river
- flows for boating safety on the river
- reservoir levels for navigability and accessibility (e.g., shorelines, docks)
- Pueblo Reservoir levels for types of craft and experiences - reservoir levels for adequate boater access
Fishing - flows and reservoir levels required for various types of fishing opportunities
- reservoir levels for access to shorelines
Water flows and reservoir operations that may indirectly affect Quality resource values (e.g., macroinvertebrates, primary
productivity, water quality standards) by substantially changing water quality
Riparian/ - flows required to maintain significant areas of riparian Wetlands woody species
- upper reservoir levels that may be required to maintain vegetation in support of aesthetic values
- reservoir levels to maintain waterfowl populations
- flows and levels that may be required to protect candidate sensitive, threatened and endangered species
Aesthetics - upper reservoir levels required for desirable shoreline conditions
Legal and Institutional Analysis
Existing and prospective water management will be described and used to evaluate both the legal and institutional availability of water, which may be used to
implement alternative management opportunities. Political considerations are also included in the analysis so that water management opportunities developed in the next step are both realistic and feasible. The result of this analysis documents water management options tor botn t e river and reservoirs.
Summary and Conclusions
The final step integrates the resource-value assessment with the legal and institutional analysis to produce a summary of findings and opportunities in support of future river and reservoir management decisions. Developing a summary involves evaluating and blending technical, administrative, and legal information in a way that maintains or enhances reservoir level- and river flow-dependent resource values. Any opportunities for water management must be realistic, administratively feasible, and as flexible as possible to fully recognize all interests in water supplies. Other considerations not directly related to flows and reservoir levels, may be addressed, such as suggested management actions for additional resource protection or studies needed to further evaluate resource conditions and management opportunities. The results of this step will summarize and document the conclusions of the assessment and, thus, completes the comprehensive water needs assessment.
Project Controls and Deliverables
A project completion report describing the hydrology, water-management situation, water dependent resource values, reservoir level and flow values, and possible water management options will be submitted on or before
October 1, 1998. Copies of the project completion report and any interim reports will be sent to designated offices of the sponsoring agencies. A
mailing list for the reports will be prepared under the direction of the sponsoring agencies.
Project schedules and cost estimates are located in Appendices A and B. This information will be used for annual work planning purposes and to monitor project expenditures. The estimates of workmonths or labor costs generally assumes that time required for this project is within the agencies' current capabilities. Some of the work planned in this document is associated with ongoing studies that agencies are or maybe conducting. Appendix C identifies the required positions and anticipated responsibilities for accomplishing this project on schedule. Progress will be evaluated using the information in these appendices and written progress reports will be prepared annually. More frequent progress reports or project updates will be made at least verbally to sponsoring agency coordinators. All field data will be collected using standardized procedures and stored in hard copy and automated formats. Backup copies of field forms and data diskettes will be available to sponsoring agency offices.
The successful completion of this project will require extensive interagency cooperation between State and Federal agencies. Because this cooperation is critical to the success of the project, a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the sponsoring agencies was signed for the specific purpose of completing this Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment. This project will be managed according to the agreements outlined in the MOU (Appendix D).
The final report is not a decision document and should only be used to support future management decisions and strategies of appropriate agencies and institutions. Any future management actions supported by the final report will require compliance with Federal (e.g., National Environmental Protection Act) and State laws.
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 APPENDIX A
Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment Project Schedule
OVERVIEW
• .. •...Initiate Biological evaluation
• • O ... ... Issue Statement of Work
... ... Conduct Reconnaissance Team Meeting •.. ...Draft River/Reservoir Operations • • ... .. • ...Initiate Recreation Assessment
Initiate Hydro/Water Assessment ▪ ... ... Conduct Project Team Meeting
Draft Introduction, Objectives, etc. Draft Water Use Analysis
.. ...Complete Recreation Assessment•
• ... . .. ...Complete Hydro/Water Assessment
• ••...•• ...Complete Biological evaluation ••... . • . • ...Conduct Project Team Meeting
Analyze Multi-value flows and Opportunities Finalize Results for Conclusion
• ... ...Compile Draft Sections
Complete Draft Report • ... ....Final Review and Edit Issue Final Report
APPENDIX A
Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment Project Schedule
1993 Field Reconnaissance and Project Coordination
Issue Statement of Work (all agencies) Conduct Team Meeting (BLM)
Review Literature (all agencies) Hydrologic and Water Resources Assessment
Evaluate Monthly Flow Model (BOR) Biological evaluation Work
Conduct Aquatic Habitat Surveys (DOW)
Identify Bighorn Sheep Habitat Requirements and Areas (DOW) Recreation Assessment Work
Develop User Preference Survey for Upper Reservoirs (FS, DPR) Analyses and Development of Results
Identify Pueblo Reservoir Levels for Access (DPR) Determine Flows for River Safety (ELM)
Draft Report Sections
Document River/Reservoir Operations (BOR) Final Report - none
APPENDIX A
Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment Project Schedule
1994 Field Reconnaissance and Project Coordination
Conduct Team Meeting(s) (ELM) EOY Progress Report (ELM)
Hydrologic and Water Resources Assessment
Adjust and Calibrate Monthly Flow Model (BOR)
*Retrieve and Analyze Water Use and Transfer Data (DWR, BOR, ELM, Contract)
Review Water Quality Initiative and Other Efforts (BLM) Evaluate Water Quality Model - training included (BLM) Analyze Metals in Sediments (BLM)
Initiate Contract for Statistical Analysis of USGS Gages (BOR, Contract) Biological Evaluation Work
Identify Waterfowl/Shorebird Habitat Requirements and Areas (DOW, Contract)
Define Bighorn Sheep Habitat Requirements and Areas (DOW)
Review/Identify Raptor/T&E Occurrence and Habitat Requirements (DOW, BLM)
Identify Existing Riparian-Wetland Communities (DOW, BLM, FS) Assemble Macroinvertebrates Information (BOR)
Evaluate Heavy Metal Effects on Aquatic Biota (DOW) Survey Remaining IFIM Reaches (DOW, BLM)
Define Reservoir Trout .Population Dynamics (DOW, FS)
Evaluate Warm Water Fish Dynamics and Habitat in Pueblo Res. (DOW, BOR) Establish Existing and Secondary Production in Upper Res. (DOW, BOR, FS) Recreation Assessment Work
Issue User Survey Contract for Upper and Pueblo Reservoirs (FS, Contract)
Assess River Boating-related Experiences and Types of Craft (DPR, ELM) Evaluate Types of River Fishing Experiences and Flow Dependency (DPR,
BLM, DOW)
Analyses and Development of Results - no
Define Reservoir Levels for Waterfowl/Shorebirds (DOW) Model Flow/Trout Habitat Relationships (DOW, BLM)
Identify Reservoir Levels Affecting Safety and Access (DPR, FS, BOR) Draft Report Sections - none
Final Report - none
APPENDIX A
Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment Project Schedule
1995 Project Coordination
Conduct Team Meeting(s) (BIN) EOY Progress Report (UM)
Hydrologic and Water Resource Assessment
Adjust and Calibrate Monthly Flow Model (BOR) Initiate Daily Flow Modeling (BOR)
Analyze Metals in Sediments (BLM, Contract) Model Flows and Water Quality, if feasible (BLM) Biological Evaluation Work
Define Bighorn Sheep Habitat Requirements and Areas (DOW)
Review/Identify Raptor/T&E Occurrence and Habitat Requirements (DOW) Assemble Macroinvertebrates Information (BOR)
Conduct Riparian Ecological Site Inventory (DOW, BLM, FS) Evaluate Heavy Metal Effects on Aquatic Biota (DOW)
Define River and Reservoir Trout Population Dynamics (DOW, FS)
Evaluate Warm Water Fish Dynamics and Habitat in Pueblo Res. (DOW, BOR) Establish Existing and Secondary Production in Upper Res. (DOW, FS, BOR) Recreation Assessment Work
Summarize Reservoir User Survey Results (FS, DOW, DPR)
Determine Upper Reservoir Conditions for Fishing Opportunities (FS) Analyses and Development of Results
Reduce and Summarize Statistical Analyses of USGS Gages (BLM) Analyze Flows (if needed) for Bighorn Sheep (DOW, ELM)
Analyze Upper and Pueblo Reservoir Levels for Fishing Opportunities (FS, BOR, DOW, DPR)
Analyze Upper Reservoir Levels for Scenic Quality (FS)
Determine Flows for River Boating and Fishing Opportunities (DPR, ELM) Draft Report Sections
Summarize Introductory Material i.e., Objectives, Setting (BLM) A --Document Water Use Information (DWR, ELM, Contract)
Document Bighorn Sheep, T&E, and Raptor Values (DOW) Document All Fishing and Boating Values (DPR, ELM, FS) Document IFIM Model Results (DOW, BLM)
Document Waterfowl/ Shorebird Values (DOW) Final Report - none
APPENDIX A
Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment Project Schedule
1996 Project Coordination
Conduct Team Meeting(s) (BLM)
Assist With Draft Review and Editing (BLM) EOY Report (ELM)
Hydrologic and Water Resources Assessment Complete daily flow model (BOR)
Biological evaluation Work - Mostly Complete Recreation Assessment Work - Mostly Complete Analyses and Development of Results
Initiate Modeling of Scenarios (BOR)
Analyze Water Quality and Flow Relationships (BLM, BOR, DOW, FS) Determine T&E, Raptor, Flows (DOW)
Determine Riparian/Wetland Flows (DOW, ELM, FS)
Determine Flow, Water Quality, Macroinvertebrate, Trout, and Production Relationships (BOR, DOW, FS)
Analyze Pueblo Reservoir Warm Water Fish Levels (DOW, BOR) Analyze Reservoir Trout Species Levels (DOW, FS)
Draft Report Sections
Document Hydrology and Reservoir Operations (BOR, BLM) A4Review and Edit Water Use Documentation (DWR, BOR, BLM)
Document Water Quality Values (ELM) Document T&E, Raptor Flows (DOW)
Document Riparian Values and Flow Relationships (DOW, BLM)
Document River Trout Species Population Dynamics and Values (DOW) Document Macroinvertebrate Values (BOR)
Document Pueblo Reservoir Warm Water Fishery Values (DOW, BOR) Document Reservoir Trout Species Levels (DOW, FS)
Document Primary and Secondary Production Levels (BOR, DOW) Document Waterfowl/Shorebird Reservoir Levels (DOW)
Document Flows for River Trout Species (DOW)
Document All Fishing and Boating Levels (FS, BLM, DPR) Document Scenic Shoreline Levels for Upper Reservoirs (FS) Final Report
Initiate Compilation of Draft Sections (ELM)
APPENDIX A
Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment Project Schedule
1997 Project Coordination
Conduct Team Meeting(s) (BLM)
Assist With Draft Review and Editing (BLM)
Develop Conclusions and Opportunities (all agencies) EOY Report (BLM)
Hydrologic and Water Resources Assessment - Complete Biological evaluation Work - Complete
Recreation Assessment Work - Complete Analyses and Development of Results
Interdisciplinary Analyses for Final Chapter (all agencies) Continue Modeling of Scenarios (BOR)
Draft Report Sections
Document Flow, Water Quality, Macroinvertebrate, Trout and Production Relationships (BOR, DOW, BLM)
Document Pueblo Reservoir Warm Water Fish Levels (BOR, DOW) Document Reservoir Trout Species Levels (FS, DOW)
Final Report
Compile and Edit Draft Report (BLM)
APPENDIX A
Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment Project Schedule
1998 Field Reconnaissance and Project Coordination
Conduct Team Meeting(s) (BIN
Assist With Draft Review and Editing (BM Hydrologic and Water Resources Assessment - Complete Biological Evaluation Work - Complete
Recreation Assessment Work - Complete
Analyses and Development of Results - Complete Draft Report Sections - Complete
Final Report
Review and Edit(s) (all agencies) Issue Final Report (BM
I
25000 20000 15000 10000 5000
Appendix
B
Arkansas
River
Water
Needs
Assessment
Project
Cost
Estimates
(Only
Contracts
and
Misc.
Costs)
DNR
BOR
•BLM
FS
0 0 0 Go I°0 0 0 o Lfl o 12-1 0 0 cJ co 00 00 0 0 00 0 0 N N tr) •ct. 0 00 00 to to to 7-771 mostx\\ to -ct •1993.
1994
1995
1996
Years1997
1998
t•-•
Workmonths
50 40 30 20 10Appendix
B
Arkansas
River
Water
Needs
Assessment
Project
Labor
Estimates
(Does
Not
Include
Contract
and
Misc.
Costs)
DNR
BOR
BLM
FS
6 IF 4 21993
471994
32 32 271995
1996
Years
1997
331998
-I
_
APPENDIX B
Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment Project Cost Estimates
1993
AAA.* BBB* CCC* DDD* EEE* TOTALS
1 1 4 1 0 0 6 DNR 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1000 500 0 0 0 1500 1 1 1 0 2 0 4 BOR 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 500 0 0 0 0 500 1 2 1 1 0 0 4 BLM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1000 0 0 0 0 1000 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 FS 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 500 0 0 0 0 500 TOTALS Workmonths 5 7 2 2 0 16 Dollars 3000 500 0 0 0 3500 *
AAA = Project Coordination BBB = Resource Assessment
CCC = Analyses/Development of Results DDD = Draft Report Sections
EEE = Final Report Preparation **
1 = Labor (reported in workmonths - each agency is responsible for estimating cost in dollars based on their average expenditures for labor)
2 = Contracting ($)
3 = Other costs i.e., travel ($)
APPENDIX B
Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment Project Cost Estimates
1994
AAA* BBB* CCC* DDD* EEE* TOTALS
1 1 36 10 0 0 47 DNR 2 0 15000 0 0 0 15000 3 500 2000 500 0 0 3000 1 1 9 2 0 0 12 BOB. 2 0 10000 0 0 0 10000 . 3 500 500 0 0 0 1000 1 3 17 3 0 0 23 BLM 2 0 15000 0 0 0 15000 3 500 4000 500 0 0 5000 1 1 7 2 0 0 10 FS 2 0 15000 0 0 0 15000 3 500 500 0 0 0 1000 TOTALS Workmonths 6 69 17 0 0 92 Dollars 2000 62000 1000 0 0 65000
AAA = Project Coordination BBB = Resource Assessment
CCC = Analyses/Development of Results DDD = Draft Report Sections
EEE = Final Report Preparation **
1 = Labor (reported in workmonths - each agency is responsible for estimating cost in dollars based on their average expenditures for labor)
2 = Contracting ($)
3 = Other costs i.e., travel ($)
6
APPENDIX B
Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment Project Cost Estimates
1995
AAA* BBB* CCC* DDD* EEE* TOTALS
'SC 'Or 1 1 17 5 9 0 32 DNR 2 0 5000 0 0 0 5000 3 500 2000 500 0 0 3000 1 1 10 1 0 0 12 BOR 2 0 10000 0 0 0 10000 3 500 2000 500 0 0 3000 1 3 9 4 3 0 19 BLM 2 0 0 0 10000 0 10000 3 500 2500 500 0 0 3500 1 1 7 2 2 0 12 FS 2 0 5000 0 0 0 5000 3 500 1000 500 0 0 2000 TOTALS Workmonths 6 43 12 14 Dollars 2000 27500 2000 10000 0 0 75 41500 AAA = Project Coordination
BBB = Resource Assessment
CCC = Analyses/Development of Results DDD = Draft Report Sections
' EEE = Final Report Preparation **
1 = Labor (reported in workmonths - each agency is responsible for estimating cost in dollars based on their average expenditures for labor)
2 = Contracting ($)
3 = Other costs i.e., travel ($)
APPENDIX B
Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment Project Cost Estimates
1996
AAA* BBB* CCC* DDD* EEE* TOTALS
* * 1 1 0 14 17 0 32 DNR 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 500 0 1000 500 0 2000 1 1 3 15 8 0 27 BOR 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 500 . 0 1000 500 0 2000 1 4 0 5 8 2 19 BLM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 500 0 500 500 ' 0 1500 1 1 0 7 4 0 12 FS 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 500 0 500 500 0 1500 TOTALS Workmonths 7 3 41 37 Dollars 2000 0 3000 2000 2 0 90 7000 AAA = Project Coordination
BBB = Resource Assessment
CCC = Analyses/Development of Results DDD = Draft Report Sections
EEE = Final Report Preparation
* *
1 = Labor (reported in workmonths - each agency is responsible for estimating cost in dollars based on their average expenditures for labor)
2 = Contracting ($)
a
APPENDIX B
Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment Project Cost Estimates
1997
AAA.* BBB* CCC* DDD* EEE* TOTALS
lir 'Of' 1 3 0 1 8 1 13 DNR 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 500 0 500 0 0 1000 1 3 0 2 8 1 14 BOR 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 500 0 500 0 0 1000 1 4 0 2 3 4 13 BLM 2 2000 0 0 0 500 2500 3 1000 0 0 0 500 1500 1 2 0 1 1 1 5 FS 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 500 0 0 0 0 ' 500 TOTALS Workmonths 12 0 6 20 7 45 Dollars 4500 0 1000 0 1000 6500
AAA = Project Coordination BBB = Resource Assessment
CCC = Analyses/Development of Results DDD = Draft Report Sections.
EEE = Final Report Preparation
* *
1 = Labor (reported in workmonths - each agency is responsible for estimating cost in dollars based on their average expenditures for labor)
2 = Contracting ($)
3 = Other costs i.e., travel ($)
••••••••...•
APPENDIX B
Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment Project Cost Estimates
1998
AAA* BBB* CCC* DDD* EEE* TOTALS
It* 1 1 0 0 0 2 3 DNR 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 500 0 0 0 0 500 1 1 0 0 0 2 3 . BOR 2 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 3 500 0 0 0 0 500 1 2 0 0 0 3 5 BLM 2 0 0 0 0 4000 4000 3 500 0 0 0 0 500 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 FS 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 500 0 0 0 0 500 TOTALS Workmonths 5 0 0 0 8 13 Dollars 2000 0 0 0 4000 6000
AAA = Project Coordination BBB = Resource Assessment
CCC = Analyses/Development of Results DDD = Draft Report Sections
EEE = Final Report Preparation
* *
1 = Labor (reported in workmonths - each agency is responsible for estimating cost in dollars based on their average expenditures for labor)
2 = Contracting ($)
••••••••••.. • a • Position APPENDIX .0
Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment Project Team Responsibilities Agency Responsibilities
Project Leader BLM -coordinate project activities
-keep project on schedule -prepare progress reports -control project work quality -monitor project budget
-develop findings/opportunities -document intro/conclusion(s) -conduct appropriate review -assemble/issue final report Project Hydrologist BLM -coordinate water res. activities
-oversee hydrologic data collection -compile water res. documentation -summarize USGS stat. anal.
-document water res. approach -document hydrologic setting -assist report preparation Hydrologists BLM, FS, -water quality studies review
DOW -conduct sediment/QW analysis -coordinate with USGS and EPA -support QW dependent res. values -support rec./biol. surveys
-provide IFIM model support -coordinate water use contract -document water use and options -document water quality values
s. -document flow/QW relationships
____•... . ...• .• .. ..._ . • - - •••---•
Engineer -conduct river/reservoir modeling
-document river/reservoir management I -support water use analysis ---_____...._...•.••••... ________...•...
Project Biologist - BLM -coordinates biol. res. activities
Biologists
BOR, DWR
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••'.•••••••••••••••••••••• •
BLM, DOW, BOR, FS
-oversee biological data collection -compile biological documentation -document biological approaches -coordinate riparian ecol site work -assist report preparation
-conduct waterfowl/shorebird invest. -conduct heron investigation
-assemble macroinvertebrate info. -support bighorn sheep study -conduct trout habitat invest. -conduct warm water fish invest. -conduct raptor/T&E investigations -conduct reservoir production invest. -inventory riparian/wetland areas -evaluate heavy metal & aquatic biota -coordinate with USFWS
-support recreation fishing invest.
-document biological values
-document flow/biol. relationships
Position
APPENDIX C
Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment Project Team Responsibilities
Agency Responsibilities
Project Rec. Spec. BLM -coordinates recreation activities -oversee recreation data collection -compile recreation documentation -document recreation approaches -assist report preparation
Rec. Specialists FS, DPR, -conduct/contract res. user surveys -assess boating experiences/craft -assess fishing opportunities -review safety concerns
-determine flow/rec. relationships -assess scenic values
-document recreation values -document flow/recreation values
A
02/28/94 14:36 TY303 866 2115 COLORADO DNR
t000liou
RECEIVED
FEB
28
1994
oFFicibrrn
EXt UTIVE DIRECTORDepartment of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 718 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866.3311 TOO: (303) 866-3543 FAX: (303) 866-2115 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT:
Post-It'" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 0 of pages ). To
re.ec eA-17"‹
F"
Dept. Fax 0,7( Co.e
rt.
tt hon 4 . • Fax # MEMORANDUMMAR 15 1994
DEP SOUTHEASTh O%VOA. CONSERVAgC`t IISTRICTRESDan Muller, Pete Zwanevelt, Roger Weidelman, Marsha
Kearney, Doug Krieger, Steve Reese, Steve Witte
Steve Norris
February 28, 1994
Water Needs Assessment Newsletter
Roy Romer Coveinor Xen 5,21;izo Executive Direnor Ron Cattany Orplity nirccmr
Here is a second draft of a short Q&A newsletter. It tries to
give an introductory overview to the water needs assessment. It
can be used as a handout at the watershed forum in April, for
distribution to anyone with an interest in the project, and as a
media piece. The newsletter alone clearly does.not satisfy the
information needs of people who have a strong interest in the
assessment. But it should be a good start.
Please give this a close review and send comments to me within
ten days. Are the questions right? Are the answers clear and
correct? Do the answers provide an OK level of detail? Is there
too much redundancy? Any surprises?
We have decided to keep it to two sides, hence the lack of some
good quegtions.and more detailed answers that have been
suggested..
Please mail, call (303-866-4894) or FAX (303-866-2115) your
suggestions. Thanks very much. attachment
4011c-
'
.
`000.PJ
ejs
fev)°‘47 ' 01!
vl
zr1
Ecarc of Lana Commissioners • Division of 11.:rerat3 & Goo;cco*yiGac:ogical Suricy 01 S Gas Cor.servat,cr. Corrr.ISS,on • ClviSlan Cf ;arks & Fi'eonacion • Soii Canserva:icri E:ara Water Corservation Eloarc • civisicn tWolter 11110(Mirertil • W :"" 4"
02/28/94 14:36 72303 866 2115 COLORADO DNR
10002/003
ARKANSAS
RIVER WATER
NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
Newsletter #1 March 25, 1994
4.0.110 ,WWW 410.114111.W.MIAMWO
USDI Bureau of Land Management USDA Forest service USDI Bureau of Reclamation CO Dept. of Natural Resources
From time to time, the Water Needs Assessment
cooperating agencies will distribute a newsletter to highliyht important issues and provide a progress report on the assessment. This first issue uses a "Question and Answer" format to introduce the Arkansas River Water Needs Assessment.
What is the purpose of the Water Needs Assessment? The assessment will collect and present highly credible information to help managers, users and others understand how various water flows and reservoir levels affect natural resource and
recreational values along the Upper Arkansas River and its related reservoirs. The
assessment will address values already identified in
management plans and decisions.
Why is it important?
The Upper Arkansas River is one of the most heavily used rivers in the west. As demand for the river's water-related resources and activities
increases, managers will face .tougher choices. Information produced by the assessment can inform decision makers and others of the needs and
opportunities associated with those tough choices.
Who is involved?
Three federal and one state agency partners have agreed to complete the assessment. The
Ole 1111111
USDI Bureau of Land
Management, usDI Bureau of Reclamation and the USDA
Forest Service on the federal level and the Colorado
Department of Natural
Resources at the state level are the lead agencies. Within the Department of Natural
Resources, the divisions of
Wildlife, Parks and Water Resources participate.
What geographic area is covered?
The assessment will look at water-related resource needs along the Upper Arkansas River valley from Leadville to
Pueblo. In addition to the
river itself, Turquoise, Clear Creek and Twin Lakes
reservoirs on the upper end and Pueblo Reservoir on the lower end will be included in the assessment.
What work will be accomplished?
The assessment will use
existing and newly collected data to evaluate the
dependency of certain resource values on reservoir levels and water flows. The resource values are: aquatic habitat,
. 02/28/94 14:37 Ty303 866 2115 COLORADO DNR 4003/003
4
recreational boating and fishing, water quality, riparian areas and aesthe _The assessment will also
1-..t.)he opportunities andw.,,,,...w.c.1-sj water interests, recreation
constraints associated with.. users, conservation groups,
water rights, river hydrology, local governments and others
and other within the assessment area.
The agency partners are committed to communicating with stakeholders and
providing ample opportunity for discussion of issues, opportunities and concerns. This periodic newsletter will be a primary vehicle for
communication. We also encourage requests to meet with interested groups and organizations.
reservoir operations legal requirements.
How will the work be organized and completed?
A steering committee of
representatives from the four agencies, supported by a
project leader from BLM's Denver Service center, will oversee the assessment. Three technical work groups will develop detailed work plans, coordinate field work and prepare reports. Field work should be completed in 1996 and a final report published in 1998.
Who will pay for the work? The four participating
agencies will contribute most of the staff and financial resources to complete the assessment. Some funds from other sources may also support the project. Total cost over the six year period is
estimated to be about $ .
Much of this reflects agency effort that would occur apart from the assessment.
,‘ How will other interests be i7g' involved in this assessment?
The assessment has attracted the attention of traditional
How will results of the assessment influence future actions and decisions?
The assessment is not a decision document. It will help inform managers and others about the role that water plays in supporting a variety of natural resource and recreational values. We hope and expect that
information generated by the assessment will be used in future environmental studies, considered in the development and implementation of plans, and otherwise support actions that affect water-dependent resource and recreation values along the Upper Arkansas
River. •
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dan Muller, BLM, Denver Service Center, 303-236-7198 Pete Zwaneveld, BLM, Canon city, 719-275-0631
Roger Weidelman, BOR, Loveland, 303-667-4410 Marsha Kearney, USFS, Pueblo, 7197545-8737
Proposal
for
Southeastern Colorado
Water.
and
Storage Needs
Assessment
Enterprise
SECWCDIArkansas
River Basin
Future Water and
Storage Needs
Assessment
J 0 0 25 50 • 75 K ROME TIE Ft5 25 so ..r 7? MILES Prepared By:
4. McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd.
2420 Alcott Street Denver, CO 80211 Prepared For: SECWSNAE 905 Highway West 50 Pueblo, CO 81008
\\,
April 1997
11101111110.4,11,71tiszerate5.."...9.14.2,..W.eni :TA - —X4 11111=2= ',.rft1,071150a4344.^ .
McLaughlin
Water
Engineers,
Ltd.
2420 Alcott Street, Denver, Colorado 80211 (303) 458-5550 Facsimile (303) 480-9766 mwe@ecentral.com
April 24, 1997
Steve Arveschoug, Enterprise Project Manager Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District 905 Highway West 50
Pueblo, Colorado 81008
RE: Submission of Proposal for SECWCD/Arkansas River Basin Future Water and Storage Needs Assessment
Dear Mr. Arveschoug: RONALD C. McLAUGHLIN LEO M. EISEL HALFORD E. ERICKSON WILLIAM R KENDALL RALPH L TOREN TERRENCE P. KENYON RICHARD E. McLAUGHLIN RONALD J. MCLAUGHLIN GENE A. BURRELL MICHAEL E MERCER JOHN M. PFLAUM MICHAEL R GALUZZI SCOTT E. LEHMAN BRIAN S. KOLSTAD G. DEAN DEROSIER EDWARD D. BAIN BRIAN E. CHEVALIER DANIEL F. BLAHA LEANDER L URMY DANIEL M. PETRAMALA RONALD D. LUCERO
The McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd./Aquacraft, Inc. team is pleased to submit the attached proposal for the Arkansas River Basin Future Water and Storage Needs Assessment.
The attached proposal is targeted toward providing the Assessment Enterprise with practical solutions for meeting future agricultural, municipal, and industrial water demands in the Arkansas River Basin. We will not produce another planning study which will gather dust on library shelves.
Toward this end, we believe there are several keys to meeting this objective:
1. Efficient use of existing data sources for agricultural, municipal and industrial water and water rights data with good checking of these existing data sources is necessary to insure acceptable data quality.
2. Practical engineering investigation of storage and supply alternatives is necessary to produce a reconnaissance level analysis which will allow practical decisions to be made concerning the feasibility of these alternatives.
3. Significant effort will be made to promote good, and timely, communication among study participants concerning the acceptability of population and water demand forecasts, results of the reconnaissance level investigation and other study deliverables. Good and timely communication among study participants and the contractor is necessary to produce projects which can be implemented.
We look forward to the interview and thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yo
Leo M. Eisel, P.E. President Enclosure ASPEN, CO (970) 925-1920 ts,-,4V01004011,-,. dc- '1,:'‘'.1,49.001eftW, • LME:djm/f7DM/LME-2 PHOENIX, AZ (602) 24S-7702
I )MPLETE ENGINEERING SERVICES IN, WATER RIGHTS AND RESOURCES WATER TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE IRRIGATION FOUNTAINS STORM DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL WASTEWATER COLLECTION TREATMENT AND REUSE FIRE PROTECTION WATER BASED RECREATION SPECIALTY HYDRAULICS RATE STUDIES AND UTILITIES ECONOMIC',
