DWR_2713714 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Dick Wolfe, P.E. Mr. Steve Witte, P.E. Mr. Bill Tyner, P.E. February 6, 2015 Page 2 of 4 and is available at the FTP site in Updated Appendices B through G, and as a LFT spreadsheet (LFT_FannDataTemplate _ v3.xlsm). In addition, certain tables contained in the original report were updated as a result of the preliminary revised LFT analysis and are available at the FTP site in Appendix K. Term and condition 11 relates to adjustments to the Lease - Fallowing Tool (LFT) for the Colorado Parks and Wildlife shares, and will likely result in a reduction in the dry -up available to the Catlin Pilot Project. While these adjustments have not yet been finalized with CPW, it is anticipated that this reduction in dry -up will not affect the ability to operate pursuant to the "pay as you go" approach, principally as a result of a likely reduction in acreage available from the Diamond A West Farm, which has historical deep percolation return flow timing that differs most significantly from the timing of the replacements of the recharge ponds currently available. As such, reduction of dry -up on the farm(s) at issue should result in "pay as you go" operations that more closely mimic the pattern of historical deep percolation return flows. Once this is completed, and prior to February 17, 2015, a revised "pay as you go" analysis will be submitted to reflect those adjustments. The following are noteworthy modifications and adjustments to the original analysis. Please see the September 25, 2014 Martin and Wood, Inc., letter report for further details regarding the analysis. 1. Information provided by the Division 2 Office of the Division of Water Resources indicates that all farms, excepting the Schweizer Farm, first provided Rule 14 dry -up in 2003. As such, the study period for these farms was adjusted to 1973 through 2002 so as to provide the continuous study period absent Rule 14 dry -up. The Schweizer Farm study period remains as 1984 through 2013 as originally proposed. 2. Additional aerial photography was obtained and evaluated for 1975 since the study period extended to another decade. Figures 5.5, 9.5, 13.5, 17.5 and 21.5, which illustrate the estimated irrigated acreage, are included in the Updated Appendix A at the FTP site. 3. Shapefiles for the 1985 irrigated acreage mapped by Colorado and agreed by Kansas as part of the Kansas v. Colorado litigation were compared to the estimated acreages as illustrated in Figures 34 through 45, also in the Updated Appendix A. This resulted in reducing the irrigated acreage estimated for the Diamond A West Farm in both 1983 and 1993. Note that an error in the Diamond A East Farm 2010 acreage was corrected as noted in term and condition #10.b., and the current irrigated acreage was modified to be consistent with shapefiles provided by Division 2 used as part of the Rule 14 dry -up tracking. 4. The Schweizer acreage in this preliminary revised LFT run inadvertently included the Schweizer Recharge Pond acreage in the current LFT run. As a result, the final revised LFT run will reflect a small reduction in the Schweizer irrigated acreage. 5. The URFs, in the Updated Appendix H, for deep percolation return flows and the recharge ponds were modified as necessary per term and condition #20, in consultation with Dam Niemala of Bishop and Brogden Associates, Inc. The x and w distances are illustrated in Figures 27 through 31 in the Updated Appendix A. Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc.