HYDRO25469

• Permit No: M1986123
• IBM Index Class Name: Hydrology
• Doc Date: 1/19/2005
• Doc Name: Substitute Water Supply Plan
• From: OSE
• To: Wayland Inc.
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

a
,eac~ G~ .n
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 878 Janua 19, 2005
Denver, Colorado 80203 ry
Phone [phone]
FAX [phone]
sww¢watecstate.co.us
Mr. Peter Wayland
Wayland, Inc.
10395 West Colfax, Suite 350
Lakewood Co 80215
Re: Substitute Water Supply Plan,vKirtright Pit (DMG M-86-123) C/ors. /~yd~°~aqy
Section 15, T5N, R68W, 6th P.M. ! V
Water Division 1, Water District 4, Larimer County
~~ of cod
N<
R
~ t876 ~
Bill Ovrens
Governor
Russell George
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
State Engineer
Dear Mr. Wayland:
The State Engineer's Office has completed a review of the additional information submitted
for the substitute water supply plan for the Kirtright Pit M-86-123. Based on our review of your new
report dated July 26, 2004, the following concerns must be addressed before we can complete the
review ofthls requested substitute water supply plan.
The report mentioned that currently the gravel operation has finished and is in the
reclamation process. There are approximately 14.56 acres of exposed groundwater and the
proposed plan will account only for the evaporative losses from the pits that have been allowed to fill
with groundwater.
Historical Consumptive Use Credit -You indicated that, historically the Kirtright Farm
produced silage corn and Alfalfa on 67 acres. Approximately 54 of those acres have been taken out
of production and 13 acres will remain in production. Please confirm if the 51.62 acres identified on
Figure 3 represent the 54 acres that have been dried-up. Please also provide adry-up covenant for
that land.
Please review the following items in Table AI-4-and correct as requested:
1.There appears to be a calculation error in determining the values for column (5) of table
(column 5= column 4x 55% irrigation efficiency).
2. Based on new values for column (5), recompute columns (6), (7} and (8j
3.Add a column for the surface return flow (the annual amount should be 12.45 acre-feet).
Add the surface return flow to the lagged irrigation return flows to get the total retum flow. Total
return flow should be 49.83 acre-feet
2.Correct column 11, computing the net stream depletions as column 4 minus the total retum
flows (note this assumes that the future replacement operation includes delivering 1 share of water
to the property and then returning it to the river through an augmentation station).
3.Correct notes at column (5) and (11).
4.The Volume of Replacement Water available intable AI-5 should be recalculated based on
all other computational changes described above.
Please explain what is the basis for the 44883 gpd/ft and S=0.2 use in the lagging analysis
and how the numbers represented in the lagging analysis output are converted into the values used
in column (10) of Table AI.1