Arkansas basin study

ARKANSAS

BASIN

Basinwide Conditions Assessment:

The SWSI value of -1.0 indicates that the overall

conditions are slightly below normal. Snowpack measured 93%

of

_{average on April 1, 1991 and is 143%}

_of

_{last year. Snow water}

equivalency is approximately 10.5 inches. Precipitation for the

month was 128%

of average and 104%

for the water year. Flow

at the key index gaging station, Arkansas River near Portland,

averaged 403 cfs for the month as compared to the historic

monthly

_{flow of 333 cfs. Cumulative flow at this gaging station}

is actually ahead of the record flow measured in 1984 due to

early runoff from above average temperatures. The snowpack

runoff hydrograph may have its peak moved earlier than the

usual June 12-15th period. Reservoir storage measured on April

1, 1991, was 131% of average. Storage (usable) in the upper

reaches of the basin in Turquoise Reservoir and Twin Lakes

Reservoir amounted to 143,600 acre-feet. Winter water storage

amounted to 144,625 acre-feet. The total amount of water stored

under this program last year was 129,584 acre-feet. Improved

soil moisture conditions may cut irrigation demands and delay

reservoir releases.

Outlook:

The strearnflow forecast is highest in the Huerfano River

drainage at 125% of average to a low of 82% of average in the

Upper Arkansas River drainage. Runoff above Salida on the

Arkansas River is projected to be 260,000 acre-feet as compared

to the 25-year average of 310,000 acre-feet. Water users will be

holding their reservoir water as long as possible by meeting early

demands

with direct diversions of

native flows. Irrigation releases

will be made in late summer to supplement low flows.

Administrative/Management Concerns:

The river call went

to April 15,

1884,

on March 15, 1991,

adjusting to December 3, 1884 on March 17, 1991, the Ft. Lyon

#2

_{right (March 1, 1887), March 18, 1991, the Ft. Lyon #1}

(March 15,

1884)

on March 26,

1991,

the Catlin right (December

3,

1884)

on March 27, 1991,

and the Ft. Lyon #2

right on March

30, 1991.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation estimated

transmountain diversions into the

Arkansas basin at 60,000

acre-feet in 1991. The Fountain Underflow System which has been a

major concern of various water users in the Fountain Creek

drainage was toured by the Division 2 office and interested

parties on December 7, 1990. As a result of that field

reconnaissance and water right study, the Division 2

office has

prepared a Plan of Administration (POA) for the Fountain

Underflow System and associated structures. This plan clarifies

how, and when, and what water right structures may be used

pursuant to the existing decrees. The required measurements of

this POA should assure that no senior water rights are injured

and that the Pinon gage flow is properly adjusted to reflect all

water past that gage.

SURFACE WATER SUPPLY INDEX Ar Its rill11 Alva" Wein

MM IMO 1MM IMa IMO

I MIN IIN. nmlilt

• .•

a •

-•

JAK ...4.02 .1A1.11 JAMS .4/./41 JAkiiie JAMS .0200 .10401 hohnw YEAll 120 120 1.0 13, 1M 150

ARKANSAS RIVER NR. PORTLAND RS RY Y940

1

147v 0 KT 1904) WARN C 773 Jan .10 *dwelt O AV G • 1111

Arkansas 2asin Reservoir Supplies

Public Use Impacts:.

Water based recreation at Pueblo Reservoir and John Martin Reservoir is expected to improve for the 1991 season.

Above average storage in the upper basin reservoirs, Turquoise and Twin Lakes, will be beneficial as water transfers to Pueblo

Reservoir during the summer months will enhance recreation on the upper reaches of the Arkansas River.

Tom Pitts &

Associates

CONSULTING ENGINEERS

February 28, 1992

1

:••<.e4.•,7 ... 4 ;7777:, rprn ri • 1 • r • '.;; • 4 • , • •-• • ' ;11: ; • • . .• • • •

••

MAR 2 1992

WaER

• J•241.4.''..1:

MEMO TO: Management Committee and Platte River Management

Committee, Colorado Water Congress Special Project

on Threatened and Endangered Species

FROM:

Tom Pitts

SUBJECT: Application of Section 7 Consultation to Nationwide

Permits in the Colorado, Platte, and Arkansas River

Basins

By the attached letter, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has

notified the Corps of Engineers that consultations under the

Endangered Species Act may be required in the above referenced

basins on a number of nationwide permits, including those

applicable to repair of existing structures (No. 3), utility

line backfill and bedding (No. 12), bank stabilization (No.

13), road crossings (No. 14), hydropower projects (No. 17),

headwaters and isolated waters discharge (No. 26), and boat

ramps (No. 36). The announcement includes the following major

provisions:

1. Occupied habitat on endangered fishes on the Colorado

River fishes is defined and expanded beyond previously

recognized boundaries.

2. Any nationwide permit which causes, enables, or assists in

net water losses, new or historic, in either the Platte or

Colorado River systems represents a "may affect" situation,

and Section 7 consultation shall be required on any such

activity.

3. Any activity permitted by a nationwide permit on the

Arkansas River and its reservoirs, either on or off the main

channel, shall require Section 7 to insure compliance with the

Endangered Species Act for protection of piping plover and

least tern.

suspect that consultation on plovers and terns will also

apply to any other activities requiring either a 404 permit

To Management Committee and Platte River Management

Committee, Colorado Water Congress Special Project on

Threatened and Endangered Species

From Tom Pitts

February 28, 1992

Page 2

4.

from the

Corps

of Engineers, or other Federal action. These

species have been the subject of consultation on the Platte

River, due to their presence in Central Nebraska. A few years

ago when the State of Colorado was proposing to list the

pining plover and least tern, we reviewed available

information on sightings in the Arkansas basin. At that time

there were very few sightings. If there is a problem with the

Section 7 consultation in the Arkansas basin, please contact

me and I will provide the historical sighting information.

4. Other provisions and recommended conditions of the permits

are provided in the attached correspondence. It is my

understanding from previous discussions with Corps of

Engineers personnel that nationwide No.3 - repair of existing

structures and nationwide No. 26 - headwaters and isolated

waters discharge, are the mostly widely used permits.

LI V I

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND

WILDLIFE SERVICE

FISH AND

WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT

• Colorado Sntc Olike 730 Simms Sacct. Suke 190

Golden. CO 80401 Plionc (303) 231-52e0 FTS $54-5280 FAX (30)) 2314285

FWE/CO: COE

NWCONDATR

Lt. Colonel DeBow

District Engineer

Attn: CESWA-CO-R

P.O. 1580

Albuquerque District

Corps of Engineers

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-15,80

Dear Colonel Debow:

t N

TAKE siiimman

Pa pizi DEIN 111==1

AMERKA atimmonsu

mONNINENNWMPIO NNNOINENNENN r NONINN MN N

RECEIVE°

NCV/CO

FEB I 3

1992

Original File Copy

As requested, the Colorado State Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service

(Service) is providing information regarding Federally

listed endangered and

threatened species and recommended conditions for several

proposed Nationwide

Permits, The Service will provide more detailed endangered

species

distribution data in a follow-up mailing. This office would

like the

opportunity to further discuss these issues with your

staff and that of EPA

Region VIII, Please contact Bill Noonan at FTS 554-5280

(Comm. 303-231-5280)

If there are any question or to schedule a meeting.

Sinc

ly,

//1(

/(3

LeRoy

Carlson

Colorado State Supervisor

cc:

EPA, Denver (Attn: Brad Miller)

COOW, Denver (Attn: Don Smith)

FWE, Grand Junction

• I tut ft..% JUJuk...)u,„

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS IN COLORADO

NATIONWIDE No. 3

REPAIR OF EXISTING STRUCTURES

- SEE FIRST ITEM UNDER ENDANGERED SPECIES ISSUES

NATIONWIDE No. 12 - UTILITY LINE BACKFILL AND BEDDING

- THIS PERMIT NEEDS TO BE CONDITIONED TO REQUIRE THAT BACKFILL

MATERIALS AND BEDDING TECHNIQUES (COMPACTION) BE USED WHICH PREVENT

WETLAND DRAINAGE.

NATIONWIDE No. 13 - BANK STABILIZATION

- FOR SMALLER STREAMS THE AMOUNT OF FILL ALLOWED FOR STABILIZATION CAN

BE EXCESSIVE. A MAXIMUM PROJECT LENGTH (BOTH BANKS) OF 100 FEET SHOULD

BE REQUIRED ON STREAMS OF 5.CFS AVERAGE ANNUAL FLOW OR LESS.

NATIONWIDE No. 17 - HYDROPOWER PROJECTS

- ONLY PROJECTS WHICH ARE IN NEED OF, OR HAVE RECEIVED, A LICENSE FROM

THE FEDERAL REGULATORY ENERGY COMMISSION SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED UNDER A

NATIONWIDE. F.E.R.C. EXEMPTED PROJECTS SHOULD NEED TO APPLY FOR AN

INDIVIDUAL PERMIT REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT OF FILL. THE MAXIMUM

GENERATION CAPACITY SHOULD BE REDUCED TO 1500KW.

NATIONWIDE NO. 26

- SUSPEND USE OF THIS PERMIT FOR

ANY

PROJECTS WHICH DAM, DIVERT OR

OTHERWISE MAY CONTRIBUTE TO A DEPLETION OF THE PLATTE RIVER AND COLORADO

RIVER SYSTEMS.

THIS SUSPENSION IS BASED ON CONCERN FOR FEDERAL

ENDANGERED SPECIES IN NEBRASKA WHICH DEPEND ON ADEQUATE FLOWS IN THE

PLATTE RIVER.

- SUSPEND USE OF THIS PERMIT IN BOULDER AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES FOR

PROJECTS ALONG STREAMS OR IN WETLANDS ADJACENT TO STREAMS, LADIES

TRESSES ORCHID LISTED AS THREATENED IS THE SPECIES OF CONCERN.

.

- REQUIRE NON-WATER DEPENDENT PROJECTS TO PREPARE AN ALTERNATIVES

ANALYSIS FOR APPROVAL BY COE

Lia

ERA

- REQUIRE MITIGATION FOR PROJECTS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS PERMIT. USE

EPA'S REGION VIII MITIGATION RATIO GUIDELINES.

- LIMIT IMPACTS (DIRECT AND INDIRECT) AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS PERMIT TO

0.1 ACRE OF WATERS OF THE U.S. THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO WETLANDS BY

NW26 IN THE FRONT RANGE AS DOCUMENTED BY THE NATIONAL ECOLOGY RESEARCH

CENTER SUPPORT THIS RECOMMENDATION.

- STREAM WORK OF ANY TYPE AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS PERMIT IS NOT TO EXCEED

A TOTAL (BOTH BANKS) OF 250 LINEAR FEET.

- I lin

ENDANGERED SPECIES ISSUES

- ANY ACTIVITY PERMITTED BY ANY NATIONWIDE PERMIT WHICH CAUSE, ENABLE

..OR ASSIST IN A NET WATER LOSS, NEW OR HISTORIC, FROM EITHER THE COLORADO.

OR

_{PLATTE RIVER SYSTEMS REPRESENTS A "MAY AFFECT" SITUATION FOR}

_'

ENDANGERED SPECIES WHICH RELY ON THOSE SYSTEMS FOR HABITAT. SECTION 7

CONSULTATION SHALL BE REQUIRED TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENDANGERED

SPECIES ACT.

- AT A MINIMUM, A PRE-DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION SHOULD BE REQUIRED FOR

PROJECTS PROPOSED IN OCCUPIED HABITAT' OF THE ENDANGERED COLORADO RIVER

FISHES. THE FOLLOWING NATIONWIDE PERMITS ARE OF GREATEST CONCERN: BANK

STABILIZATION - No. 13, ROAD CROSSINGS - No. 14, HEADWATERS AND

ISOLATED WATERS DISCHARGE - No. 26, BOAT RAMPS - Na. 36. OCCUPIED

HABITAT IN THE STATE OF COLORADO FOR LISTED FISHES:

1. YAMPA RIVER FROM HAYDEN TO THE GREEN RIVER CONFLUENCE.

2, THE GREEN RIVER FROM FLAMING GORGE DAM TO THE UTAH

BORDER.

3. THE WHITE RIVER FROM MEEKER TO THE UTAH STATE LINE.

4. THE COLORADO RIVER FROM RIFLE TO THE STATE LINE.

5. THE GUNNISON RIVER FROM THE ESCALANTE CANYON BRIDGE TO

THE

CONFLUENCE OF THE COLORADO RIVER.

6. THE LITTLE SNAKE RIVER IN COLORADO WEST OF COLORADO

HIGHWAY

13.

7. THE SAN JUAN BELOW NAVAJO RESERVOIR.

8. THE LOWER 1/2 MILE OF ALL TRIBUTARIES TO THE ABOVE RIVER

SEGMENTS.

- FOR ANY ACTIVITY PERMITTED BY ANY NATIONWIDE PERMIT WITHIN 5 MILES OF

AN ACTIVE PEREGRINE FALCON AERIE, SECTION 7 CONSULTATION SHALL BE

REQUIRED TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

INFORMATION ON FALCON AERIES CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE SERVICE OR

COLORADO DIVISION WILDLIFE.

- FOR ANY ACTIVITY PERMITTED BY ANY NATIONWIDE PERMIT IN A RIPARIAN

ZONE OR ADJACENT WETLAND IN JEFFERSON OR BOULDER COUNTIES, SECTION 7

INFORMAL CONSULTATION SHALL BE REQUIRED TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (LADIES TRESSES ORCHID - PIRANTHES

- FOR ANY ACTIVITY PERMITTED BY ANY NATIONWIDE PERMIT WHICH WOULD

RESULT IN THE LOSS OF MATURE COTTONWOOD TREES,SECTION 7 CONSULTATION

SHALL BE REQUIRED TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

(BALD EAGLE),

- FOR ANY ACTIVITY PERMITTED BY ANY NATIONWIDE PERMIT ON THE ARKANSAS

RIVER AND IT'S RESERVOIRS (ON AND OFF STEM) SECTION 7 CONSULTATION SHALL

BE REQUIRED TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (LEAST

TERN AND PIPING PLOVER).

- FOR ANY ACTIVITY PERMITTED BY ANY NATIONWIDE PERMIT ON THE STREAMS

LISTED ON THE ATTACHED APPENDIX, SECTION 7 CONSULTATION SHALL BE

REQUIRED TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (GREENBACK

CUTTHROAT TROUT).

,

,

May

22,

1991

MEMORANDUM

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

INTRODUCTION

Dennis Montgomery/Hill and Robbins

Jim Slattery/Boyle Engineering

Arkansas River Basin Study - Major Differences in Colorado vs.

Kansas Mainstem Irrigation PumpingEstimates

This memorandum and the attached tables quantify the major differences in pumping estimates

between Colorado and Kansas. Differences in estimates were evaluated for each of four areas:

1) distribution of SECPA energy between mainstem and areas outside the mainstem.

2)

_{distribution on CENTEL}

_{energy between mainstem and areas outside the mainstem.}

3)

_{Adjustments for non-electric pumping.}

_

4)

_{Adjustments for pump efficiency.}

The sources of the data used to evaluate these differences are: DE 165* (Estimates of

Groundwater Pumping in the Arkansas River Basin, Pueblo Dam to Stateline); PE 32

(Estimates

of Annual Pumpage in Colorado, 1948-85); and a computer file of groundwater pumping used

as input to the Kansas Hydrological Institutional model provided by Kansas.

For the five major utilities providing energy to irrigation wells, Holly, Las Animas, and Lamar

provide substantially all of their energy to wells in the mainstem. During years when energy

records are available from Colorado State University or the Public Utility Commission, Kansas

and Colorado generally agree on the amount of energy supplied by these utilities to the

mainstem area.

The SECPA and CENTEL utilities provide a portion of their energy to areas outside the

mainstem area. Kansas and Colorado have significantly different estimates of the amount of

energy which SECPA provides to the mainstem. Kansas and Colorado generally agree on the

amount

of energy CENTEL

_{delivers to the mainstem.}

e

..

Dennis Montgomery, Esq.

_May

_{22, 1991}

Page

2

SUMMARY

OF

MAJOR DIFFERENCES

_{(TABLE to)}

Table 1.0 is a summary of the major differences in pumping estimates between Colorado and

Kansas. After adjusting the Colorado estimate for the differences identified, the 1950-85

average difference would be 3,263 ac-ft/yr or 2% of the Kansas mainstem pumping estimate.

Some

_{of this difference is probably due to the difference in the Colorado and Kansas definition}

of the SECPA

_{study area. The Colorado study area encompasses just the mainstem area while}

the Kansas study area includes the mainstem area and all other area within townships 21

through 24. This difference in study area makes a direct comparison of SECPA energy

deliveries to the mainstem very difficult.

SECPA

MA1NSTEM ENERGY

(TABLE

2.0)

Colorado

The amount

_{of energy delivered to the mainstem for SECPA for 1964-68 was estimated from the}

USGS Valley Fill pumping estimates in Basic Data Release No. 21 (BDR-21). Colorado's

estimate of energy supplied to the mainstem for 1977-85 is based upon computer records

supplied by SECPA. For the remaining years the amount of energy delivered to the mainstem

is estimated using the 1977-85 computer records and the pumping estimates in BDR-21 for

1964-68.

Kansas

Kansas estimated the energy deliveries for 1948-1974 using utility ledger sheets available for the

years 1953-1960 and 1973-1974. The 1975-1976 estimates are from SECPA computer records.

Kansas estimates of energy deliveries for 1977-85 are based upon the same computer records

as used by Colorado.

Comoarison of Results

A comparison of the differences in pumping estimates due to differences in estimates of energy

deliveries to the mainstem is shown in Table 2.0. As noted in the table, some of the Kansas

SECPA energy used to estimate pumping is located outside of the mainstem area. The amount

of this energy is not quantified in PE 32. Noting these limitations, the average differences in

pumping estimates for 1950-76 is 12,474 ac-ft/yr.

Dennis Montgomery,

Esq.

_May

22, 1991

Page

3

,

CENTEL

MAINSTEM ENERGY

(TABLE

3.0)

..

Colorado

Colorado estimated that 80% of the total CENTEL energy for 1964-68 was delivered to the

mainstem area based upon estimates of Valley Fill pumping estimates in BDR-21. The fraction

of energy delivered to the mainstem area varied according to the distribution of well capacity

inside and outside of the mainstem area. \This fraction remained fairly constant during the study

period.

Kansas

Kansas estimated the energy deliveries to the mainstem area based upon well capacity inside

and outside the mainstem area and on the amount of energy in each sub-district of CENTEL

This percent of energy to the mainstem estimated by Kansas also remained fairly constant over

time.

Comparison of Results

A comparison of the differences in pumping estimates due to the differences in CENTEL

deliveries to the mainstem is shown in Table 3.0. The average 1950-85 Kansas estimate is 547

ac-ft/yr lower than the Colorado estimate. Thus, Kansas and Colorado generally agree on the

amount

of CENTEL

energy delivery to the mainstem.

NON-ELECTRIC PUMPING

(TABLE

4.0)

Colorado

Colorado estimated the amount of non-electric well pumping from six different studies that were

conducted during the 1940-1985 period.

Kansas

Kansas estimated the amount of non-electric well pumping for 1948-1985 from information

contained in the USGS microfilm records for 1964-68.

Comparison of Results

Table 4.0 show the differences in the pumping estimates due to the differences in non-electric

pumping. The average 1950-85 Kansas estimate is 4,511 ac-ft/yr higher than the Colorado

estimate.

I,

_

Dennis Montgomery,

Esq.

_May

_{22, 1991}

Page

4

PUMP

EFFICIENCY ADJUSTMENT

(TABLE

5.0)

Colorado

Colorado adjusted the power coefficient due to the change in pump efficiency as the pumps

age with time.

Kansas

Kansas estimated that the average pump efficiency did not change over time, and therefore

made no adjustment to the power coefficient.

Comparison of Results

Table 5.0 show the effect on the Colorado pumping estimate from the estimated change in

pump efficiency over time. The average reduction in pumping for 1950-85 is 6,618 ac-ft/yr.

DN-C25-106-06/kmc

ark\c2510606\memo2

e

TABLE 1.0

SUMMARY OF MAJOR DIFFERENCES IN KANSAS AND COLORADO PUMPING ESTIMATES

COLORADO MAINSTEM PUMP EST YEAR AC-FT (1) (2) 1950 41458 1951 44975 1952 56404 1953 69362 1954 98169 1955 106953 1956 128316 1957 75508 1958 76709 1959 112088 1960 116319 1961 95527 1962 105984 1963 192926 1964 203925 1965 113032 1966 143538 1967 136983 1968 146948 1969 110288 1970 117080 1971 164982 1972 171870 1973 128354 1974 216292 1975 244080 1976 285887 1977 259428 1978 258944 1979 209415 1980 160856 1981 250587 1982 184564 1983 131410 1984 139025 1985 128997 50-85 AVG 145200 50-60 AVG 84206 61-76 AVG 161106 77-85 AVG 191470 64-68 AVG 148885 DIFF IN SECPA ENERGY AC-FT DIFF IN CENTEL ENERGY AC-FT DIFF IN NON-ELECTRIC AC-FT DIFF IN PUMP EFF AC-FT ADJUSTED COLORADO PUMP EST AC-FT KANSAS MAINSTEM PUMP EST AC-FT . DIFF KS AND CO ADJ PUMP EST AC-FT (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) -636 -463 -2254 -1668 36437 31148 -5289 -917 -2940 -2967 -1657 36495 30843 -5652 -1780 -2792 -3896 -2045 45890 39851 -6039 -4366 1082 -5078 -2533 58467 52921 -5546 -2209 6549 -6807 -4292 91411 85177 -6234 132 -8453 -6092 -5328 87213 88093 880 4777 -7978 -4587 -5453 115074 118898 3824 3149 -9845 ,-2488 -3376 62948 58309 -4639 5493 -715 -1538 -2751 77198 73675 -3523 1947 -1251 -2459 -3190 107136 108345 1209 4993 -3258 -1327 -2428 114298 115496 1198 4104 -1017 -416 -1973 96225 95031 -1194 5924 -966 923 -1120 110745 109152 -1593 11544 -2074 2095 -1259 203232 204554 1322 14914 496 3428 -3205 219558 222094 2536 10807 670 2899 -1741 125667 125477 -190 14061 199 10267 -986 167080 166532 -548 16851 857 12742 853 168286 166676 -1610 17590 387 13011 2401 180337 178331 _ -2006 13175 387 11479 2560 137889 138771 882 19156 451 14914 3783 155384 153434 -1950 27310 3082 10711 6447 212532 208697 -3835 34404 2017 10146 8618 227055 223874 -3181 30137 499 13731 7088 179809 172388 -7421 60247 7194 4974 14175 302883 292150 -10733 21163 17781 1929 16986 301939 291544 -10395 24830 1066 -751 21768 332800 314997 -17803 0 61 3198 22922 285610 290020 4410 0 -1386 3941 25421 286921 286269 -652 0 -1527 6432 21749 236068 233400 -2668 0 -2344 12361 16996 187869 183716 -4153 0 -1791 6766 30550 286113 284735 -1378 0 -1845 10838 22685 216242 212430 -3812 0 -4805 15304 17852 159762 160630 868 0 -2662 14104 19264 169730 157337 -12393 0 -4348 16852 21126 162627 152467 -10160 9356 -547 4511 6618 165137 161874 -3263 962 -2733 -3590 -3156 75688 72978 -2710 20389 1939 7005 4650 195089 191481 -3607 0 -2294 9977 22063 221216 217889 -3326 14844 522 8470 -536 172185 171822 -363

NOTE: A POSITIVE VALUE FOR A DIFFERENCE INDICATES KANSAS ESTIMATE HIGHER THAN THE ADJUSTED ESTIMATE COLORADO. LEGEND:

(1) YEAR

(2) FROM DE 165*, TABLE 9.8. (3) FROM TABLE 2.0 OF THIS REPORT. (4) FROM TABLE 3.0 OF THIS REPORT. (5) FROM TABLE 4.0 OF THIS REPORT. (6) FROM TABLE 5.0 OF THIS REPORT.

(7) CALCULATE AS (2) + (3) + (4) + (5) 4- (6).

(8) FROM COMPUTER DISK PROVIDED BY KANSAS AS INPUT TO THE KANSAS HYDROLOGICAL INSTITUTIONAL MODEL. (9) CALCULATED AS (8)-(7)

TABLE 2.0

EFFECTS ON MAINSTEM PUMPING DUE TO DIFFERENCES IN ESTIMATES OF SECPA ENERGY DELIVERIES TO THE MAINSTEM

COLO

SECPA KANSAS KANSAS KANSAS DIFF

DELIVERY SECPA ADJUST SECPA KS-CO

MAINSTEM ENERGY FOR ENERGY SECPA

1000 1000 LIFT 1000 PUMPING

YEAR KWH KWH PUMPS KWH AC-FT

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ... (d) 1950 803 786 .95 747 -636 1951 895 857 .95 814 -917 1952 1311 1215 .95 1154 -1780 1953 1804 1495 .95 1420 -4366 1954 2995 2948 .95 2801 -2209 1955 3307 3493 .95 3318 132 1956 4315 4985 .95 4736 4777 1957 1987 2383 .95 2264 3149 1958 1980 2593 .95 2463 5493 1959 3166 3513 .95 3337 1947 1960 3778 4439 .95 4217 4993 1961 3114 3658 .95 3475 4104 1962 3686 4429 .95 4208 5924 1963 6441 7849 .95 7457 11544 1964 6719 8454 .95 8031 14914 1965 3561 4749 .95 4512 10807 1966 3376 4856 .95 4613 14061 1967 3326 5062 .95 4809 16851 1968 3690 5514 .95 5238 17590 1969 2628 3987 .95 3788 13175 1970 3298 5246 .95 4984 19156 1971 4208 6959 .95 6611 27310 1972 4540 7966 .95 7568 34404 1973 3401 6372 .95 6053 30137 1974 6010 11907 .95 11312 _60247(e) 1975 11628 14200 .95 13490 21163 1976 13690 16711 .95 15875 24830 50-76 AVG 4061 5431 .95 5159 12474 64-68 AVG 4134 5727 .95 5441 14844

NOTE: (a) A POSITIVE VALUE FOR A DIFFERENCE INDICATES KANSAS ESTIMATE HIGHER THAN COLORADO. (b) FOR 1950-76 TOTAL COMPANY IRRIGATION ENERGY USE IS AVAILABLE FROM CSU OR PUC RECORDS. (c) BOTH KANSAS AND COLORADO USED THE SAME COMPUTER RECORDS FOR 1977-85.

(d) A PORTION OF KANSAS ELECTRICAL ENERGY SHOWN IN (5) IS USED OUTSIDE THE MAINSTEM AND FOR GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWLS BY BEDROCK WELLS. THE AMOUNT OF THIS ENERGY IS NOT QUANTIFIED IN PE 32.

(e) MAXIMUM DIFFERENCE OF 66,000 AF IN DE 794 FOR 1974 CALCULATED AS (2)-(3) DIVIDED BY 88 KWH/AF. THIS VALUE WAS NOT ADJUSTED FOR THE KANSAS SECPA ENERGY THAT IS USED FOR LIFT PUMPS.

LEGEND: (1) YEAR

(2) DE 165*, TABLE 9.7, COLUMN NUMBER 11 (3) PE 32, TABLE 1A AND TABLE 21

(4) PE 32, TABLE 15 AND TABLE 22 (5) CALCULATED AS (3) X (4)

(6) CALCULATED As (5) - (2) DIVIDED BY A POWER COEFFICIENT OF as KWH/AF (SEE TABLE 3 OF PE 32).

TABLE 3.0

EFFECTS ON MAINSTEM PUMPING DUE TO DIFFERENCES IN ESTIMATES OF CENTEL ENERGY DELIVERIES TO THE MAINSTEM

YEAR COLO CENTEL DELIVERY MAINSTEM 1000 KWH KANSAS CENTEL PUEBLO REDUCTION DIST FOR 1000 LIFT KWH PUMP PORTION IN MAINSTEM AREA CENTEL PUEBLO DISTRICT MAINSTEM 1000 KWH KANSAS CENTEL ROCKY REDUCTION DIST FOR 1000 LIFT KWH PUMP PORTION IN MAINSTEM AREA CENTEL ROCKY DISTRICT MAINSTEM 1000 KWH KS, TOTAL CENTEL DELIV MAINSTEM 1000 KWH DIFF KS-CO CENTEL PUMP AC-FT (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) . (8) (9) (10) (11) ₍₁₂₎ • • • • 1950 1825 1711 .95 .74 1203 670 .95 .92 586 1788 -463 1951 1894 1593 .95 .74 1120 620 .95 .92 542 1662 -2940 1952 2282 1975 .95 .74 1388 770 .95 .92 673 2061 -2792 1953 2690 2307 .95 .74 1622 1320 .95 .92 1154 2776 1082 1954 3545 3317 .95 .74 2332\ 1980 .95 .92 1731 4062 6549 1955 3756 2814 .95 .74 1978 1270 .95 .92 1110 3088 -8453 1956 4360 3540 .95 .74 2489 1420 .95 .92 1241 3730 -7978 1957 2831 1951 .95 .74 1372 780 .95 .92 682 2053 -9845 1975 6104 4359 .95 .71 2940 5116 .95 .94 4569 7509 17781 1958 2963 1716 .95 .74 1206 1945 .95 .92 1700 2906 -715 1959 4420 2552 .95 .74 1794 2892 .95 .92 2528 4322 -1251 1960 4310 2391 .95 .73 1658 2710 .95 .93 2394 4052 -3258 1961 3274 1884 .95 .73 1307 2136 .95 .93 1887 3194 -1017 1962 3561 2056 .95 .73 1426 2330 .95 .93 2059 3484 _-966 1963 6579 3785 .95 .73 2625 4290 .95 .93 3790 6415 -2074 1964 6412 3806 .95 .73 2639 4314 .95 .93 3811 6451 496 1965 3382 2025 .95 .72 1385 2295 .95 .94 2049 3435 670 1966 6197 3663 .95 .72 2505 4151 .95 .94 3707 6212 199 1967 5272 3148 .95 .72 2153 3568 .95 .94 3186 5339 857 1968 5543 3286 .95 .72 2248 3724 .95 .94 3326 5573 387 1969 4583 2720 .95 .72 1860 3083 .95 .94 2753 4614 387 1970 4127 2468 .95 .71 1665 2797 .95 .94 2498 4162 451 1971 6310 4035 .95 .71 2722 4291 .95 .94 3832 6553 3082 1972 6509 4060 .95 .71 2738 4401 .95 .94 3930 6669 2017 1973 4564 2670 .95 .71 . 1801 3138 .95 .94 2802 4603 499 1974 7436 4963 .95 .71 3348 5215 .95 .94 4657 8005 7194 1976 7710 4295 .95 .71 2897 5484 .95 .94 4897 7794 1066 1977-- 7724 4769 .95 .71 3217 5053 .95 .94 4512 7729 61 1978 8394 5570 .95 .71 3757 5070 .95 .94 4528 8284 -1386 1979 5902 3663 .95 .71 2471 3707 .95 .94 3310 5781 -1527 1980 5107 3351 .95 .71 2260 2981 .95 .94 2662 4922 -2344 1981 8356 5459 .95 .71 3682 5076 .95 .94 4533 8215 -1791 1982 5633 3568 .95 .71 2407 3450 .95 .94 3081 5487 -1845 1983 4552 3208 .95 .71 2164 2249 .95 .94 2008 4172 -4805 1984 . 4269 2669 .95 .71 1800 2529 .95 .94 2258 4059 -2662 1985• • • 5157 3898 .95 .71 2629 2446 .95 .94 2184 4813 -4348 50-85 4931 3201 .95 .72 2189 3035 .95 .93 2699 4888 -547 58-85 5491 3395 .95 .72 2310 3531 .95 .94 3144 5454 -468 64-68 5361 3186 .95 .72 2186 3610 .95 .94 3216 5402 522

NOTES: (a) A POSITIVE VALUE FOR A DIFFERENCE INDICATES KANSAS ESTIMATE HIGHER THAN COLORADO.

(b) 1958 THROUGH 1985 EXCLUDES 1975. THIS TIME FRAME IS THE PERIOD WHEN TOTAL COMPANY IRRIGATION ENERGY IS AVAILABLE FROM PUC OR CSU RECORDS. PRIOR TO 1958 BOTH KANSAS AND COLORADO ESTIMATED TOTAL CENTEL ENERGY. FOR 1975 COLORADO ESTIMATED THE AMOUNT OF TOTAL COMPANY ENERGY AND KANSAS USED CENTEL COMPANY RECORDS. LEGEND:

(1) YEAR

(2) DE 165*, TABLE 9.4 COLUMN NUMBER 7. (3) PE 32, TABLES 13 AND 21

(4) PE 32, TABLE 16 AND TABLE 24. (5) PE 32, TABLE 148.

(6) CALCULATED AS (3) X (4) X (5). (7) PE 32, TABLES 13 AND 21 (8) PE 32, TABLE 15 AND TABLE 23. (9) PE 32, TABLE 14A

(10) CALCULATED AS (7) X (8) X (9) (11) CALCULATED AS (10) + (6)

TABLE 4.0

COLORADO VS KANSAS ESTIMATES OF NON-ELECTRIC PUMPING IN THE MAINSTEM

COL COLD COLD COLD COLD COLD _{KANSAS DIFF}

REACH 3 REACH 4 REACH 3 REACH 4 REACH 3 REACH 4 _{TOTAL KS-00}

MAINSTEM MAINSTEM NON-ELEC NON-ELEC NON-ELEC NON-ELEC _{NON-ELEC NON-ELEC}

PUMP PUMP ADJUST ADJUST PUMP PUMP _{PUMP PUMP}

YEAR AC-FT AC-FT FACTOR FACTOR AC-FT AC-FT _{AC-FT AC-FT}

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) _{. (7)} 1950 36955 4503 1951 37844 7131 1952 45305 11099 1953 53199 16163 1954 71083 27086 1955 76897 30056 1956 89557 38759 1957 56282 19226 1958 57765 18944 1959 82932 29156 1960 83375 32944 1961 67749 27778 1962 73727 32257 1963 127166 65760 1964 122139 81786 1965 64111 48921 1966 99559 43979 1967 84438 52545 1968 88889 58059 1969 69410 40878 1970 65559 51526 1971 95588 69389 1972 100371 71498 1973 70326 58029 1974 114003 102288 1975 119083 124997 1976 141931 143954 1977 130601 128829 - 1978 140841 118102 1979 97926 111489 1980 78607 82253 1981 133560 117023 1982 86889 97674 1983 62069 69341 1984 60872 78153 1985 69379 59619 50-85 AVG 84888 60311 64-68 AVG 91827 57058 1.06 1.70 2092 1854 1.06 1.65 1973 2809 1.05 1.60 2157 4162 1.05 1.55 2533 5735 1.05 1.50 3385 9029 1.05 1.46 3662 9470 1.05 1.43 4265 11655 1.05 1.40 2680 5493 1.05 1.37 2751 5116 1.05 1.34 3798 7398 1.05 1.31 3590 7796 1.04 1.29 2793 6245 1.04 1.26 2836 6656 1.04 1.24 4891 12728 1.04 1.22 4698 14748 1.04 1.22 2466 8822 1.04 1.22 3829 7931 1.04 1.22 3248 9475 1.04 1.22 3419 10470 1.04 1.22 2670 7371 1.04 1.22 2522 9292 1.04 1.22 3676 12513 1.04 1.22 3860 12893 1.04 1.22 2705 10464 1.04 1.21 4174 17752 1.04 1.20 4138 20833 1.03 1.19 4667 22984 1.03 1.18 4050 19652 1.03 1.19 4102 18857 1.03 1.19 2667 17801 1.03 1.18 1992 12547 1.02 1.17 3130 17003 1.02 1.17 1870 14192 1.02 1.17 1277 10075 1.02 1.17 1194 11356 1.02 1.17 1360 8663 1.04 1.29 3087 10884 1.04 1.22 3532 10289

COLD ' KANSAS KANSAS

TOTAL RNG 41-54 RNG 55-65 NON-ELEC NON-ELEC NON-ELEC

PUMP PUMP PUMP

AC-FT AC-FT AC-FT

(8) 3946 4782 6319 8269 12414 13132 15919 8173 7867 11196 11386 9038 9492 17619 19446 11288 11760 12723 13889 10041 11813 16189 16754 13169 21926 24971 27651 23702 22959 20468 14539 20134 16062 11352 12549 10023 13971 13821 (9) (10) (11) 914 778 1692 1079 736 1815 1494 929 2423 1940 1251 3191 3758 1849 5607 5529 1511 7040 9417 1915 11332 4686 999 5685 4902 1427 6329 6665 2072 8737 8055 2004 10059 7010 1612 8622 8626 1789 10415 17514 2200 19714 20674 2200 22874 12415 1772 14187 19827 2200 22027 23265 2200 25465 24700 2200 26900 19385 2135 21520 24700 2027 26727 24700 2200 26900 24700 2200 26900 24700 2200 26900 24700 2200 26900 24700 2200 26900 24700 2200 26900 24700 2200 26900 24700 2200 26900 24700 2200 26900 24700 2200 26900 24700 2200 26900 24700 2200 26900 24700 1956 26656 24700 1953 26653 24700 2175 26875 16585 1897 18482 20176 2114 22291

NOTE: A POSITIVE VALUE FOR A DIFFERENCE INDICATES KANSAS ESTIMATE HIGHER THAN COLORADO. LEGEND: (1) YEAR (2) DE 165*, TABLE 9.8. (3) DE 165*, TABLE 9.8. (4) DE 165*, TABLE 9.2, COLUMN 11. (5) DE 165*, TABLE 9.3, COLUMN 11. (6) CALCULATED AS (2) - (2)1(4) (7) CALCULATED AS (3) - (3)/(5) (8) CALCULATED AS (6) + (7) (9) PE 32, TABLE 11B AND TABLE 22

(10) PE 32, TABLES 19, 25, AND 26 (11) CALCULATED AS (9)+(1q) (12) CALCULATED AS (11)-(8) (12) -2254 -2967 -3896 -5078 -6807 -6092 -4587 -2488 -1538 -2459 -1327 -416 923 2095 3428 2899 10267 12742 13011 11479 14914 10711 10146 13731 4974 1929 -751 3198 3941 6432 12361 6766 10838 15304 14104 16852 4511 8470

TABLE 5.0

EFFECT ON COLORADO PUMPING ESTIMATE FROM CHANGE IN PUMP EFFICIENCY OVER TIME REACH 3 REACH 4 REACH 3 REACH 4 REACH 3 REACH 4

MAINSTEM MAINSTEM PUMP EFF PUMP EFF REDUCTION REDUCTION

PUMP PUMP ADJUST ADJUST PMP EFF PMP EFF

YEAR AC-FT AC-FT FACTOR FACTOR AC-FT AC-FT

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) TOTAL REDUCTION PMP EFF AC-FT (8) 1950 36955 4503 1.05 .98 1760 -92 1668 1951 37844 , 7131 1.05 .98 1802 -146 1657 1952 45305 11099 1.05 .99 2157 -112 2045 1953 53199 16163 1.05 1.00 2533

o

2533 1954 71083 27086 1.06 1.01 4024 268 4292 1955 76897 30056 1.07 1.01 5031 298 5328 1956 89557 38759

1.06'

1.01 5069 384 5453 1957 56282 19226 1.06 1.01 3186 190 3376 1958 57765 18944 1.05 1.00 2751

o

2751 1959 82932 29156 1.04 1.00 3190

o

3190 1960 83375 32944 1.03 1.00 2428

0

2428 1961 67749 27778 1.03 1.00 1973

o

1973 1962 73727 32257 1.02 .99 1446 _{-326 1120} 1963 127166 65760 1.01 1.00 1259

o

1259 1964 122139 81786 1.02 1.01 2395 810 3205 1965 64111 48921 1.02 1.01 1257 484 1741 1966 99559 43979 1.01 1.00 986 0 986 1967 84438 52545 .99 1.00 -853

o

-853 1968 88889 58059 .98 .99 -1814 -586 -2401 1969 69410 40878 .97 .99 -2147 -413 -2560 1970 65559 51526 .96 .98 -2732 -1052 -3783 1971 95588 69389 .95 .98 -5031 -1416 -6447 1972 100371 71498 .94 .97 -6407 -2211 -8618 1973 70326 58029 .93 .97 -5293 -1795 -7088 1974 114003 102288 .92 .96 -9913 -4262 -14175 1975 119083 124997 .91 .96 -11777 -5208 -16986 1976 141931 143954 .90 .96 -15770 -5998 .-21768 1977 130601 128829 .89 .95 -16142 -6780 -22922 1978 140841 118102 .8.8 .95 -19206 -6216 -25421 1979 97926 111489 .87 .94 -14633 -7116 -21749 1980 78607 82253 .87 .94 -11746 -5250 -16996 1981 133560 117023 .86 .93 -21742 -8808 -30550 1982 86889 97674 .85 .93 -15333 -7352 -22685 1983 62069 69341 .84 .92 -11823 -6030 -17852 1984 60872 78153 .83 .92 -12468 -6796 -19264 1985 69379 59619 .82 .91 -15230 -5896 -21126 50-85 AVG 64-68 AVG 84888 60311 .97 .98 -4356 -2262 -6618 91827 57058 1.00 1.00 394 142 536

NOTE: A NEGATIVE VALUE IS A DECREASE IN PUMPING DUE TO A DECLINE IN PUMP EFFICIENCY. LEGEND: (1) YEAR (2) DE 165*, TABLE 9.8. (3) DE 165*, TABLE 9.8. (4) DE 165*, TABLE 9.2, COLUMN 10. (5) DE 165*, TABLE 9.3, COLUMN 10. (6) CALCULATED AS (2) - (2)1(4) (7) CALCULATED AS (3) (3)/(5) (8) CALCULATED AS (6) + (7) e

SOUTHEASTERN COLORADO

Water

Conservancy

District

2

•••••• r •

..51,f1,174

LEGAL AGENCY FOR

FRY-ARK

r.

r

WATER PROJECT

PHONE 544-2040 • P.O. BOX 440 • _{905 HIWAY 50 WEST • PUEBLO, COLORADO 81002}

, AREA CODE 719

January 9, 1989

MEMORANDUM

TO:

FROM:

_{Robert W. Jesse, Chief Engineer}

SUBJECT:

?

3 5cF ?

F

o 2/ P2

cexzgf—G-;--;

Sro

Charles L. Thomson, General Manager

0,44

,

Arkansas River Basin Study Preliminary Results of Water

Budget Analysis.

Dear Tommy:

I will assume for this memo that you have the above water budgets before

you, and we will go through it page by page.

On page 3-2 in the descriptions of columns in stream balance, the main

inflow is defined as the streamflow entering the reach and is confined

only to the outflow of John Martin Reservoir. The inflow tp the

particu-lar reach should some how include the Fort Lyon Canal and the Kicking Bird

Canal, That maybe figured somewhere in here but I do not see it indentified

as such. There is one table that we will discuss later that may have it

in there somewhere.

Table 3.3-1 Stream Balance, the year 1940 , the first year in the column,

appears to be quite low, and seems to be in an anomaly. I am not sure

that there was that great ofadifference, 1942 was very wet, but it seems

odd that 1940 would be that much different. In the stream-VF Flux column,

1940 shows an increase or a flow from the aquifer to the stream, whereas

1941 shows an enormous run from the stream to the aquifer. With again

a positive value in 1942, extreme change is peculiar I would think.

Again we do not really know where these ungauged tributary flows came

from. They seem very high in some cases. In the years that we are

famil-iar, the ungauged tributaries in 1964 seems very high. I do not recall

such flows in 1964. 1965 of course is very very large, as would be

ex-pected. In the stream flux again from 1964-65 we show one year with

140,000 a.f, flow to the aquifer, and the next year is 150,000 a.f. flow

from the aquifer, Seems to be quite a drastic change, as would be

ex-pected the drought of the 70's shows a losing reach. Again the total

inflow in acre foot, I do not know what component of that includes or

how the Fort Lyon and Kicking Bird are accounted for in there.

Memorandum

Page Two

January 9 , 1989

On page 3-3 the diverted from stream paragraph, I am not sure how they

accounted for the Fort Lyon and the Kicking Bird in this column. I am

not sure of the 73 percent.

Exhibit 3.3-2, the column Phreatophyte Consumptive Use, we can see the

increase, a very steady increase of the phreatophytes over the study

period, and we can notice the dramatic increase in well pumping, as

was expected.

On page 3-4 in the channel inflow, it is defined as the subsurface

infow at John Martin, however all the values are zero as is Bedrock

VF flux.

On page 3-5, the paragraph INTER PPT I assume intercepted precipitation,

The precipitation intercepted before reaching the soil I am not quite

sure that I have heard this before. I would assume that this is the

comsumptive use of precipitation that falls on the plant leaves, but

it would be interesting to find out how they arrived at this number.

There is a value in the tables. Surface water supply they allude here

to include diversions from the stream and other supplies as described

in Exhibit 3.3-4. It would be good to find out if that includes the

Fort Lyon and the Amity waters.

Exhibit 3.3-3 Soil Moisture Balance, again we can see the fluctuations

in the surface water supply. Again it appears that 1940 is very low,

again we see the groundwater supply increasing dramatically. Transit

loss, I am not sure how they arrived at transit loss. The transit loss

is defined as the sum of ditch and lateral losses. However, I noticed

later on in the other exhibits that they did assign a value for transit

loss to the Buffalo, where as if my memory is correct the ditchrider for

the Buffalo has said there were no transit loss due to intercepted

over-land flow and seepage from the Amity, The U.S.G.S. I beleive in their

modeling effort uses one second foot per mile of ditch length. so I do

not know where they got transit loss. In the surface water return column,

in the year 1954) it appears to depart significantly from the other years,

as does the year 1964 and the year 1974. I do not know if this is just

a coincidence every ten years or not, but there appears to be a pattern

every ten years.

On page 3-6, the Diverted from stream, again does not identify how the

Fort Lyon's water in reach 4 was arrived, and does not indentify how the

water diverted to the Kicking Bird or releases from the Great Plains

Re-servoir to the Amity and Fort Lyon were handled. The only way that we

could get this is in the other supply, which is the sum of all surface

water supply not diverted from the Arkansas River in reach 4.

Ground-water to ditch is the Buffalo Ground-water that is pumped through the well owners

augmentation plan.

Memorandum

Page Three

January 9, 1989

Exhibit 3.3-4 the diversions from the stream follow the patterns that

we would expect. The column Other Supply in Acre Feet, we do not know

what that is composed of, it is quite large, so it would appear that it

includes some components'from the Fort Lyon diversions and the Kicking

Bird diversions. The groundwater in the ditch of course is the Buffalo

the average is the average for the entire 45 year period, rather than for

the few years that it was used.

The next series The Soil Moisture Balance Tables, each table identifies

a particular ditch, and it becomes apparent which ditches have increased

their acreage and increased their pumping from groundwater. The Buffalo

for example has increased their acreage, by what appears to be 32%, and

their groundwater supply from only about 223 a.f. to over 11,000 a.f.,

the 11,000 being in the year 1978. The ditches do not show any

significant increase in irrigated acreage, but all of them show a

signifi-cant increase in groundwater supply, including the Amity. Conclusion from

looking at this is that the study shows a significant increase in irrigated

acreage, a change or fluctuation in surface diversions that could be

ex-pected from the fluctuating supply and a dramatic increase in the pumping

from groundwater.