Reallocation Report and US Army Corps Environmental Assessment of Engineers Kansas City District Leaders in Customer Care

• I

' ' '

•

Draft April 1988 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY KANSAS CITY DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS 700 FEDERAL BUILDING KANSAS CITY. MISSOURI 64106-2896

REPLY TO ATTENTION OP:

REALLOCATION REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

REPORT ON REALLOCATION OF STORAGE AT MELVERN, POMONA, AND TUTTLE CREEK LAKES KANSAS TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page No.

INTRODUCTION 1 Authority 1 Purpose and Scope 2 Memorandum of Understanding 3

EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 Authorized Projects 5 Operation of Projects 11 M e l v e m Lake 11 Pomona Lake 14 Tuttle Creek Lake 18

REALLOCATION 22 Need for Reallocation 22 Plan Formulation 22 Description of Reallocation 23 Economic Analysis 26 Environmental Analysis 29

IMPLEMENTATION 30 Institutional Reguirements 30 Federal and Non-Federal Responsibilities 30 Views of Sponsor 30

SUMMARY OF COORDINATION, PUBLIC VIEWS, AND COMMENTS 31

RECOMMENDATIONS 35

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (Draft) 36

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 38

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX

l* TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

TABLES

Title Page No.

Corps of Engineers Lake Project Data 6 Melvern Lake, Pertinent Data 9 Pomona Lake, Pertinent Data 10 Existing Water Supply Allocation at Pomona Lake 10 Tuttle Creek Lake, Pertinent Data 11 Melvern Recreation Facilities 12 Melvern Lake Visitation Data 14 Melvern Lake, Distribution of Recreation Activities 14 Pomona Recreation Facilities 15 Pomona Lake Visitation Data 17 Pomona Lake, Distribution of Recreation Activities 17 Tuttle Creek Lake Releases 20 Tuttle Creek Recreation Facilities 20 Tuttle Creek Lake Visitation Data 21 Tuttle Creek Lake Distribution of Recreation Activities 21 Recommended Reallocation Storage 25 Factors and Assumptions which Affect Yield Program Results 27

FIGURES

Title Page No,

Melvern Lake, Actual Pool Elevations 13 Pomona Lake, Actual Pool Elevations 16 Tuttle Creek Lake, Actual Pool Elevations 19

PLATES

Title

Water Supply Study Area Melvern Lake Project Map Pomona Lake Project Map Tuttle Creek Lake Project Map

ii I NTRODUCT I ON

This report documents the need for and desirability of reallocation of storage to water supply in Melvem, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes in Kansas. The report is part of the Kansas and Osage Rivers, Kansas study.

Author i ty

The water supply portion of the Kansas and Osage Rivers, Kansas study was conducted in response to three Congressional resolutions. The three resolutions read as follows:

RESOLVED BY THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE, that the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, created under the provisions of Section 3 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, approved 13 June 1902, is hereby requested to review the report of the Chief of Engineers on the Osage River and Tributaries, Missouri and Kansas, published as House Document Number 549, 81st Congress, 2nd Session, and other pertinent reports, with a view to determining whether any modifications of the recommendations contained therein pertaining to the basin area in Kansas are advisable at the present time including consideration of improvements for supply, conveyance, and distribution of water to areas of need. (Adopted February 2, 1977)

RESOLVED BY THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE, that the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, created under the provision of Section 3 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, approved 13 June 1902, is hereby requested to review the report of the Chief of Engineers on the Kansas River and Tributaries, Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado, published as Senate Document Number 122, 87th Congress, 2nd Session and other pertinent reports with a view to expanding current studies of channel improvements, bank and channel stabilization, and related improvements on the Kansas River and Tributaries in Kansas requested by the Committee on Public Works of the United States Senate in a resolution adopted on October 17, 1973, to include determining whether any additional modifications of the recommendation in the reports under review are advisable at the present time including consideration of improvements within Kansas for supply, conveyance, and distribution of water to areas of need and for the control of mineral pollutants in streams from natural sources. (Adopted February 2, 1977)

1 Resolved by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives, United States, that the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors is hereby requested to review the report of the Chief of Engineers on the Kansas River and Tributaries, Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado, published as Senate Document Number 122, 87th Congress, 2nd Session, and other pertinent reports with a view to expanding current studies of channel improvements, bank and channel stabilization, and related improvements on the Kansas River and Tributaries in Kansas requested by the Committee on Public Works of the United States Senate in a resolution adopted on October 17, 1973, to Include determining whether any additional modifications of the recommendations in the reports under review are advisable at the present time including consideration of improvements within Kansas for supply, conveyance, and distribution of water to areas of need and for the control of mineral pollutants in streams from natural sources. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors is also requested to review the report on the Osage River and Tributaries, Missouri and Kansas, published as House Document Number 549, 81st Congress, 2nd Session, and other pertinent reports, with a view to determining whether any modifications of the recommendations contained therein pertaining to the basin area in Kansas are advisable at the present time including consideration of improvements for supply, conveyance, and distribution of water to areas of need. (Adopted May 10, 1977)

Purpose and Scope

Federal interest in the provision of municipal and industrial water supply is provided by the Water Supply Act of 1958 (Title III of Public Law 85-500), as amended, and other statutes. The objective of this reallocation study is to provide for water supply storage in existing Federal lakes. Such reallocation should contribute to national economic development, and should be consistent with national environmental goals.

This study considers reallocation of storage under criteria provided by Engineering Regulation (ER) 1105-2-20 and related guidance. The guidance stipulates that Congressional approval would normally be needed for reallocation that would significantly affect other authorized purposes or that would involve major structural or operational changes. However, 15 percent of original total storage, or 50,000 acre-feet, whichever is less, may be reallocated for water supply at the discretion of the Commander, USACE.

The Kansas and Osage Rivers, Kansas study is reported in several volumes. This reallocation volume documents all aspects of the study related to reallocation of storage to water supply, along with an environmental assessment. Other aspects of water supply studies, including the formulation of plans, are documented in the main report, Kansas and Osage Rivers, Kansas, and in Appendix D to that report. The main report and appendices are being prepared concurrently with the reallocation report. A listing of all volumes is as follows:

2 Feasibility Report, Kansas and Osage Rivers, Kansas with Appendix A, Public Views and Comments Appendix B, Bank Stabilization Appendix C, Mineral Intrusion Control Appendix D, Water Supply Appendix E, Modification to Soldier Creek Diversion Unit Reallocation of Storage at Melvern, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes, Kansas

The report is fully responsive to all study resolutions, with the following exceptions. The Melvern Lake reallocation recommended herein is limited to 50,000 acre-feet, which is less than the amount which could be considered. No reallocation is recommended for Kanopolis or Wilson Lakes because they were not included in the Memorandum of Understanding described in the following section.

Memorandum of Understanding

The reallocation studies reported herein are called for under the terms of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the State of Kansas and the U.S. Department of the Army. The MOU, dated December 11, 1985, is printed as an appendix to this report.

The MOU included certain procedures and conditions to be followed in order for reallocation of storage to come about. The status of those procedures and conditions is summarized as follows:

Kansas Water Office (KWO) Procedures

1. Propose to the State Legislature a water assurance program. (Signed into law April 25, 1986.)

2. Place $4,000,000 into escrow toward water supply storage purchased under the MOU. (Established June 30, 1986.)

3. Pay the cost of each increment of water supply storage.

4. Obtain state legislation, if necessary, to protect water quality inflows and releases. (Signed into law April 25, 1986.)

5. Work with Corps toward timely completion of reallocation studies.

6. Cost-share reallocation study costs necessitated by the MOU. (Not applicable to Kansas and Osage Rivers.)

Department of the Army Procedures

1. Conduct reallocation studies on Tuttle Creek, Pomona, and Melvern Lakes in the Kansas City District (KCD), and on six Tulsa District Lakes. (KCD projects accomplished with this report.)

3 2. Allow the State of Kansas a right of first refusal for reallocated storage for 10 years. 3. Calculate purchase price for storage based on 10-year interest free period from project completion, with interest thereafter compounded annually at the project water supply interest rate. State will pay cost of each storage increment at the time of purchase. State will pay 100-percent of operation, maintenance, major replacement, and major rehabilitation costs allocated to storage placed under contract.

4. Perform studies required for NEPA compliance. (Accomplished with this report.)

5. Pursue Congressional approval of reallocation, if required. (Not applicable.)

4 EXISTING CONDITIONS

Authorized Projects

The three existing Corps of Engineers lakes in the Osage River basin in Kansas are Melvem, Pomona, and Hillsdale. The Osage River basin in Kansas is comprised of the Marais des Cygnes, Little Osage, and Marmaton Rivers basins. Those rivers join in Missouri to form the Osage River. There are also three existing Corps of Engineers lakes in the Osage River basin in Missouri, which are Pomme de Terre and Stockton Lakes, and Harry S. Truman Reservoir. Additionally, one large non-Corps lake, the Lake of the Ozarks, is in the Osage River basin in Missouri.

Six existing Corps of Engineers lakes in the Kansas River basin are Kanopolis, Tuttle Creek, Wilson, Milford, Perry, and Clinton Lakes, all in Kansas. A seventh, Harlan County Lake, is in Nebraska. Eleven Bureau of Reclamation lakes have been built in the basin, including six in Kansas.

Table 1 provides information on the nine Corps lakes in the Kansas and Osage Rivers basins in Kansas, including authorized and existing uses of storage. The physical data shown in the table pertain to the original authorized projects except for Kanopolis Lake at which a 4-foot pool raise was made in 1968. Locations of the lakes are shown on Plate 1. The following paragraphs provide more specific information on Melvem, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes.

Melvem and Pomona Lakes were authorized as part of the project for flood protection on the Osage River and tributaries, Missouri and Kansas, as described in House Document No. 549, 81st Congress and added to the comprehensive plan for the Missouri River Basin by the Flood Control Act of 1954. House Document No. 549 includes a combined benefit for pollution abatement and water supply and the following discussion of purposes which indicates intent to include water supply storage, particularly in reservoirs in the Kansas part of the Osage River basin.

”30. The regulation of stream discharge to supplement low-water flows for the benefit of navigation, improvement of domestic water supply, alleviation of stream pollution, the production of hydroelectric power, and the creation of pools suitable for recreational development has been given careful consideration in order to assure the development of a comprehensive reservoir plan for the Osage River basin. Investigations show that surface water supply in the Osage River in Kansas may become critically inadequate and conservation pools have been included in reservoirs located in Kansas, where possible, to alleviate adverse conditions. A total of 62,250 acre-feet of storage capacity has been provided in four reservoirs for this purpose.”

The Water Supply Act of 1958 provided that storage specifically for municipal and industrial water supply could be included in Corps lakes. The General Project Development Design Memorandum for Melvem Lake dated December 1963 included several increases in capacity as departures from the project document plan. Among them was a conservation allocation of 137,000 acre-feet for future requirements for water at Ottawa, Kansas, and

5 TABLE 1 CORPS OF ENGINEERS LAKE PROJECT DATA

LAKE CLINTON HILLSDALE KANOPOLIS DATE PLACE IN OPERATION 1977 1981 1948

AUTHORIZATION STATUS 89,200 acre*feet of 68,000 acre-feet of sto­ Water supply was not storage was authorized rage was included sufcse- initially authorized. In for water supply. quent to passage of P.L. 1976, Congress authorized 85-500, the Water Supply a Bureau of Reclamation Act of 1958 under discre­ modification of the project tionary authority 53,000 to include irrigation, water acre-feet of that amount supply, and other purposes. was allocated to water This modification has not supply and 15,000 acre- been completed. It includes feet to water quality. a raise of the multipurpose pool of 25 feet.

USE OF STORAGE In 1978, KWO contracted In 1974 the KWO The multipurpose pool is for the entire water contracted for the entire operated primarily for supply storage amount, water supply storage recreation and mainten­ 53,500 acre-feet was amount with 7,500 acre- ance of minimum stream- designated for immediate feet designed for flows. Interest in use of use and 35,700 acre-feet immediate use and 45,500 storage for water supply for future use. The KWO acre-feet for future use. has been expressed by the has negotiated user Twelve potential users cities of Salina, Linds- contracts with Lawrence, have applied to the KWO borg, Wichita, RUD No. 1 Baldwin, and Rural Water for negotiation for water of Ellsworth County, and District (RWD) No. 1, 2, supply in amounts by Kansas Power and Light 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Douglas totaling 42.7 mgd or 2.5 Co. In 1984 the Post County. Additional times the firm yield of Rock Rural Water District interest has also been the storage. KWO has contracted with the Corps expressed by RWD No. 5 negotiated user contracts for 625 acre-feet per of Douglas County and the with Spring Hill, RUD No. year of surplus water. city of Lawrence. 7 of Johnson County, and RM> No. 2 of Miami County. Negotiations are underway with 7 of the potential users totaling 25.57 mgd.

PHYSICAL DATA Stream Wakarusa River Big Bull Creek Smoky Hill River Drainage area (sq. mi.) 367 144 2.330 Storage allocation (acre-ft.) Flood control 258,300 81,000 370,434 (Interim) Multipurpose 110,400 68,000 55,241 (Interim) Sedimentation 28,500 11,000 • Total 397,200 160,000 425.675 Surface area (acres) Full pool 12,800 7,410 13,900 Multipurpose 7,000 4,580 3,500 (Interim) Shoreline (multi- 85 51 41 purpose pool - miles)

PROJECT LIFE (years) 100 100 50 6 TABLE 1 (cont.) CORPS OF ENGINEERS LAKE PROJECT DATA

LAKE MELVERN MILFORD PERRY DATE PLACE IN OPERATION 1972 1965 1969

AUTHORIZATION STATUS Water supply was not 300,000 acre*feet of 150,000 acre-feet of specifically authorized, storage was included for storage was included for although 90,000 acre-feet future water supply future water supply of storage was allocated subsequent to passage of subsequent to passage of for water quality and P.L. 85-500, the Water P.L. 85-500, the Water 47,000 acre-feet was Supply Act of 1958. Supply Act of 1958, under allocated for recreation. discretionary authority.

USE OF STORAGE The multipurpose pool has The multipurpose pool is The multipurpose pool is been operated for operated for water supply, operated for recreational recreation and streamflow recreation, and streamflow and streamflow mainten­ maintenance. Interest in maintenance. In 1974 the ance. In 1977, the KWO water sipply has been KWO contracted with the contracted for the entire expressed by Public Corps for the entire water water supply storage Wholesale Water Supply supply storage amount for amount for future use. No District No. 2 and the future use. Multipurpose use has yet been made and city of Lebo. operation began in 1967 the Corps will continue and the end of the interest- to operate the pool for free period was February other than water supply 1977. Interest in water until initial use. Multi­ supply has been expressed purpose operation began by Kansas Fish and Game, in 1969, and the interest- Park City, Bel Aire, Linds- free period ended in April borg, Sedgwick, Hutchin­ 1979. Interest in a small son, Newton, Junction withdrawal has been ex­ City, Salina, McPherson, pressed by Lakeside Vil­ Wichita, and Equus Beds lage Improvement District. Groundwater Management District No. 2. Amounts requested total 135.2 mgd. In 1984 46,650 acre- feet of storage was called into water supply use, when the Kansas Power and Light Co. contracted with the KWO for water supply. PHYSICAL DATA Stream Marais des Cygnes River Republican River Delaware River Drainage area (sq. mi.) 349 3,624 1,117 Storage allocation (acre-ft. ) Flood control 200,000 700,000 480,000 Multipurpose 137,000 300,000 150,000 Sedimentation 26,000 160,000 140,000 Total 363,000 1,160,000 770,000 Surface area (acres) Full pool 13,950 33,000 25,300 Multipurpose 6,930 16,189 12,200 Shoreline (multi­ 101 163 159 purpose pool - miles)

PROJECT LIFE (years) 100 100 100 7 TABLE 1 (cont.) CORPS OF ENGINEERS LAKE PROJECT DATA

LAKE POMONA TUTTLE CREEK WILSON DATE PLACE IN OPERATION 1963 1962 1964

AUTHORIZATION STATUS Water supply was not Water supply is not an Water supply is not an initially authorized. In authorized purpose. authorized purpose. 1964, the Chief of Irrigation storage is Engineers allocated 1,000 authorized, but has not acre-feet of multipurpose been used. storage to water supply under discretionary authority.

USE OF STORAGE The multipurpose pool is The multipurpose pool is The multipurpose pool is operated primarily for operated for recreation operated for recreation recreation and streamflow and streamflow and streamflow maintenance. Two water maintenance, including maintenance. Irrigation supply users have Missouri River storage is not used contracted with the Corps navigation. At the because of the high for storage. RWD No. 3 of request of the KWO, salinity of the lake Osage County contracted releases can be made for water. Interest in water for 230 acre-feet in 1964 water quality supply has bean expressed and in 1979, 270 acre-feet improvement. by two power companies. more for a total of 500 Western Power Division acre-feet, and RWD No. 9 Central Telephone & of Osage County contracted Utilities Corporation for 500 acre-feet in 1979. and Kansas Power and Light Company. Amounts requested total 85.8 mgd.

PHYSICAL DATA Stream 110-Mile Creek Big Blue River Saline River Drainage area (sq. mi.) 322 9,628 1,917 Storage allocation (acre- .) Flood control 162.500 1,942,000 511,000 Multipurpose 56.000 197,000 225,000 Sedimentation 28.000 228,000 40,000 Total 246.500 2,367,000 776,000 Surface area (acres) Full pool 8,500 54,000 20,000 Multipurpose 4,000 15,800 9,000 Shoreline (multi­ 52 112 100 purpose pool - miles)

PROJECT LIFE (years) 100 100 100 8 recreational development at the lake. The multipurpose pool had originally been listed at 19,000 acre-feet. It was further stated that "Present trends in water usage and population changes indicate the need for increasing the storage allocations." Flood and sediment storages were also increased at that time. In 1964, a reallocation of 1,000 acre-feet of storage was made at the completed Pomona Lake under the provisions of the 1958 Water Supply Act. Capacity of the sediment and conservation pool at Pomona had been increased from 52,000 to 70,000 acre-feet prior to construction as recommmended in the Hydrology Design memorandum dated September 1957.

Construction of Melvem Lake began in 1967 and was completed in 1972. The project is operated for flood control, low flow supplementation and water quality improvement at 1-percent chance of shortage, recreation, fish and wildlife management, (i.e., Releases are made at a specified rate which can be sustained by the allocated amount of storage 99 percent of the time. The storage would fail to yield the release an average of only one occurrence in a hundred years.) The dam is on the Marais des Cygnes River about 4 miles west of the town of Melvern, Kansas, in Osage County. The lake at multipurpose pool elevation is about 14 miles long and 1 mile wide with 101 miles of shoreline and 6,930 surface acres of water. Federal lands at the project include 23,464 acres purchased in fee and 1,079 acres of easements. The dam controls 349 square miles of drainage area. An agreement on an annual basis with the Department of Wildlife and Parks provides for fluctuating pool elevations to enhance conditions for fish and waterfowl, subject to floodwater storage needs. Operation of the pool for fish and wildlife and recreation is also subordinate to maintenance of 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) low flow releases. Table 2 shows pertinent data for Melvern Lake. Lands and recreation areas are displayed on the project map, Plate 2. Melvem Lake is situated at the eastern edge of the Flint Hills, an area in which the native vegetation is dominated by tall grass prairie. Over 20,000 acres of the land acquired for the lake had been used for pasture or row crops. Approximately 1,040 acres of project land are still used for agriculture under lease.

TABLE 2

MELVERN LAKE, PERTINENT DATA

Surface Storage (acre-feet)* Elevation Area Initial Predicted (ft., NGVD) (acres) (1972) (2035)

Flood Control 1057 13,950 209,000 205,000 Multipurpose 1036 6,930 154,000 146,000

* Storage amounts include sediment storage allocated to each pool.

Construction of Pomona Lake began in 1959 and was completed in 1963. The project is operated for flood control, low flow supplementation and water quality improvement at 1 percent chance of shortage, water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife. The dam is on Hundred and Ten Mile

9 Creek in Osage County, Kansas, about 8.5 miles west and 3 miles north of the city of Pomona. The multipurpose pool has three arms 8, 5, and 4 miles long with 4,000 acres in surface area and 52 miles of shoreline. Federal lands include 10,501 acres acquired in fee and 1,810 acres of easements. An agreement on an annual basis with the Department of Wildlife and Parks provides for fluctuating pool elevations to enhance conditions for fish and waterfowl, subject to floodwater storage needs. Operation of the pool for fish and wildlife and recreation is also subordinate to water supply use and maintenance of 15 cfs low flow releases. Table 3 shows pertinent data for Pomona Lake. Table 4 shows existing water supply allocation and contracts.

TABLE 3 i

POMONA LAKE, PERTINENT DATA

Surface Storage (acre-feet)* Elevation Area Initial Predicted (ft., NGVD) (acres) (1963) (2035)

Flood Control 1003 8,500 176,500 169,000 Multipurpose 974 4,000 70,000 51,000

* Storage amounts include sediment storage allocated to each pool.

TABLE 4

EXISTING WATER SUPPLY ALLOCATION AT POMONA LAKE

Repayment Period Storage (acre Contract Date (years) (X of total s

RWD #3 1964 40 230 (DA23-0280CIVENG-65- 18) (0.1 X)

RWD #3 1979 50 270 (DACW41-79-C-0076) (0.13 X)

RWD #9 1979 50 500 (DACW41-79-C-0014) (0.23 X)

TOTAL 1,000 (0.46 X)

and recreation areas are displayed on the project map, Plate 3. Although the lake is in what was once tall grass prairie, about 11 percent of the land m public use areas is native woodland of eastern hardwood or riparian composition. At the time of project construction, Osage County

10 was about 88 percent agricultural with 53 percent of that in crops and 47 percent in pasture or range. Approximately 2,732 acres of project land are still used for agriculture under lease.

Tuttle Creek Lake was authorized in 1938 and was modified and expanded by the Flood Control Acts of 1941 and 1944. Construction began in 1952 and was completed in 1962. The dam is 6 miles north of Manhattan, Kansas on the Big Blue River. The lake is in Pottawatomie, Riley, and Marshall Counties. The project consists of 33,634 acres of Government owned land of which 15,800 acres are permanently inundated by waters of the lake. The dam is operated for flood control and recreation and to supplement low flows on the Big Blue and Kansas Rivers, and for navigation flows on the Missouri River. Navigation releases have been limited, by a special agreement, to storage above 1072 feet National Geodectic Vertical Datum (ft., NGVD) before October 1 and to storage above 1069 ft., NGVD from then to the end of the navigation season, except that during extreme droughts storage down to 1064 ft., NGVD may be used for that purpose. An annual agreement with the Department of Wildlife and Parks provides for fluctuating pool levels to enhance conditions for fish and waterfowl management. Although existing policy specifies low flow releases of 100 cfs in normal weather conditions and 25 cfs in drought conditions, releases are rarely less than 400 cfs and frequently exceed 1000 cfs. Table 5 shows pertinent data for Tuttle Creek Lake. Lands and recreation areas are displayed on the project map, Plate 4. Tuttle Creek Lake was designed for 50 years of sediment accumulation. This is occurring more rapidly than was originally expected. Sediment encroachment is already creating problems for recreation use of the multipurpose pool and will greatly reduce the storage capacity and yield from storage by the end of the study period (2035).

TABLE 5

TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, PERTINENT DATA

Surface Storage (acre-feet)* Elevation Area Initial Predicted (ft., NGVD) (acres) (1962) (2035)

Flood Control 1136 54,000 1,942,000 1,942,000 Multipurpose 1075 15,800 425,000 122,000

* Storage in the multipurpose pool includes sediment storage.

Operation of Projects

Melvern Lake The multipurpose storage at Melvem Lake is 137,000 acre-feet. The multipurpose pool has 47,000 acre-feet of recreation storage and 90,000 acre-feet allocated to water quality. The water quality storage yields 20 cfs of streamflow at a 1-percent chance of shortage. This comprises 57 percent of the 35 cfs streamflow requirement in the Marais des Cygnes River at Ottawa as determined necessary by the Public Health Service during planning of the lake. The

11 releases made for water quality do not include any tributary inflows downstream of the dam. Lake elevation graphs in the Appendix are based on records since 1940, shows the effect of existing operations and the discretionary or reallocated operations on Melvern Lake as if the dam had been in place throughout the entire period of record. The graph in Figure 1 displays actual lake elevations since the dam was placed in operation. The multipurpose pool was filled in stages over a three-year period. Osage City withdraws from "streamflow" out of Melvern Lake. The seasonal fluctuations made in accordance with the Department of Wildlife and Parks agreement range between 1 foot and 3 feet above and below multipurpose elevation. Melvern Lake offers six intensively developed public use areas, totaling 3,793 acres. Five are operated by the Corps and one by the state. Facilities vary among the areas, but generally include access and interior roads, parking, camp sites, picnic grounds with tables and grills, group and individual shelters, boat launching ramps, beaches, potable water supply, and toilets. Table 6 indicates facilities at each public use area.

TABLE 6

MELVERN RECREATION FACILITIES

Boat Picnic Camp Trailer Public Use Area Acres Ramp Marina Grounds Grounds Hook-ups

Outlet 450 X X X X Coeur d ’Alene 450 X X X X Arrow Rock 427 X X X Sun Dance 278 X X X Turkey Point 553 X X Melvern State Park 1,785 X X X X

Nature Water Public Use Area Beach Trail Supply Toilets Showers Playground

Outlet X X X X X X Coeur d ’Alene X X X X X Arrow Rock X X X X Sun Dance X x Turkey Point X X X X Melvern State Park X X X X X

Melvern Lake has one marina. It is privately operated and offers a full line of services.

Hunting is permitted on lands outside public use areas. Game hunted includes rabbits, squirrels, deer, and waterfowl.

Visitation and distribution of recreation activities at Melvern Lake are shown in Tables 7 and 8.

12 ki ki >>j V A T I o N IN FEET IUE . evr Lk, cul ol Elevations. Pool Actual Lake, Melvern 1. FIGURE 1060 OJO fO 1040 1020 /O80 960 980 7 P 9 0 . ? 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 0 1 2 5 4 5 86 85 84 85 82 81 #0 73 78 77 76 75 74 73 7? 7. 70 69 6P 67 197 EVR LAKE MELVERN t - 96 REGULATION 1986 - 13 TABLE 7

MELVERN LAKE VISITATION DATA

Year Visitors

1973 110,000 1974 402.000 1975 882.000 1976 904.000 1977 679.600 1978 896.000 1979 1,000,700 1980 1,016,100 1981 1,032,600 1982 998,400 1983 1,074,900 1984 1,007,400 1985 954,200 1986 810,500 TOTAL 11,768,400 Average per year 840.600

TABLE 8

MELVERN LAKE DISTRIBUTION OF RECREATION ACTIVITIES

Total Visitation* Activity (percen

Camping 20 Picnicking 5 Boating 3 Fishing 42 Hunting 2 Sightseeing 31 Waterskiing 8 Swimming 24

* Visitation figured as average of three years? 1984, 1985, and 1986. Because visit can include more than one activity, totals exceed 100 percent.

Pomona Lake Most of the multipurpose storage at Pomona Lake is presently allocated for water quality with releases made at one-percent chance of shortage. Pomona has an existing allocation of 1,000 acre-feet of storage yielding 0.4 cfs for water supply. The remaining 55,000 acre-feet of the designed 56,000 acre-feet of multipurpose storage yields 15 cfs of water quality flow. This release satisfies 43 percent of the 35 cfs flow requirement in the Marais des Cygnes River at Ottawa, Kansas, as was determined necessary by the Public Health Service during planning of the lake. For simplicity, the release computations ignored tributary inflows between the dam and Ottawa. The computations show what would happen if

14 lake releases were to make up the entire flow 99 percent of the time. In fact, inflow from the drainage downstream of both Pomona and Melvern dams contributes part of the streamflow and causes it to exceed 35 cfs at Ottawa. Lake elevation graphs in the Appendix are based on records since 1940, and show the effect of existing operations and discretionary or reallocated operations on Pomona Lake as if the dam had been in place throughout the entire period of record. The graph in Figure 2 displays actual lake elevations since the dam was placed in operation. The multipurpose pool filled in about a year and a half. Seasonal fluctuations of 2 feet above and 2 feet below normal multipurpose pool are made in accordance with the annually renewed agreement with Department of Wildlife and Parks for Pomona Lake.

Nine public use areas totaling 1,460 acres have been developed at Pomona Lake. One of the areas, Vassar State Park, is operated by the State, and the other eight are operated by the Corps. Table 9 shows facilities at the public use areas. Two marinas are in operation at Pomona Lake, and both provide full services.

TABLE 9

POMONA RECREATION FACILITIES

Boat Picnic Camp Trailer Public Use Area Acres Ramp Marina Grounds Grounds Hook-ups

Outlet X X X Management 111 X X Carbolyn 90 X X X X Dragoon * 110 X 110-Mile 120 X X X Wolf Creek 110 X X X X Michigan Valley 204 X X X X X Cedar 72 X X Vassar State Park 480 X X X X X

Nature Water Public Use Area Beach Trail Supply Toilets Showers Playground

Outlet X X X X X Management X X X Carbolyn X X X Dragoon * 110-Mile X X X Wolf Creek X X X X Michigan Valley X X X X X Cedar X Vassar State Park X X X X X

* Dragoon park was closed after the 1982 recreation season.

Much private development has occurred around Pomona Lake. Many residents own their own boat docks and heavily use the lake for boating and fishing.

Tables 10 and 11 presents historical visitation data and distribution for Pomona Lake.

15 POMONA LAKE 1963-1986 REGULATION

k !020 --f kj 1 TOP OP FLOOD CONTROL POOL EL. 1 0 0 5 0 ki 1010-- ^-- 1-- i-- 1- k lOOOi

990

990 ------

* 970 O

960 - - k 950 -

940 V ~ ki 950 - ki 920 90TTON OF MULTIPURPOSE POOL EL. 9/2.0 j_ L i_ l _L

63 6 4 65 6 6 67 68 69 70 7| 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 8i 62 83 84 85 84

FIGURE 2. Pomona Lake, Actual Pool Elevations.

16 T A B L E 10

POMONA LAKE VISITATION DATA

Year Visitors

1964 769,964 1965 850,372 1966 819,365 1967 917,673 1968 775,976 1969 811,230 1970 833,550 1971 924,000 1972 1,256,000 1973 1,483,000 1974 1,033,000 1975 911,000 1976 924,000 1977 865,400 1978 885,000 1979 617,300 1980 711,400 1981 561,800 1982 743,100 1983 575,400 1984 495,800 1985 616,300 1986 593,400

TOTAL 18,974,030 Average per year 824,957

TABLE 11

POMONA LAKE DISTRIBUTION OF RECREATION ACTIVITIES

Total Visitation* Activity (percentage)

Camping 23 Picnicking 10 Boating 12 Fishing 21 Hunting 2 Sightseeing 25 Waterskiing 6 Swimming 8

* Visitation figured as average of three years; 1984, 1985, and 1986. Because visit can include more than one activity, totals exceed 100 percent.

17 Tuttle Creek Lake Due to the vast size of the drainage area, 9,628 square miles, above Tuttle Creek Dam compared to the storage capacity of the project, day-to-day operations vary widely. The multipurpose pool is operated for several purposes, none of which has a specific storage allocation reserved. Lake elevation graphs in the Appendix are based on records since 1940 and show the effect of existing operations and discretionary or reallocated operations on Tuttle Creek Lake as if the dam had been in place throughout the entire period of record. Figure 3 is a record of the historic operation of the project from 1961 through 1986. The present limits on releases for navigation were established soon after the 15-foot drawdown that occurred in 1966-67. The economic justification for the water quality and navigation storage is documented in a 1961 report, Allocation of Storage for Conservation and Recreation, Economic Justification. The following excerpt from that report indicates how benefits could be derived from joint operation.

"15. Total average conservation benefits.--The average annual benefits for water supply and for navigation have been computed separately. These two uses are not entirely compatible, and it would not be proper to assume that the total conservation benefits would be the sum of the two. All of the storage could be used immediately for navigation without awaiting further economic development. The need for navigation water will be reduced to some extent when all of the main stem reservoirs are completed and filled. The period of filling is dependent on precipitation but is assumed to be 10 years for the purpose of this study. This fits in very well with the requirements for other conservation uses. These will develop as the availability and quality of the supply is demonstrated. For the purpose of this study, it has been assumed that municipal and industrial use would increase from near zero at the beginning of Tuttle Creek operation to all of the available supply over the following 50 years and average about 75 percent. During the same period exclusive navigation use would drop from all to near zero. However, much of the releases for quality improvement for municipal and industrial uses will also be beneficial to navigation. On that basis it is assumed that navigation benefits would also average about 75 percent of the possible benefits presented in paragraph 13. The average annual conservation benefits for water quality control and navigation in accordance with the above allocation are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.--Tuttle Creek Reservoir - Average annual benefits for water conservation

Average annual Allocation Conservation Use worth factor benefit

Water quality control $1,350,000 .75 $1,012,500 Navigation 277,500 .75 208,100 Total 1,220,600"

Table 12 shows the releases which have been made from Tuttle Creek Lake for navigation and low flow maintenance, in number of days.

Tuttle Creek Lake has ten public use areas , of which four are state- operated. Table 13 shows the facilities which are provided at these areas, Tables 14 and 15 provide historical visitation data, along with distribution among activities. 18 TUTTLE CREEK LAKE 1961-1986 REGULATION

k ki 1140 k k U20

* UOO

* 1060 O

1060 k

1040 k k 1020 k

01 02 03 04 05 00 07 6fi 09 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 00 81 82 83 84 80 88

FIGURE 3. Tuttle Creek Lake, Actual Pool Elevations.

19 TABLE 12

TUTTLE CREEK LAKE RELEASES (days)

Year Nav. Low Flow 1968 187 - 1969 18 1970 25 1971 — 66 1972 — 12 1973 11 — 1974 64 — 1975 — — 1976 — 80 1977 9 145 1978 — — 1979 — 22 1980 171 37 1981 48 131 1982 - - 1983 — 25 1984 - — 1985 6 — 1986

TABLE 13

TUTTLE CREEK RECREATION FACILITIES

Boat Boat Picnic Camp Trailer Public Use Area______Acres Ramp____ Rental Grounds Grounds____Hook-ups

Outlet 277 X River Pond State Park 514 X X X x Spillway State Park 153 X X X X Carnahan Creek 247 X X X Randolph State Park 202 X X X Fancy Creek State Park 372 X X X X Stockdale 188 X X X Tuttle Creek Cove 252 X X X Observation Point 76 X Spillway Cycle 65

Sewage Water Public Use Area Dump Marina Supply Toilets Showers Swimming

Outlet X X River Pond State Park x X X x x Spillway State Park X X x Carnahan Creek X X Randolph State Park X X x Fancy Creek State Park x X X x x Stockdale X X x x Tuttle Creek Cove x X X Observation Point X Spillway Cycle X X

20 T A B L E 14

TUTTLE CREEK LAKE VISITATION DATA

Year Visitors

1963 1,012,209 1964 1,298,430 1965 931,480 1966 891,947 1967 856,955 1968 1,102,068 1969 1,301.230 1970 1,342,750 1971 1.387.000 1972 1.304.000 1973 1.350.000 1974 1.223.300 1975 1.360.000 1976 1.459.000 1977 1.208.000 1978 1,368,000 1979 1,138,400 1980 997,900 1981 840,600 1982 1.013.300 1983 920,000 1984 892,800 1985 906,500 1986 992,200

TOTAL 27,098,069 Average per year 1,129,086

♦ TABLE 15

TUTTLE CREEK LAKE DISTRIBUTION OF RECREATION ACTIVITIES

Total Visitation* Activity (percentage)

Camping 4 Picnicking 7 Boating 6 Fishing 12 Hunting 2 Sightseeing 59 Waterskiing 1 Swimming 3

* Visitation figured as average of three years; 1984 1985, and 1986. Because all activities are not listed, totals do not equal 100 percent.

21 REALLOCAT I ON

Need for Reallocation The Kansas Water Office, and its predecessor agency, the Kansas Water Resources Board, have been actively involved in the planning, development, and use of water supply storage in Corps of Engineers lakes since the Corps first began including storage specifically for water supply. Of the 17 Corps lakes in Kansas, the State has contracted for storage in 8, including 4 in the Kansas City District. In 1985, the State of Kansas adopted a Large Reservoir Management section as part of the Kansas Water Plan. The section contained a number of policies for enhancing the water supply potential of Corps lakes, including the implementation of an assurance program and the purchase of additional storage in Corps lakes. Under the assurance program, all municipal and industrial water rights holders along a river would jointly benefit from drought-period releases of water from Corps lakes. Participation in the program would be at a lower cost than if the users were purchasing water from the State through its water marketing program. The assurance program was enacted into State law in 1986, and the first district, the Kansas River Assurance District, was formed in 1987.

The December 1985 MOU between the State and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works described the need for and use of reallocated storage. The MOU is included in the Appendix along with three sections from the Kansas Water Plan which detail more specifically the use of reallocated storage. The first of the three sections is Large Reservoir Management, the second is Kansas-Lower Republican Basin Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Assurance, and the third is Marais des Cygnes Basin Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Assurance.

Plan Fo rmu I a t ion

Prior to the MOU, the water supply portion of the Kansas and Osage Rivers study examined a number of alternative plans for sources of water supply. In the Osage basin (Area 1), five plans were developed. One plan emphasized construction of small lakes. Two plans emphasized large distribution systems with some reallocation at Melvem and Pomona Lakes. Two plans relied heavily on reallocation at those lakes.

Water supply plans were similarly formulated for Area 2, which included all Kansas River users as well as the Central Kansas Public Wholesale Water Supply District (CKPWWSD). The CKPWWSD includes cities in both the Kansas River basin and the Arkansas River basin which have joined together in an effort to develop a new source. The CKPWWSD has considered sources in both the Kansas and Arkansas Rivers basins. Eight plans were formulated for the Kansas River/CKPWWSD area.

For Area 1 plans, it was determined that costs of the five alternative plans would be very similar, although costs would vary significantly for particular service areas. Reallocation of storage in Melvem and Pomona Lakes is desirable from an implementation standpoint because the plans which rely on new lakes and major pipelines would be more difficult to

22 implement. For Area 2 plans, it was determined that plans which would make use of Kanopolis and Tuttle Creek Lakes for water supply would be less costly than those which would require the construction of one or more new large water supply lakes.

In 1985, plan formulation and evaluation of water supply alternatives in the traditional sense was discontinued for two reasons. One reason was that an agency-wide policy determination was made not to conduct single­ purpose water supply studies. The second reason was that some provisions of the MOU rendered traditional analysis inappropriate. Specifically, the provisions for assurance districts, state water marketing, and protection of inflows and releases for water quality all impact on the analysis. As a result, the orientation of the study was changed to determine what would be the maximum volume of storage in each lake that could be made available to the state under the terms of the MOU. Those volumes are discussed in the description of reallocation which follows.

Description of Reallocation

The proposed volumes of storage to be reallocated at Melvem, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes are 50,000 acre-feet, 32,000 acre-feet, and 50,000 acre-feet, respectively. Corps regulations limit the reallocations to 50,000 acre-feet or 15 percent of original total storage, whichever is less, at the discretion of the Chief of Engineers. Larger reallocations may be approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works if there is not a significant impact on other authorized purposes or major structural or operational change. Congressional approval is required for reallocations involving significant impacts or major change.

The reallocation of 50,000 acre-feet at Melvem Lake would be accomplished by converting the existing water quality storage to operate at a 10-percent chance of shortage instead of the present 1-percent chance. The year 2035 was selected early in the study as the end of a 50-year period for plan evaluation. Melvem Lake would still have remaining water quality storage at year 2035 in excess of that required to make water quality releases on 10-percent chance of shortage.

No change in multipurpose pool elevation would be made at Melvem Lake. The reallocation would not involve any impact on physical facilities at the lake such as roads or recreation facilities. A moderate change in lake operation would occur due to reallocation, because of the changed chance of shortage. The portion of the pool contributing to water supply and water quality releases would be drawn down, on the average, twice during a 100-year period rather than once. Even then, the remaining 47,000 acre-feet of recreation storage would not be drawn upon, and a large recreation pool would remain.

At Pomona Lake 33,000 acre-feet comprises 15 percent of the original total storage of 218,500 acre-feet. As with Melvern Lake, the reallocation would be made possible by converting water quality storage operation to a 10-percent chance of shortage instead of 1-percent. Under 2035 conditions, in order to maintain water quality releases on a 10-percent chance of shortage, 11,000 acre-feet of the 44,000 acre-feet multipurpose pool must remain allocated to water quality. The proposed 32,000 acre-feet reallocation, when added to the 1,000 acre-feet reallocation already

23 accomplished, would represent the maximum allowable. After reallocation, the remaining water quality storage would still be more than enough, in the year 2035, to make required releases. Also, like Melvern Lake, Pomona reallocation would not require any pool elevation change, nor any road or recreation facility changes. Also, like Melvern Lake, the frequency of drawdown to pool bottom would change to once every 50 years, on average, instead of once every 100 years. However, at Pomona there is no residual recreation pool, so the effect would be somewhat greater. At Tuttle Creek Lake, the proposed reallocation of 50,000 acre-feet of the 2035 remaining multipurpose storage is 2.4 percent of the total storage, including flood control. The reallocation would be made from a pool operated jointly for water quality and navigation purposes. As indicated by Table 12, releases from Tuttle Creek Lake specifically for the two purposes have been made throughout the project*s history. The ability of Tuttle Creek Lake releases to augment navigation flows on the Missouri River is extremely limited because of the small rates of discharge in comparison to minimum navigation flow requirements of 35,000 cfs on the Missouri River, at Kansas City. Additionally, an agreement between the Corps of Engineers and the State of Kansas stipulates that major drawdowns will not be made for navigation during the period between Memorial Day and Labor Day, which further limits usefulness for navigation. The remaining 72,000 acre-feet of storage at year 2035, if operated for water quality, would serve to maintain adequate minimum flow rates on the lower Kansas River so long as major diversions out of basin are not made from Milford, Tuttle Creek, or Perry Lakes.

No change in multipurpose pool elevation would be made in the reallocation of Tuttle Creek Lake storage. No physical facilities would be affected. As with Melvern and Pomona, drawdowns of the lake during drought periods would be somewhat greater, although not substantially so.

Table 16 compares the authorized storage and recommended reallocation storage by project purpose for the three lakes, Melvern, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek. The recommended reallocation storage is using 2035 conditions.

An important aspect of the reallocation study was the determination of yield from storage. The Kansas Water Office was concerned that a single method for yield determination should be used by both the Kansas City and Tulsa Districts. The KWO requested that the method take into account all significant factors, including basinwide analysis, lake sedimentation and evaporation, depletion of inflows, water rights and consumptive use, and minimum streamflows. The method was developed by Leo R. Beard in 1985. The method is a modification of the 1971 (original) version of the HEC-3 computer program, and an addition of a water rights computation procedure. A description of the procedures is available in the Kansas City District offices.

The yield program was first run for the Marais des Cygnes basin. A series of trial and error runs was made to determine the volumes of storage needed in Melvern and Pomona Lakes to provide 35 cfs flow at Ottawa on a 10-percent chance of shortage, based on year 2035 conditions. Those volumes were determined to be 39,000 acre-feet for Melvern Lake and 11,000 acre-feet for Pomona Lake. The program was then operated to determine

24 T A B L E 16

RECOMMENDED REALLOCATION STORAGE (1,000 acre-feet)

Recommended Reallocation Lake-Purpose______Authorized______(2035 conditions)

Melvern Flood Control 200 200 Water Quality 90 40 Water Supply 0 50 Recreation 47 47 Sediment 26 14

Pomona Flood Control 162 162 Water Quality 55 11 Water Supply 1 33 Sediment 28 8

Tuttle Creek Flood Control 1,942 1,931 Water Quailty/Navigation 197 72 Water Supply 0 50 Sediment 228 0

water supply yield for those two lakes and for Hillsdale Lake based on 2035 conditions, and based on firm yield (ie., no shortage) for the period 1940 through 1981. The resultant yields, which represent less than a 2-percent chance of shortage, were computed to be 10.6 cfs for 50,000 acre-feet at Melvern Lake and 8.2 cfs for 33,000 acre-feet at Pomona Lake. The Pomona Lake storage includes 1,000 acre-feet already allocated to water supply.

The yield program was then run for the Kansas River basin. Corps lakes included in the model were Kanopolis, Wilson, Milford, Tuttle Creek, Perry, and Clinton. Waconda, a Bureau of Reclamation lake, was also included. Inflows for Kanopolis, Wilson, Milford, and Waconda were provided by Bureau of Reclamation, via The Kansas Water Office, and represent depleted flow conditions above these lakes. The Tuttle Creek Lake firm yield was determined to be 252 cfs for 50,000 acre-feet under year 2035 conditions. Other yields were determined to be 215 cfs for 300.000 acre-feet at Milford, 116 cfs for 134,000 acre-feet at Perry, and 22.4 cfs for 89,200 acre-feet at Clinton. These yields take into account downstream water rights and significant reductions in inflow to Kanopolis, Wilson, Waconda, and Milford Lakes because of upstream water use. Target low flows on the Kansas River were 500 cfs at Topeka, 750 cfs at Lecompton, 1.000 cfs at DeSoto, and 1,200 cfs at the mouth. Those flows would all be met under 2035 conditions, with a 50,000 acre-foot reallocation at Tuttle Creek Lake, and at less than a 10-percent chance of shortage. The analysis assumes that flows from the reallocated Tuttle Creek Lake storage remain in the Kansas River basin.

25 One of the products of the yield program is a plot of lake elevation over time for the three Osage River basin lakes and the seven Kansas River basin lakes included in the model. Plots for the existing and reallocated conditions for Melvern, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes are provided in the Appendix. An additional broken line has been added on the Pomona Lake plot for the period March 1956 to March 1957 to represent an estimation of the lake operation under reallocated conditions. This is based on assurance from the Kansas Water Office that a minimum pool will be maintained.

On the Tuttle Creek Lake plot for the periods December 1955 to June 1956 and October 1956 to April 1957, the higher solid line represents an approximation of the existing operation. That is, based on a 10-percent chance of shortage, the bottom of the water quality storage would be at an approximate elevation of 1062 ft. NGVD. At this elevation, the outflow would be decreased to 100 cfs. Releases represented in the model and shown plotted by the bottom solid line were made to meet target flows downstream on the Kansas River. Because of the likely requirement to release inflows for downstream water rights holders, the true existing condition is somewhere between the higher and lower solid lines. The broken line shown on the plot from November 1956 to April 1957 represents an approximation of the lake operation under the reallocated condition. This is based on assurance from the Kansas Water Office that a minimum pool will be maintained. The model does not allow changes in releases by elevation, therefore, the existing condition target flow releases and the reallocation condition water supply releases were made until the lake emptied.

Results of the yield program runs, of course are not precise. The yield estimates, the lake fluctuation plots, and the river flow shortages are all approximations. Table 17 indicates some factors or assumptions which could affect results. One important factor is the State conservation program which is a part of the Kansas Water Plan. Under that program, the municipal and industrial water users in the Kansas and Osage Rivers basins will be adopting conservation plans. Those conservation plans will result in reduced water supply requirements during moderate to severe droughts, with the resultant effect that releases from lake storage may be significantly reduced from the rates used in the yield program. Due to conservation, the lake drawdowns may not be as great.

Another factor which affects yield program results in the Kansas River basin is administration of water rights during severe drought periods. For existing conditions, it was assumed that target flows on the Kansas River would be met throughout the 1950's drought, until Tuttle Creek Lake is emptied. In actuality, when Tuttle Creek Lake is significantly drawn down, releases would be limited to no more than inflow, so that drawdowns would not be as severe as indicated by the model.

Economic Analysis

Normally, the economic analysis in reallocation studies includes determination of benefits or revenues foregone, replacement cost of storage, and updated cost of storage in affected lakes. The primary use of the analysis is to determine the cost to be allocated to the non—Federal sponsor. Another purpose of the analysis is to assure that the reallocation will result in a net economic gain in national economic development (NED) benefits. 26 T A B L E 17

9 FACTORS AND ASSUMPTIONS WHICH AFFECT YIELD PROGRAM RESULTS

Factor or Relative Assumption Reason for Effect Significance

Historical inflows Bureau of Reclamation developed High reduced to Kanopolis, depleted flow values based on Wilson, Waconda, and studies of agricultural practices Milford Lakes to in western Kansas which have represent depleted caused reduced runoff. conditions.

Future water rights River flows and lake yields Moderate not included. would be reduced. to High

Conservation programs River flows and lake yields Moderate not included. would be increased. to High

Tuttle Creek drought Drought period drawdowns for Moderate releases based on Tuttle Creek Lake existing target flows, rather condition may not be as much than administration as indicated by the yield model. of water rights.

Sixty-percent return Actual could be higher or lower. Moderate flow for municipal and industrial lake releases.

For this study, the December 1985 MOU dictates the formula to be used in determining the sponsor*s cost of storage. Paragraph 4.b.(3) states that the purchase price for storage will be based on a 10-year interest free period (from midpoint of physical project construction), with interest applied thereafter at the project water supply interest rate. The State will pay that cost at the time of purchase, and would subsequently be responsible for 100 percent of actual operation and maintenance, major replacement, and major rehabilitation costs allocated to storage placed under contract.

The economic analysis presented herein will document benefits foregone due to reallocation in order to demonstrate positive net NED benefits. It will also provide storage cost computations based on terms of the MOU.

For Melvem and Pomona Lakes, the two purposes potentially affected by reallocation are water quality and recreation. For Tuttle Creek Lake, navigation is also potentially affected. Water quality benefits are determined by the EPA Administrator, under Public Law 92-500. Coordination with Region VII, EPA, was carried out throughout the study, as summarized later in this report and in the Environmental Assessment. The EPA did not attempt to place a specific value on storage. In their letter dated April 21, 1986, the Region VII EPA office raised three concerns. One concern is

27 that existing wastewater treatment plants, which were designed to meet water quality standards based on 7-day 10-year low flow, continue to receive that flow. Another concern is that draft EPA guidance proposes 15 years as the appropriate stress-free period of time to protect ecosystems from drought situations. The third concern is that minimum streamflows being established by the State would be accommodated. The Corps analyses do not directly address the 15 year draft criteria cited by EPA. However, the basinwide yield studies conducted by the Corps for the Osage and Kansas Rivers basins, with the assumption of 60 percent return flow from water supply, show that the reduced volumes of water quality storage are adequate to maintain the required flows, provided that the water supply from reallocation storage remains in the basin. The yield studies are summarized under Description of Reallocation. Low flows in the basin are further ensured by the commitments made by the State of Kansas as a condition of the MOU. Releases which are made under the State*s assurance program will be made to the river during drought periods and will contribute significantly to flows. Additionally, the Division of Water Resources, State Board of Agriculture, will protect water quality releases from withdrawal by means of its staff which is engaged in the State water rights program. As a result of the above coordination and study, it is determined that no water quality benefits are foregone due to the proposed reallocation.

Average annual recreation benefit losses due to reallocation were estimated by applying the percentage of time each lake would be drawn down to particular elevations over the period of record multiplied by an assumed recreation loss for that stage. The losses at each stage were then summed to derive an average expected monthly loss for each month. Unit values ranging from $3.07 to $3.44 per visitor day were then applied to obtain annual loss estimates. Apparent losses of less than two percent of current visitation were judged to be insignificant because of uncertainty in quantifying the relationship between drawdown and recreation activity. Based on the analysis, the proposed reallocations at all three lakes were determined to have an insignificant effect on recreation.

Navigation benefits were originally estimated for Tuttle Creek Lake based on joint operation of the multipurpose pool for navigation and water quality. The assumption was that water releases for either purpose would serve the other purpose much of the time. A maximum benefit was computed for each purpose, assuming the pool was operated only for that purpose. Those maximum benefits were then reduced by 25 percent to account for joint operation.

The reallocated Tuttle Creek Lake multipurpose pool will continue to function in a similar manner. So long as water supply releases are made to the river, much of those releases will continue to reach the Missouri River, just as water quality releases do. Therefore, no reduction in navigation benefits is computed.

The municipal and industrial water supply benefit for reallocation at each of the three lakes is based on the most likely, least costly alternative that would provide an equivalent quantity and quality of water. Presumably, that alternative would be undertaken by the sponsor in the absence of reallocation of storage. There is insufficient yield from wells to supply the desired quantities of water. Therefore, a single purpose water supply lake is considered the most likely alternative. In the Osage

28 River basin, the lake would be constructed on Pottawatomie Creek at the now-deauthorized Garnett Lake site. A lake sized to provide approximately 8 to 10 cfs yield would have an estimated first cost of $35 to $40 million. A lake sized to provide 18 to 20 cfs yield would have an estimated first cost of $55 to $60 million. Annualized values, based on 50-year period, 8.625 percent interest, and excluding operation, maintenance, and repair costs, are $3.1 to $3.5 million for the smaller lake and $4.8 to $5.3 million for the larger lake. The least annual cost alternative to reallocation of both Melvem and Pomona Lakes is $5 million. This is a net annual benefit, since annual water quality and recreation economic losses are minimal.

In the Kansas River basin, single purpose lakes on Soldier Creek at the Grove Site and Vermillion Creek at the Onaga site would not provide sufficient yield to serve as water supply alternatives. A site on the Little Blue River near Waterville was selected as the most likely alternative. A lake yielding approximately 250 cfs would have a first cost of at least $150 million. The corresponding annualized cost would be at least $13 million.

It is important to document, both for the economic analysis and the environmental analysis, that impacts are based on the assumption that releases from water supply storage remain in the basin. In other words, reallocation does not imply or assume any interbasin transfer from Melvem, Pomona, or Tuttle Creek Lakes. A major transfer from the Marais des Cygnes River basin to the Neosho River basin, or a major transfer from the Kansas River basin to the Arkansas River basin could result in additional economic or environmental impacts.

Environmental Analysis

An environmental assessment is included with this reallocation report. The conclusion of that analysis is that the proposed reallocations will not have significant adverse effects on environmental resources. This conclusion does not take into account the possible impact of interbasin transfer of water to areas outside the Marais des Cygnes or Kansas Rivers basins.

29 IMPLEMENTATION

Institutional Requi rements Following the approval of this report, the primary institutional requirement will be preparation and signing of water supply contracts on each of the three lakes. Contract approval usually takes about one year. The Kansas Water Office has right-of-first refusal on the reallocated storage for the effective period of the MOU, which began on July 1, 1986 and will be in force for 10 years. The State may purchase one or a multiple of storage increments of not less than 10 percent of available storage, with a maximum of three contracts per lake. The State has 60 days to exercise its refusal option if another entity makes a purchase offer.

Federal and Non-federal Responsibilities

Federal and non-Federal responsibilities will be specified under terms of the contracts for water supply storage, based on the sample in Engineering Regulation 1105-2-20, and as modified by the MOU. The State’s cost of storage will be determined by the MOU formula as described in the section on economic analysis. Price of each increment of storage is to be determined at the time of purchase. Based on 1987 price levels, the costs per acre-foot are currently estimated to be $112 for Melvem Lake storage, $92 for Pomona Lake storage, and $58 for Tuttle Creek Lake storage. The State will be responsible for 100 percent of the actual operation and maintenance, major replacement, and major rehabilitation costs allocated to storage placed under contract.

Views of Sponsor

The State is strongly in favor of the proposed reallocation, and has requested that contract preparation be started on Tuttle Creek Lake as soon as possible. The State has carried out all conditions specified in the MOU. An assurance district has been formed in the Kansas River basin, and the district is actively operating.

30 SUMMARY OF COORDINATION, PUBLIC VIEWS, AND COMMENTS

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has provided timely informa­ tion throughout the course of this study. Planning Aid Letters were pro­ vided to the Corps of Engineers on September 29, 1983 for reallocation of Tuttle Creek Lake and on October 5, 1983 for reallocation of Melvern and Pomona Lakes. Information from these letters were used in developing plans for the proposed reallocation. In March of 1988, the FWS provided a Draft Coordination Act Report (DCAR) which included recommendations to lessen the impacts of the proposed reallocation on the affected environmental resources. Because of the length of the DCAR, only the cover letter transmitting the DCAR from the FWS to the Corps of Engineers was reproduced and included in the appendix to this report. The recommendations of the FWS are included below along with the Corps of Engineers1 comments on each recommendation.

FWS Recommendation 1:

"The following minimum instream flows should be provided downstream of each lake to maintain the condition of the downstream fishery."

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RECOMMENDED INSTREAM FLOWS

MONTH AVERAGE FLOW (CFS)

POMONA MELVERN TUTTLE CREEK (minimum) (minimum) (minimum) (maximum)

January 15 20 450 7,000

February 15 20 450 7,000

March 25 30 450 7,000

April 40 40 450 2,200

May 50 50 450 2,200

June 40 40 450 2,200

July 25 25 450 7,000

August 15 20 450 7,000

September 15 20 450 7,000

October 15 20 450 7,000

31 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RECOMMENDED INSTREAM FI/3WS (CONT.)

MONTH AVERAGE FLOW (CFS)

POMONA MELVERN TUTTLE CREEK (minimum) (minimum) (minimum) (maximum)

November 15 20 450 7,000

December 15 20 450 7,000

Response:

The recommended minimum instream flows, downstream of the three lakes, should be accommodated during most years. However, during moderate (10- percent chance of shortage) to severe drought (2-percent chance of shortage), reductions in lake releases would be needed. These reduced releases would be utilized to conserve lake storage during drought periods and lessen lake drawdowns.

Releases from Tuttle Creek Lake would be less than the recommended maximum instream flows during most years. However, during periods of extreme inflows, these releases may be exceeded during the evacuation of Tuttle Creek Lake's flood pool.

FWS Recommendation 2:

"Periodic Flushing flows in excess of 400 to 500 c.f.s. (24 hour-long releases about once every ten days) in the Marias des Cygnes River are necessary to maintain the integrity of the stream channel. Flushing flows from Tuttle Creek Lake should be in excess of 450 c.f.s."

Response:

Flushing flows are likely below these lakes as a result of naturally occurring periods of large inflows. For periods of moderate to severe droughts, a plan for providing flushing flows would need to be developed with input from the state, EPA, and the Corps of Engineers.

32 FWS Recommendation 3:

"Paddlefish spawning migrations are likely to occur in the Marias des Cygnes River at certain times of the year. Releases from Melvern and Pomona Lakes should be utilized during wet years in such a manner that flood evacuation peaks are reduced in magnitude, but of increased duration, during periods of potential paddlefish spawning activity."

Response:

Paddlefish are not abundant in the Marias des Cygnes River and prop* spawning substrate (submerged gravel bars) is limited. The proposed reallocation will not affect the flood control operation at these Feder lakes. Flood control operation will continue as under existing conditi

FWS Recommendation 4:

"Water for filling the pools at the Marias des Cygnes Waterfowl Management Area is needed from September through November. The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks water-right should be maintained."

Response:

The existence of water-rights would not be affected by the proposed reallocation. The State of Kansas will continue to administer water- rights .

FWS Recommendation 5:

"It is recognized that periodic drought is a reality within the study area and that all water users suffer during such periods. Consequently, it is likely that at times sufficient water may not be present in the reservoirs to justify maintaining the release rates identified in recommendation number 1. During such an identified drought condition, it is suggested that releases be allowed, if necessary, to decrease to those needed to maintain either the flows in the Marias des Cygnes River that have been established by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to be the minimum desirable streamflows or those which maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations of 5.0 ppm or greater downstream of all three reservoirs. At Tuttle Creek Lake, releases should be made to maintain water quality standards and sustained flows in the Kansas River at Topeka (500 c.f.s.), Lecomptom (750 c.f.s.), DeSoto (1,000 c.f.s.), and Kansas City at the mouth (1,200 c.f.s.)."

33 Response:

Water quality target flows would be maintained by the Corps of Engineers on both the Marias des Cygnes and Kansas Rivers. The chance of shortage associated with these water quality flows would increase from 1-percent to 10-percent. During moderate to severe drought, target flows would need to be adjusted as climatic conditions dictate. The State of Kansas has ultimate responsibility for maintaining water quality standards under the Clean Water Act.

FWS Recommendation 6:

"It may be necessary to restock the lakes themselves and/or the rivers downstream of the lakes if a prolonged drought is identified (i.e. 50-year drought). A contingency plan should be developed and stand ready for implementation if such an identified event occurs. A portion of the cost of the State's assurance program should be allocated for the purchase of replacement fish, if necessary."

Response:

Concur. The Corps of Engineers will suggest that the Kansas Water Office coordinate with the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks to develop such a plan.

FWS Recommendation 7:

"Reservoir operations should not be appreciably changed from the current base condition. The annual reservoir fluctuation plans currently developed with the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks should continue to be implemented."

Response:

Concur.

(A complete summary of public views, comments, and study coordination will be added after public review of this report)

34 RECOMMENDATIONS

I recommend, under the discretionary authority of the Commander, USACB, that 50,000 acre-feet of storage at Melvem Lake be reallocated from water quality to municipal and industrial water supply storage, that 32,000 acre-feet of storage at Pomona Lake be similarly reallocated, and that 50,000 acre-feet of joint water quality/navigation storage at Tuttle Creek Lake be reallocated to municipal and industrial water supply storage.

John H. Atkinson Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer

35 (DRAFT)

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Reallocation of Storage to Water Supply at Melvem, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes, Kansas

I have reviewed and evaluated the Environmental Assessment (EA), the Reallocation Report, and other pertinent data and information pertaining to the reallocation of storage to water supply at Melvem, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes, Kansas. This reallocation action is in response to the concerns of the State of Kansas about meeting future demands for municipal and indus­ trial water supply. Toward this end, the Assistant Secretary of the Army has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the State of Kansas which provides for the sale of an unspecified quantity of water storage in nine Federal lakes in Kansas. This reallocation study is required under the conditions agreed to in the MOU. t I have studied several alternatives to reallocation includ­ ing a "No Action" alternative, construction of single purpose lakes, and conservation measures. The "No Action" alternative does not meet the needs for water supply and is not considered to be a viable option. Construction of single purpose water supply lakes is not cost effective as a result of their economic costs and environmental impacts. Conservation measures were considered but could not supply the quantities of water needed to meet the needs of the State.

Reallocation is a nonstructura1 action and is the only plan to meet the conditions of the MOU. Alternative volumes of reallocation were considered for each of the three lakes. However, as a result of Corps of Engineers regulations and the specific yields needed to meet flow requirements downstream of each lake (i.e. water quality, water rights, minimum flows, and fish and wildlife releases), the proposed volumes of storage to be reallocated at Melvem, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes are 50,000 acre-feet, 32,000 acre-feet, and 50,000 acre-feet, respectively. Corps regulations limit the reallocation to 50,000 acre-feet or 15 percent of the original storage, whichever is less, at the discretion of the Chief of Engineers.

The primary effect of reallocation, from the standpoint of lake operation, is to convert Melvem and Pomona storage from an operation based on drawdown for water quality at one percent chance of shortage (once every 100 years on the average) to an

36 operation based partly on water quality at 10 percent chance of shortage (once every 10 years), and partly on water supply at two percent (once every 50 years). Operation in most years would be unchanged, but operation in moderate to severe droughts would require more drawdown with reallocation than under current condi­ tions. Information developed for the Reallocation Study indicate that the recommended reallocation plans at Melvem, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes would not have a significant effect on the human environment. The Reallocation Report and Environmental Assessment did not address interbasin transfer of water. Additional enviromental documentation and public involvement would be required before such actions would be considered.

After considering all of the above, I have determined that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the reallocation of storage to water supply at Melvem, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes, Kansas.

John H. Atkinson Colonel, U.S. Army District Engineer

37 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Reallocation of Storage to Water Supply at Melvern, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes, Kansas

PREPARED BY:

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI

APRIL 1988

38 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Reallocation of Storage to Water Supply at Melvem, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes, Kansas

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title

Introduction 41

Need for and Objective of Action 42 Study Authority 42 Public Concerns 42 Planning Objectives 42

Alternatives 43 Preliminary Alternatives Investigated 43 Alternatives Investigated in Detail 43

Affected Environment 45 Description of Projects 45 Water Quality Releases 46 Sewage Treatment Plant Return Flows 47 Minimum Desirable Streamflows 48 Navigation Releases 49 Recreation 50 Fisheries 51 Wetlands 51 Endangered and Threatened Species 51 Historic Properties 51

Environmental Effects 53 Project Operation 53 Conditions of the MOU 55 Water Conservation 56 Water Quality Releases 56 Navigation Releases 57 Recreation 57 Fisheries 58 Wetlands 60 Endangered and Threatened Species 61 Terrestrial Ecosystem 62 Historic Properties 62

Public Involvement 63 Report Recipients 63

Findings and Conclusions 65

39 TABLES

NO. TITLE PAGE

EA-1 Current Allocation of Storage 41

EA-2 Proposed Reallocated Storage in 2035 44

EA-3 Water Quality Target Flows, Kansas River 47 EA-4 Flows Reguired for Sewage Treatment 47

EA-5 Minimum Desirable Streamflows, Marais des Cygnes River 49

EA-6 Significant Assumptions of the Yield Models 53

EA-7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Recommended 59 Instream Flows

EA-8 Percent of Time Fish and Wildlife Service's 60 Recommended Instream Flows are met

40 Environmental Assessment

Reallocation of Storage to Water Supply at Melvem, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes, Kansas

INTRODUCTION

The Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers (KCD) is considering the reallocation of part of the existing water quality and navigation storage in Tuttle Creek Lake and part of the existing water quality storage in Melvem and Pomona Lakes to water supply. This reallocation action is in response to the concerns of the State of Kansas about meeting future demands for municipal and industrial water supply. Toward this end, the Assistant Secretary of the Army entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the State of Kansas which provides for the sale of an unspecified quantity of water storage in nine Federal lakes in Kansas. (see Appendix to the Reallocation Report). The purchase of this storage must occur within 10 years of the effective date (July 1, 1986) of the agreement. The current allocation of existing storage in the three lakes considered in this study is given in Table EA-1.

TABLE EA-1

CURRENT ALLOCATION OF STORAGE (Acre-Feet)

Tuttle Use Creek M e l v e m Pomona

Water Quality 197,000 90,000 55,000 Navigation Joint w/ WQ 0 0 Water Supply 0 0 1,000 Flood Control 1,942,000 200,000 162,500 Recreation 0 47,000 0 Sedimentation 228,000 26,000 28,000 Total 2,367,000 363,000 246,500

The purpose of this environmental assessment is to assess the impacts of the proposed reallocation and to determine if the effects associated with the recommended reallocation plan are significant enough to warrant the preparation of an environmental impact statement. It does not address interbasin transfer of water, which would result in effects not documented in this assessment. Additional environmental documentation and public involvement would be required for such actions.

41 NEED FOR AND OBJECTIVE OF ACTION Study Authority

This environmental assessment addresses reallocation of storage under the water supply portion of the Kansas and Osage Rivers, Kansas, Study. The water supply portion of the study was conducted in response to the following three Congressional resolutions:

Senate Committee on Public Works Resolution adopted February 2, 1977: To determine whether modifications to the Kansas River and Tributaries Report (Senate Document No. 122, 87th Congress) is advisable, including consideration of improvements within Kansas for supply, conveyance, and distribution of water to areas of need and for the control of mineral pollutants in streams from natural sources.

Senate Committee on Public Works Resolution adopted February 2, 1977: To determine whether modifications to the Osage River and Tributaries Report (House Document No. 549, 81st Congress) is advisable, including consideration of improvements in Kansas for supply, conveyance, and distribution of water to areas of need.

House Committee on Public Works and Transportation Resolution adopted May 10, 1977: Identical to Senate Resolutions above.

Public Concerns

Some residents of the study area are concerned about the possible reallocation of water in the Federal lakes. They tend to equate reallocation with interbasin transfers and increased (frequency and duration) lake fluctuations. Another major concern of some members of the public is that reallocation would negatively affect the recreational activities at those selected lakes. The State of Missouri is also concerned about the effects of reallocation, as Tuttle Creek, Melvern and Pomona Lakes contribute to the flow of water into Missouri.

Planning Objective

The planning objective for the water supply portion of the Kansas and Osage Rivers, Kansas, Study was to investigate reallocating storage at Melvern, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes to water supply in order to meet the needs of the State of Kansas as specified in the MOU.

42 ALTERNATIVES

Preliminary Alternatives Investigated

During the course of this study, several alternatives to the proposed reallocations that could meet the water supply needs of the State of Kansas were considered. They were: (1) No Action; (2) construction of a single purpose lake on Pottawatomie Creek (Garnett Lake) in the Osage River basin; and (3) construction of single purpose lakes on Vermillion Creek (Onaga Lake), Soldier Creek (Grove Lake), and the Little Blue River (Waterville Lake) in the Kansas River basin. Reallocation is a nonstructural action, and is the only nonstructural plan which addresses the planning objective. Conservation measures, which are nonstructural, were considered but found to be inadequate to meet water supply needs. Additionally, alternative amounts of reallocation storage were considered and are discussed.

The "No Action" alternative does not satisfy the planning objective. Therefore, it was not given detailed consideration. Construction of single purpose water supply lakes at the sites noted above would provide reliable supplies of water in areas of need. However, both the economic costs and adverse environmental effects associated with the construction of these lakes would be substantially greater than the costs and effects of reallocation. Therefore, detailed discussion of these preliminary alternatives are not provided in this assessment.

Alternatives Investigated in Detail

Alternative volumes of reallocation were considered for each of the three lakes. However, as a result of Corps of Engineers regulations and the specific yields needed to meet flow requirements downstream of each lake (i.e. water quality), the proposed volumes of storage to be reallocated at Melvem, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes are 50,000 acre- feet, 32,000 acre-feet, and 50,000 acre-feet, respectively. Corps regulations limit the reallocations to 50,000 acre-feet or 15 percent of the original storage, whichever is less, at the discretion of the Chief of Engineers. Larger reallocations may be approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works if there is not a significant impact on other authorized purposes or major structural or operational change. Congressional approval is required for reallocations involving significant impacts or major change.

To date the State of Kansas has not specified the amount of water supply storage that would be purchased in accordance with the agreement between the State of Kansas and the US Department of the Army. After storage is purchased, the State of Kansas will then sell water to municipal and industrial users, either through an assurance district or its marketing program, and also be responsible for the water supply operation.

43 The guidance which Federal water project development agencies must follow in selecting a water development plan is contained in the Council on Environmental Quality publication, Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. According to this guidance, the alternative plan with the greatest net economic benefit consistent with protecting the Nation's environment is to be selected unless the secretary of the department or head of an independent agency grant an exception when there is some overriding reason for selecting another plan, based upon other Federal, State, local, or international concerns. Given the above, KCD has determined that it would be most prudent to recommend the maximum discretionary reallocation of storage at the three lakes, and this plan is the recommended plan.

The proposed reallocated storage that would result in the year 2035 from the recommended reallocation plan is shown in Table EA-2. The year 2035 represents a 50-year period for plan evaluation.

TABLE EA-2

Proposed Reallocated Storage in 2035 (Acre-Feet)

Tuttle Use Creek Melvern Pomona

Water Quality 72,000 40,000 11,000 Navigation Joint w/ WQ 0 0 Water Supply 50,000 50,000 33,000 Flood Control 1,931,000 200,000 162,500 Recreation 0 47,000 0 Sedimentation 0 14,000 8,000 Total 2,053,000 351,000 214,500

44 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The following discussion of the affected environment is limited to those concerns that may be affected by the proposed reallocation. These topics are identified by subsection headings and, where appropriate, are also discussed for each lake.

Description of Projects

Melvem Lake. Construction of Melvem Lake began in 1967 and was completed in 1972. The project is operated for flood control, low flow supplementation/water quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife management. The dam is on the Marais des Cygnes River in the Osage River basin about 4 miles west of the town of Melvern, Kansas, and has a drainage area of 349 square miles. Federal lands at the project include 23,464 acres purchased in fee and 1,079 acres of easements. A total of approximately 10,000 acres in the upper reaches of the project is licensed to the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks for wildlife management. At multipurpose pool, the lake contains 6,930 surface acres of water. Seasonal fluctuations of the multipurpose pool are made for fish and wildlife enhancement in accordance with an annual agreement between the Kansas Water Office and the KCD. These fluctuations are subject to floodwater and water quality storage needs. No storage is allocated for water supply at present (see Table EA-1). Figure 1 of the Reallocation Report shows the lake operation since the dam was placed in operation in 1971.

Pomona Lake. Construction of Pomona Lake began in 1959 and was completed in 1963. The project is operated for flood control, low flow supplementation/water quality, water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife. The dam is located in the Osage River basin on Hundred and Ten Mile Creek about 8.5 miles west and 3 miles north of the city of Pomona, Kansas, and has a drainage basin of 322 square miles. Federal lands include 10,501 acres acquired in fee and 1,810 acres of easements. At multipurpose pool, the lake contains 4,000 surface acres of water. Pomona Lake currently has 1,000 acre-feet of water supply storage available on a 2 percent chance of shortage (see Table EA-1). This storage is being used to meet the needs of Rural Water Districts 3 and 9 of Osage County, Kansas. Seasonal fluctuations of the multipurpose pool are made for fish and wildlife enhancement in accordance with an annual agreement between the Kansas Water Office and the KCD. These fluctuations are subject to floodwater, water supply, and water quality storage needs. Figure 2 of the Reallocation Report shows the lake operation since the dam was placed in operation in 1963.

Tuttle Creek. Construction of Tuttle Creek Lake began in 1952 and was completed in 1962. The dam is 6 miles north of Manhattan, Kansas, on the Big Blue River in the Kansas River basin. The project consists of 33,634 acres of Government-owned land of which 15,800 acres are permanently inundated by waters of the lake. A total of approximately 12,000 acres in the upper reaches of the project is licensed to the Kansas Department of

45 Wildlife and Parks for wildlife management• The dam is operated for flood control, recreation, water quality, and navigation. Although existing policy specifies low-flow water releases of 100 cubic feet per second (cfs) in normal weather conditions and 25 cfs in drought conditions, releases are rarely less than 400 cfs and frequently exceed 1,000 cfs. Tuttle Creek Lake was designed for 50 years of sediment accumulation. However, sediment accumulation in the multipurpose pool is occurring more rapidly than expected and is already creating problems for recreation use of the multipurpose pool. This sediment accumulation will greatly reduce the storage capacity and yield from storage in the future. Seasonal fluctuations of the multipurpose pool are made for fish and wildlife enhancement in accordance with an annual agreement between the Kansas Water Office and the KCD. These fluctuations are subject to floodwater and water quality storage needs. Day-to-day operations vary widely at Tuttle Creek Lake as a result of the vast size of its drainage area (9,628 square miles) compared to its storage capacity. A lake elevation graph showing historic operation of the project from 1961 though 1986 is presented in Figure 3 of the Reallocation Report. No storage presently exists for water supply (see Table EA-1).

Water Quality Releases

Melvem and Pomona. The US Public Health Service in its 1963 study of the water requirements for the Marais des Cygnes River prior to the construction of Melvem and Pomona established target flows that would alleviate water quality problems in the Marais des Cygnes River. The concept of target flow was that if a present flow value was met or exceeded, pollutants from municipal and industrial sources that could impair the use of water for drinking water and aquatic life support purposes at the site, would be sufficiently diluted so as not to exceed water quality standards. A target flow of 35 cfs at Ottawa, Kansas, was established for the combined releases from these two lakes. The existing releases of 20 cfs from Melvem and 15 cfs from Pomona are associated with 90,000 and 55,000 acre-feet of water quality storage, respectively. These low-flow releases are available on a 1 percent chance of shortage; a shortage that occurs, on the average, once in a hundred years. At present, these water quality releases are not provided any form of protection and are, therefore, susceptible to withdrawal by downstream water users.

Tuttle Creek. In the late 1960's the Kansas Board of Health, through a public hearing process, established target flows that would alleviate water quality problems in the Kansas River basin. The Kansas River target flows recommended are given in Table EA-3. These target flows include flow from unregulated areas as well as releases from Federal lakes. However, the flows are also susceptible to withdrawal by downstream water users since no form of protection is presently provided for these releases. Futhermore, there is no protection of inflows into Federal lakes for water quality purposes and inflows into some lakes have been reduced by upstream depletion. To date Tuttle Creek Lake inflows have been little affected by upstream depletion.

46 TABLE EA-3

Water Quality Target Flows, Kansas River (In cubic feet per second, cfs)

Location Flow

Topeka 500 Lawrence 750 Bonner Springs 1,000 Kansas City 1,250

Sewage Treatment Plant Return Flows

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has drafted preliminary minimum stream flows that are needed to meet the design standards of the sewage treatment plants located downstream of Melvern, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes. These minimum flows are given in Table EA-4. In reviewing these data, it should be noted that EPA's guidance recommends a 15-year drought-free period (7 percent chance of shortage) in contrast to the 10 percent chance of shortage being considered by KCD for these reallocation studies. A rough correlation may be made by comparing the monthly flows under reallocated conditions.

TABLE EA-4

Flows Required for Sewage Treatment

Location 15-Year Drought (cfs)

EPA Recommended Reallocated Flows* Low Flows

Below Tuttle Creek Lake

Big Blue River 26.17 near Manhattan

Kansas River 417.40 at Wamego

Kansas River 499.03 613.0 at Topeka

Kansas River 566.37 750.0 at Lecompton

Kansas River 659.37 772.0 at DeSoto

47 TABLE EA-4 (con't)

Flows Required for Sewage Treatment

Location 15-Year Drought (cfs) EPA Recommended Reallocated Flows* Low Flows

Below Melvern and Pomona Lakes

Marais des Cygnes River 22.98 (Sept thru May); 35.0 near Ottawa 25.0 (June thru August); If lakes in flood pool: 40.0 (Apr), 50.0 (May), and 50.0 (June).

* April 21, 1986 letter from EPA to Corps of Engineers.

Minimum Desirable Streamflows

In 1980, the State of Kansas passed legislation which will protect streamflows from encroachment by new water appropriations. In addition, legislation passed in 1983 directed the Kansas Water Authority and Kansas Water Office to develop and test procedures for the administration of minimum desirable streamflows. The legislation specifies that these streamflows are meant to "preserve, maintain, or enhance instream water uses relative to water quality, fish, wildlife, aquatic life, recreation, and general aesthetics" (K.S.A. 82a-928(9)). All minimum desirable streamflows established prior to July 1, 1990 will be given an effective date of April 12, 1984. Any water appropriation filed after this effective date (junior right) may be cut off during periods of low flows. No rights filed prior to this date (senior right) will be affected.

The State statutes do not define the extent to which minimum desirable streamflows are to be applied in Kansas. The recommended policy included in Kansas Water Authority's State Water Plan is to "identify minimum desirable streamflows on those streams with sufficient opportunity to achieve such streamflows and with real needs to be protected from future appropriations of water". On streams with Federal lakes, maintaining water supply and water quality streamflows will be of higher priority then minimum desirable streamflows. During moderate to severe droughts, as streamflows are reduced, minimum desirable streamflows will be abandoned in favor of providing water supply and water quality flows, as needed.

Melvern and Pomona. For the Marais des Cygnes River, minimum desirable streamflows were approved by the Kansas Legislature in 1984 and are presented in Table EA-5.

48 TABLE EA-5

Minimum Desirable Streamflows (cfs), Marais des Cygnes River

Month Location J F M A* M* J* J A S 0 N D

Ottawa 15 15 15 15 (40) 20 (50) 25 (50) 25 25 20 15 15 15 LaCygne 20 20 20 20 (50) 20(150) 25(150) 25 25 20 20 20 20

* Spawning flows, in ( ) 's, to be provided if lakes are in flood pool, otherwise use lower flows.

Source: Kansas Water Plan, Management Section, Sub-section: Minimum Desirable Streamflows, Kansas Water Authority, January 1986.

Tuttle Creek. At present, specific minimum desirable flows have not been set for the Big Blue River or the Kansas River downstream of Tuttle Creek Lake.

Navigation Releases

Melvem and Pomona. Neither Melvern nor Pomona presently have storage reserved for navigation.

Tuttle Creek. The principal feature of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project is a 9-foot navigation channel from Sioux City, Iowa, to the mouth, upstream from St. Louis, Missouri. Maintenance of this channel requires a certain minimum stream flow during the navigation season. Provision for this minimum stream flow is now a major function of the upper Missouri River reservoirs from which releases are made. However, releases made from these upstream reservoirs for the benefit of the lower Missouri River are inefficient because of transmission loss. Further, little advantage can be taken of runoff originating from rainfall below the Missouri River reservoirs since time of water travel from the lowermost reservoir to Kansas City is seven days. Releases from the Missouri River reservoirs have to be made that far in advance to assure adequate flows in the Missouri River for navigation below Kansas City.

A December 1961 report on economic justification of the allocation of storage for conservation and recreation noted that the value of Tuttle Creek Lake storage for navigation was based on reducing the requirement for mainstem releases to be made to assure adequate Missouri River flow below Kansas City. Table 12 of the Reallocation Report shows the number of

49 days that navigation releases have been made from Tuttle Creek Lake in 19 years of operation. Releases were made for navigation on approximately 7 percent of the days. Because of the adverse impact of drawdown on recreation, the Corps of Engineers entered into an agreement with the State of Kansas which stipulates that major drawdowns will not be made for navigation during the period between Memorial Day and Labor Day, which further limits the usefulness of Tuttle Creek Lake for navigation.

Recreation

Melvem. Melvem Lake offers six intensively developed public use areas. Five are operated by the Corps and one by the State. Table 6 of the Reallocation Report indicate facilities available at each public use area. Since 1973, visitation has averaged 841,000 visitors per year with fishing, sightseeing, swimming, and camping being the most popular activities (see Tables 7 and 8 in Reallocation Report).

Pomona. Nine public use areas have been developed at Pomona Lake. One of the areas, Vassar State Park, is operated by the State, and the other eight are operated by the Corps. Facilities available at each public use area are listed in Table 9 of the Reallocation Report. Private development has occurred around Pomona Lake with many residents having their own boat docks and using the lake for boating and fishing. Average visitation since 1964 has been 825,000 visitors per year with sightseeing, camping, and fishing being the most popular activities (see Tables 10 and 11 in Reallocation Report).

Tuttle Creek. Tuttle Creek Lake has ten public use areas. Five areas are operated by the Corps of Engineers, four by the State of Kansas, and one by Pottawatomie County. A listing of available facilities at these areas is included as Table 13 in the Reallocation Report. The average number of visitors to Tuttle Creek Lake since 1963 has been 1,129,000 per year, with sightseeing and fishing being the most popular activities (see Tables 14 and 15 in Reallocation Report).

Fisheries

The game and non-game fish species in Melvem, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes are essentially the same and are a composite of native and stocked species. The most important game species harvested include channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), crappie (Pomoxis spp.), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), white bass (Morone chrysops), and walleye (Stizostedion vitreum). Common non-game species occurring in these lakes include gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens), and carp (Cyprinus carpio).

The general species composition of the fish populations in the rivers downstream of these lakes are similar to the lakes' populations. However, the more riverine adapted species such as channel catfish, white bass, carp, and gizzard shad are the dominant species. The downstream fisheries are greatly influenced by releases from the lakes with the spring spawning

50 season being a particularly sensitive period. Generally, releases from the lakes during a normal year provide for high flows in the spring, which are critical for the spawning success of many species, followed by sustained releases throughout the remainder of the year. Sustaining releases during traditionally low or no flow periods aid in maintaining adequate water quality in these rivers.

Wetlands

Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal conditions do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Melvem, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes do contain some small, scattered wetlands located in the upper reaches of coves and predominantly in the upper end of the lakes.

The Marais des Cygnes State Waterfowl Management Area, located adjacent to the Marais des Cygnes River near Trading Post, Kansas, depends on this river for its water supply. This area is downstream from Melvem and Pomona Lakes and was developed in the 1950's by the Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game Commission (now the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks) to help meet the demand for waterfowl hunting and to supplement the National Wildlife Refuge System. The area contains 7,145 acres of which approximately 2,600 acres require annual flooding for waterfowl. Normal management requires a drawdown of pools in late May or early June and reflooding of the pools in late September or early October. The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks has acquired a 2,000 acre-foot (maximum removal rate of 8 cfs) water right to available flows in the Marais des Cygnes River.

Endangered and Threatened Species

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has identified five Federally endangered and/or threatened species? the bald eagle (Haliaeetus 1eucocepha1us), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), least tern (Sterna antillarum), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), and Eskimo curlew (Numenius borealis) which may be found in the immediate study area of Pomona, Melvem, and Tuttle Creek Lakes. In addition, Mead's milkweed (Asclepias meadii) has also been proposed for listing as a threatened species and may occur in the study area.

Historic Properties

Melvem. Fifty-eight archeological sites have been located at Melvem Lake^ Intensive cultural resources survey was conducted along the shoreline between elevations 1034 and 1042.3 ft., m.s.l. Twenty-three archeological sites were found to be inundated, 15 are on the shoreline and subjected to wave erosion, and 11 are at slightly higher elevations within the flood pool where they may be inundated periodically.

51 The Cowkiller Site, downstream of the dam, is the only site presently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Four other sites are considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Of these five sites, only one is affected by shoreline wave action. Pomona. Twenty-five archeological sites have been identified at Pomona Lake. Of these 25 sites, eleven are inundated and eight are located along the shoreline and are located in the uplands. Three sites are considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

An intensive archeological survey was conducted along the shoreline between elevations 974 and 986.4 ft., m.s.l. and a limited survey was performed below the multipurpose pool to study sites between elevations 970 and 974 ft., m.s.l. during a period of drawdown. Archeological sites on the shoreline at or above the multipurpose pool elevation, 974 ft., m.s.l., are affected by wave action. Two of the National Register eligible sites are being subjected to shoreline erosion.

During the investigation of sites between elevation 970 to 974, no significant cultural remains were found. Three of the sites investigated were found to contain few artifact materials or were disturbed by shoreline erosion above 974 ft., m.s.l.. However, the condition of these sites below elevation 970, could not be determined. Denser concentrations of artifacts at these three sites were exposed near elevation 970.

Tuttle Creek. Studies have resulted in the discovery of a total of 139 sites at Tuttle Creek Lake. It has been determined that 108 of these sites are located on government-owned lands, while 31 are on flowage easement properties. Forty-four sites are situated along the shoreline of the lake. The remainder of the sites are at elevations below the five-year flooding frequency of 1101 feet. Twelve sites in Tuttle Creek Lake are entirely inundated by the multipurpose pool. Only a small portion, approximately 600 acres has been systematically surveyed. Although sites along the shoreline were recorded during previous surveys, the exact areas surveyed were unrecorded.

To date, only one site, the Coffey Site is currently on the National Register. This site is being eroded away by the river. In addition to the Coffey Site, six other archeological sites have been recommended as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Of these sites, two are being directly impacted by shoreline erosion.

52 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

The following discussion of the environmental consequences that would result from the proposed reallocation is divided up into specific topics of concerns. These topics are identified by subsection headings and, where appropriate, are also discussed for each lake.

Project Operation

The effects resulting from implementation of the water supply portion of the Kansas-Osage Water Management Study are based upon an analysis of computer models for water yield from storage, conducted for each basin by the Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers. Using results from the yield model, KCD was able to predict the difference between the existing conditions and what would exist with the proposed reallocation for water supply. Many assumptions were included in the yield models including basinwide analysis, lake sedimentation and evaporation, depletion of inflows, water rights and consumptive use, and minimum streamflows. Some of the more significant assumptions are presented in Table EA-6 (see Reallocation Report for an additional description of the yield models and the risks associated with some of the assumptions). The appendix to the Reallocation Report contains computer printouts of lake elevations over time under existing conditions and reallocated conditions. Comparison of the two printouts for each lake shows that the main difference between existing and reallocated conditions would occur during a drought period such as that experienced during the 1950's.

TABLE EA-6

SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS OF THE YIELD MODELS

Utilize historical inflows derived from actual gage station records.

Historical inflows to Kanopolis, Wilson, Waconda, and Milford Lakes were reduced to represent depleted conditions as a result of agricultural practices in western Kansas that have reduced runoff.

Utilize monthly lake operation records. For those years prior to actual lake construction, lake operation was estimated based on the historical inflows and standard lake operation.

Assume year 2035 sediment conditions. The year 2035 represents a 50-year period for plan evaluation.

53 TABLE EA-6 (con't)

SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS OF THE YIELD MODELS

Future water rights and conservation programs are not included. Assume sixty-percent of the water used for water supply is returned from municipal and industrial users.

For Melvern and Pomona Lakes, the two project purposes changed by reallocation are water quality and recreation. For Tuttle Creek Lake, navigation storage is also changed. The proposed future storage that would result from reallocation in the three lakes considered in this study are given in Table EA-2.

Melvern and Pomona. The proposed reallocation of 50,000 acre-feet at Melvern Lake represents 15 percent of the original total storage, excluding sediment storage. This reallocation would be accomplished by converting existing water quality storage to water supply with a resulting increase in chance of water quality shortage from the existing 1 percent to 10 percent. No change in multipurpose pool elevation would be made. A moderate change in lake operation would occur due to reallocation, because of the changed chance of shortage. The portion of the pool contributing to both water supply and water quality releases would be drawndown, on the average, twice during a 100-year period rather than once. Even then, the remaining 47,000 acre-feet of recreation storage would not be drawn upon and a large recreation pool would remain.

At Pomona Lake the proposed 32,000 acre-feet reallocation, plus the 1,000 acre-feet reallocation already accomplished, comprises 15 percent of the original total storage, excluding sediment storage. Like Melvern Lake, the reallocation would be made by converting existing water quality storage to water supply, with a resulting increase in chance of water quality shortage from the existing 1 percent to 10 percent. No pool elevation change would be needed but drawdown to pool bottom would change to twice in every 100-years rather than once. However, at Pomona Lake there is no residual recreation pool so the effect would be somewhat greater than at Melvern. At both of these projects, drawdowns of the lakes under the reallocation plan would occur at the same frequency and level, during most years, as with the existing conditions. However, during drought periods, drawdowns would be somewhat greater.

Tuttle Creek. At Tuttle Creek Lake, the proposed reallocation of 50,000 acre-feet of multipurpose storage represents 2.3 percent of the original total storage, excluding sediment storage. The reallocation would be made from a pool operated jointly for water quality and navigation purposes. There is no specific chance of shortage presently associated with the water quality storage at Tuttle Creek Lake. With reallocation, tsr^st flows on ths Ksnsss Rivsr* would fos rnst with lsss thsn sl 10 psirccnt

54 chance of shortage assuming no major diversions are made out of basin at Milford, Tuttle Creek, or Perry Lakes. No change in multipurpose pool elevation would be made in the reallocation of Tuttle Creek Lake storage. During most years, drawdowns of the lake would occur at the same frequency and level. However, drawdowns of the lake during drought periods would be somewhat greater (see computer printouts in Appendix to the Reallocation Report).

In summary, the primary effect of reallocation, from the standpoint of lake operation, is to convert: Melvem and Pomona storage from an operation based on drawdown for water quality at one percent chance of shortage (once every 100 years on average) to an operation based partly on water quality at 10 percent chance of shortage (once every 10 years), and partly on water supply at two percent (once every 50 years). At Tuttle Creek Lake, water quality storage would be operated at less than a 10 percent chance of shortage, under the proposed reallocation. The State of Kansas would be responsible for the water supply operation with the Corps of Engineers making the necessary releases from the lakes. In most years operation would be unchanged, but in moderate to severe droughts, operation would require more drawdown with reallocation than under current conditions. Emergency measures would be implemented by the State during severe droughts to aid in conserving water supplies. Water conservation has been included in the State Water Plan with specific requirements for industrial and municipal users. These efforts would help to provide for the efficient use of the water resources of the State of Kansas.

Conditions of the MOU

The State of Kansas passed legislation in 1986 establishing a water assurance program for water supply below Federal lakes during drought conditions. The establishment of this program was a special condition of the MOU between the U.S. Department of Army and the State of Kansas (see Appendix to the Reallocation Report). This program is intended to provide system management of water supplies in the lakes in order to improve the efficiency and reliability over the current situation. The first assurance district formed was on the Kansas River in 1987. Under this program releases will be made to rivers during drought conditions to satisfy municipal and industrial water rights and will contribute significantly to streamflows. At present, no assurance district has been formed on the Marais des Cygnes River. The preliminary draft of the 1990 State Water Plan recommends that the State should develop reservoir management programs, such as the State Water Assurance Program to "maintain reasonable target flows for instream benefits, adjusting those flows as climatic conditions dictate". This is how the State intends to administer minimum desirable streamflows, in the future, downstream of Federal lakes during drought conditions.

An additional condition of the MOU requires the State to protect water quality releases from being withdrawn for other purposes. To comply with this condition, the Division of Water Resources, State Board of Agriculture, will protect both inflows and water quality releases from withdrawal using its personnel involved in the State water rights program.

55 Water Conservation

The State Water Resource Planning Act provides the legal authority for consideration of water conservation in the State Water Plan. Specific reguirements are included in the Water Plan, as approved in 1985, for industrial and municipal users that purchase water supply from the State. These users are required to have a State approved long-range conservation plan, with municipal user's also required to include a drought contingency plan. The State has indicated that an overall municipal water savings of up to 25 percent may be possible with conservation. These conservation practices would include education, pricing, leak detection, water saving devices, drought resistant grasses, and various other methods. These efforts will improve the efficiency of water use in the State of Kansas.

Water Quality Releases

Melvern and Pomona. Implementation of the recommended reallocation plans for Melvern and Pomona Lakes would continue to provide a water quality release of 35 cfs at Ottawa, but at a 10 percent chance of shortage rather than a 1 percent chance. The Corps analysis does not directly address the State's minimum desirable streamflows or the 15-year drought- free period (7 percent chance of shortage) proposed in EPA's guidance for wasteload allocation. However, the basinwide yield study conducted by the Corps for the Osage River basin show that the reduced volumes of water quality storage is adequate to maintain these flows and with less than a 10 percent chance of shortage, provided that the water supply from reallocation remains in the basin. In addition, these water quality releases would be protected from withdrawal from the river as a condition of the MOU. Additional coordination with EPA and the Kansas Water Office will be conducted in order to assure that water quality standards are maintained.

Tuttle Creek. Results from computer modeling for the Kansas River basin, indicate that with reallocation, the remaining 72,000 acre-feet of water quality/navigation storage in Tuttle Creek is adequate to provide water quality releases that meet the water quality target flows and EPA's recommended flows for wasteloading on the Kansas River. These releases would have less than a 10 percent chance of shortage. This analysis did include releases from the seven major lakes within the Kansas River basin and also assumed that there were no "out of basin" diversions made from Milford, Tuttle Creek, or Perry Lakes. These water quality releases also would be protected from withdrawal as a condition of the MOU. In order to assure that water quality standards are maintained, additional coordination with EPA and the Kansas Water Office will be conducted.

56 Navigation Releases

Reallocation of the storage reserved for navigation is only applicable to Tuttle Creek Lake. Neither Melvem nor Pomona Lakes contain navigation storage.

In actual operation, the ability of Tuttle Creek Lake releases to augment navigation flows on the Missouri River is extremely limited because of the small rates of discharge in comparison to minimum navigation flow requirements of 35,000 cfs on the Missouri River at Kansas City. Reallocation would reduce the capability of Tuttle Creek Lake to make extended releases. However, with the current policy which restricts drawdowns between Memorial Day and Labor day, this reallocation effect is insignificant.

Recreation

No change in multipurpose pool elevation would be made as a result of reallocation at any of the three lakes and no physical facilities would be directly affected. During most years drawdowns of the lakes would occur at the same frequency and level. However, during drought periods, drawdowns would be somewhat greater.

Lake drawdowns, if severe enough (as during drought conditions) would affect marina operators and the general public who use the lake for recreation. For example, recreational boaters could be affected if lake levels drop below the depth necessary for safe boat launching and motoring. Severe lake fluctuations could also affect the marina operators by forcing them to move their boat rental facilities, walkways, and floating retail storage operations. Two marinas operate at Pomona, one at Melvem, and none at Tuttle Creek.

To quantify the effects resulting from the reallocation plans, a model was developed by the Corps for each lake that would predict the probable effects of various lake drawdown levels on recreational activity by month over the period of record. The projected effects were based on swimming beach and boat ramp capability, lake bottom exposure, esthetic factors and other variables. These data and drawdowns expected with the various plan were then superimposed on the hydrograph for each lake for the period of record, assuming the dams were in place. The resulting recreation-day losses for reallocation plans having sustainable yields were determined to cause less than a 2 percent reduction from current visitation. Most of this lost visitation would occur during drought conditions with or without reallocation.

57 Fisheries

The potential effects of operating Melvem, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes for water supply upon the fishery in these lakes can be positive, negative, or nonexistent dependent upon several factors, the most important of which are timing and magnitude of changes in water level. Based on results from the yield studies, the differences in these factors for most years are of such a minor magnitude (see Appendix to the Reallocation Report) that significant impacts are not expected. However, during moderate to severe droughts, some impacts may occur as a result of deeper drawdowns of the lakes. It is anticipated that during drought periods, emergency water conservation measures would be implemented by the State which would help minimize impacts on the fisheries. In addition, water should be available from within any available pool storage designated for sedimentation.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recommended minimum streamflows for downstream of Melvern and Pomona Lakes, and both minimum and maximum streamflows for downstream of Tuttle Creek Lake (Table EA-7). Streamflows downstream of these lakes are dependent on the authorized purposes of the lakes, such as flood control and water quality, and the amount of water available as a result of precipitation.

Streamflow data obtained from the yield models for the period 1940-1981 indicate that under existing conditions these minimum streamflows would have been met on the average 57, 66, and 79 percent of the time downstream of Pomona, Melvem, and Tuttle Creek Lakes, respectively (Table EA-8). With the proposed reallocation plan, the yield models indicate that these streamflows would have been met 58, 63, and 68 percent of the time, respectively (Table EA-8). In addition, the recommended maximum streamflow downstream of Tuttle Creek Lake would have been exceeded on the average 16 percent of the time under existing conditions and 15 percent of the time with the proposed reallocation (Table EA-8). As a result of this analysis, potential downstream fisheries impacts are not expected since releases available with the reallocated storage conditions would not differ significantly from the releases made under existing conditions. In addition the downstream fisheries should benefit from the State*s protection of water quality releases.

58 TABLE EA-7

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RECOMMENDED INSTREAM FLOWS

MONTH AVERAGE FLOW (CFS)

POMONA MELVERN TUTTLE CREEK (minimum) (minimum) (minimum) (maximum)

January 15 20 450 7,000

February 15 20 450 7,000

March 25 30 450 7,000

April 40 40 450 2,200

May 50 50 450 2,200

June 40 40 450 2,200

July 25 25 450 7,000

August 15 20 450 7,000

September 15 20 450 7,000

October 15 20 450 7,000

November 15 20 450 7,000

December 15 20 450 7,000

59 TABLE EA-8

PERCENT OF TIME FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE'S RECOMMENDED INSTREAM FLOWS ARE MET (E=existing, R=reallocated)

MONTH______PERCENT COMPLIANCE (1940-1981)

POMONA MELVERN TUTTLE CREEK (min) (max) E R E R E R E R

January 67 67 76 71 55 38 100 100

February 67 67 69 64 86 71 100 100

March 67 67 60 60 81 74 83 83

April 62 62 62 60 86 71 67 67

May 67 67 69 69 88 83 52 52

June 69 69 64 67 95 95 36 40

July 57 57 55 52 83 81 88 88

August 36 38 57 55 90 76 95 98

September 45 45 67 62 81 76 95 95

October 52 52 76 76 69 62 93 95

November 45 45 62 57 76 50 98 98

December 55 55 69 67 60 40 98 98

Average 57 58 66 63 79 68 84 85

Wetlands

The differences between existing conditions and those under the proposed reallocation are of such a minor magnitude that no significant impact would occur to any wetlands. Streamflows downstream of the lakes also would not differ significantly with reallocation. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated on the Marais des Cygnes State Waterfowl Management Area.

60 Endangered and Threatened Species

No current or proposed Federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species, or their critical habitat, would be affected by the proposed reallocation. The FWS has identified five listed species, and one proposed for listing, that may occur in the study area.

The bald eagle can be considered both as a migrant and winter resident in the study area. Bald eagles winter near large rivers and lakes such as Melvem, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes, where open water persists for much of the winter. Fish are the preferred food item for the bald eagle with crippled waterfowl also being important in areas attracting heavily hunted waterfowl populations. The difference between existing conditions and those under the proposed reallocation are of such a minor magnitude that no impact would occur to the bald eagle. Downstream releases would not differ enough to impact the riparian zone and, therefore, no impact would occur to trees necessary for roost sites or feeding perches. No change on fish or waterfowl populations are anticipated with reallocation and, therefore, no impact on food availability would occur as a result of the proposed action.

The peregrine falcon is both a rare migrant and winter resident in the study area. This species prefers open lowland areas with nearby cliffs but on occasion is found in urban areas utilizing tall office buildings. The peregrine is a predator of birds including waterfowl and shorebirds. Due to the minor differences occurring between existing conditions and with the proposed reallocation, no impact would occur to the peregrine falcon. No habitat, preferred by this species, would be altered and no impact also would occur to any of its food sources.

The least tern and piping plover are associated with unvegetated shorelines, sandbars, and mudflats of wetlands and streams and are considered transients in the study area. The least tern may also occur as a summer resident in this area. There are both site and nesting records for the least tern along the Arkansas River which is south of the study area. Both of these species utilize aquatic invertebrates for food, with the least tern also feeding on small fish. The differences between existing conditions and the proposed reallocation are so minor that no impact would occur to any habitat utilized by these species or their food sources.

Eskimo curlews are upland shorebirds which formerly migrated through Kansas in the spring, foraging for food in plowed fields and heavily grazed or burned grasslands. Some migrants may still be found in the study area. There have been no sightings in Kansas since 1902, but a new sighting was recorded near Grand Island, Nebraska, in the Spring 1987. This species would not be impacted by the proposed reallocation since no upland areas, including plowed fields and grasslands, would be affected.

Mead's milkweed is a prairie plant found in virgin big bluestem prairies that have only been disturbed by mowing for hay. This plant has been found in counties within this project's general study area. However, this species would not be impacted since no prairies would be affected by the proposed reallocation.

61 Terrestrial Ecosystem

The terrestrial ecosystem, including plants and animals, is not considered in this EA as water level fluctuations would occur below the existing multipurpose pool elevation at each of the three lakes. As a result, any terrestrial impacts associated with reallocation would be minor and/or negligible in nature. All anticipated lake and downstream effects have therefore focused on the aquatic ecosystem.

Historical Properties

Currently, many sites located along the shoreline at the Melvem, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes are being subjected to wave action and erosion caused by the normal operation of raising and lowering the multipurpose pool. During most years when lake levels are unchanged, historic properties would not be affected by the reallocation plans any more than with the existing conditions. However, during moderate to severe droughts, greater drawdowns would occur as a result of reallocation.

At Pomona Lake, a study of archeological sites below the multipurpose pool, during drawdown of the lake, could not determine the conditions of inundated sites. However, these sites did contain dense concentrations of artifacts. Indications from this investigation are that sites below the multipurpose pool, situated away from wave action, could be intact and not being impacted at the present time by project operations.

Current management of shoreline sites includes continued monitoring to assess site impacts. Monitoring of sites below multipurpose pool, during drawdown, would be necessary to determine the actual effects of increased drawdowns on inundated sites.

62 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Since the Kansas-Osage Water Management Study was initiated in December 1978, the Water Supply portion of the study has been coordinated with agencies and the interested public through numerous public meetings, workshops, Ad hoc Committees, and informal contacts with local people knowledgeable about the history of the area.

Report Recipients

The draft Reallocation Report and Environmental Assessment has been provided to the following Federal, State, and local agencies, organizations, and individuals for review and comment. This report has also been provided to various libraries throughout the study area to aid in the public review of the document. These libraries are also listed below.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Advisor on Environmental Quality

US Coast Guard

US Department of Agriculture Farmers Home Administration Soil Conservation Service, State Conservationist Forest Service

US Department of Commerce Office of Ecology and Conservation

US Department of Energy Division of NEPA Affairs

US Department of Interior Office of Environmental Project Review Bureau of Reclamation Fish and Wildlife Service Manhattan, Kansas Grand Island, Nebraska Denver, Colorado Geological Survey National Park Service

US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

63 US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Activities Regional Administrator, Region VII

State of Kansas Kansas Water Office (for coordination with all other State agencies)

The following Kansas agencies were provided with information copies • •

Department of Health and Environment Department of Wildlife and Parks Biological Survey Geological Survey State Historic Preservation Officer

State of Missouri Governor Federal Assistance Clearinghouse Department of Conservation Department of Natural Resources

Kansas Chapter, American Fisheries Society Kansas Chapter, Wildlife Society Kansas Ornithological Society Kansas Wildlife Federation National Audubon Society National Wildlife Federation

Kansas City, Kansas Main Library Johnson County Antioch Library Topeka Main Library University of Missouri, Linda Hall Library, Kansas City University of Kansas Library, Lawrence Kansas State University Library, Manhattan Wichita State University Library, Wichita Marymount College Library, Salina Ft. Hayes State University Library, Hays

(Additional information to be added after public meeting)

64 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The reallocation of 50,000 acre-feet of water quality storage at Melvem Lake to water supply would not significantly affect the lake environment, the downstream environment, nor the authorized purposes of the project. Similarly, the reallocation of 32,000 acre-feet of water quality storage at Pomona Lake to water supply would not have significant effects; nor would the reallocation of 50,000 acre-feet of joint water quality/ navigation storage at Tuttle Creek Lake to water supply have significant effects.

This assessment addresses only the effects of the proposed reallocation of storage. It does not address any interbasin transfer of water, which would result in effects not documented in this report. Additional environmental documentation and public involvement would be required for such actions.

Information provided in this assessment indicate that the environmental effects of the recommended reallocation plans at Melvern, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes are insignificant. Therefore, a "Finding of No Significant Impact" will be prepared.

65 BIBLIOGRAPHY

STUDY AREA

American Water Works Service Co., Inc. Engineers, October 1955, Report on Water Supply Plan; Wichita Water Company, Wichita, Kansas: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Associated Engineers Inc., August 1980, Northeast Kansas Water Supply Study, Plans of Regional Water Supply Systems, 2 vols.: Junction City, Kansas.

Beard, Leo R., 1985, Procedures for Use of HEC-3 (Modified 1985) and Related Computer Routines to Determine Reservoir Yield at 2-Levels of Dependability.

Black and Veatch Consulting Engineers, 1955, Wichita, Kansas, Report on Feasibility of Proposed Cheney Reservoir: Kansas City, Missouri.

Bureau of Reclamation, Kansas State Water Plan Studies Long-Range Water Supply Problems, Phase 1: In Cooperation with the Kansas Water Resources Board*

Bureau of Reclamation, 1957, Cheney Division Wichita Project Kansas.

Bureau of Reclamation, 1981, Chikaskla Project Feasibility Report and Draft Environmental Statement.

Carswell, W. J. and Bond, S. V., 1980, Multiyear Low Flow in Northeastern Kansas: U.S.G.S. Open File Report, Lawrence, Kansas.

Curran Associates Inc., 1981, Water Supply Management Study, Melvern-Pomona Water Conservation Plan, Kansas and Osage Rivers: Northampton, Massachusetts.

Curran Associates Inc., April 1981, Water Supply Management Study, General Conservation Analysis Melvern-Pomona Area: Northampton, Massachusetts.

Curran Associates Inc., September 1981, Water Supply Management Study, Interpretation of Public Questionnaire Results (Milford-Kanopolis and Wichita): Northampton, Massachusetts. i Curran Associates Inc., February 1982, Water Supply Management Study, Projections for Without Condition and Evaluation of Water Conservation, Melvern-Pomona Study Area: Northampton, Massachusetts.

Curran Associates Inc., December 1982, Water Supply Management Study, Institutional Study, Central Kansas Public Wholesale Water Supply District: Northampton, Massachusetts. Curran Associates Inc., February 1983, Water Supply Management Study, Water Treatment and Residual Waste Management, Facilities Milford Lake, Kansas: Northampton, Massachusetts.

Curran Associates Inc., April 1983, Water Supply Management Study, Projections for Without Condition and Evaluation of Water Conservation, Central Kansas Study Area: Northampton, Massachusetts.

Curran Associates Inc., May 1983, Water Supply Management Study, Kansas and Osage River Basin Study, Generalized Assessment of Water Supply Needs in Northeast Kansas: Northampton, Massachusetts.

Furness, L.W., 1960, Kansas Water Resources Board Technical Report No. 2, Low-Flow Frequency: Kansas Water Resources Board.

Green, Don W. and.Pogge, Ernest C., July 1977, Computer Modeling of the Equus Bed Aquifer System in South Central Kansas: Final Report to Bureau of Reclamation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.

Hess, Larry G. and Sheets, Larry M., 1978,, Public Water Supply Problems and Solutions; Topeka, Kansas: A Report to the Governor's Task Force on Water Resources.

Hutchins, Wells A., Smrha, R. V., and Smith, Robert, 1957, The Kansas Law of Water Rights: Kansas State Board of Agriculture and Kansas State Water Resources Board in Cooperation with U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Inter-Agency Committee, 1955, Arkansas-White-Red River Basins, Part II- Section 8, Domestic and Industrial Water Supply.

Kansas Ground Water Management Districts Association, 1980, Ground Water Management in Kansas.

Kansas Water Office, December 1980, Water Supply and Storage Program 1979- 1980, Annual Report: Topeka, Kansas.

Kansas Water Office, January 1983, Salinity Control Study for the Kansas River Basin (Smoky Hill River) near Salina: Topeka, Kansas.

Kansas Water Office, January 1985, Final Draft, Kansas Water Plan: Topeka, Kansas.

Kansas Water Office, January 1986, Kansas Water Plan Executive Summary: Topeka, Kansas.

Kansas Water Resources Board, December 1967, Kansas Water Atlas.

Kansas Water Resources Board, 1972, Kansas Long Range Water Requirements, State Water Plan Studies, Part B. *

Kansas Water Resources Board, 1975, Kansas Water Resources Board, Bulletin No. 18, Rural Water Districts in Kansas.

Kansas Water Resources Board Staff Report, 1975, Water Demands in the Chikaskia Project Area: Unpublished. Kansas Water Resources Board, 1979, The 1975 National Water Assessment - Social-Economic, Land-Use, and Water Use Information and Projections.

Kansas Water Resources Board, December 1980, State Water Plan Water Supply and Storage Program 1979-1980, The sixth report to the Governor and legislature of Kansas: Topeka, Kansas.

Lujan, Herman D., PhD. and Galloway, Thomas, D., PhD., 1975, The Future of Kansas Study: Prepared for Planning Division, Kansas Department of Economic Development. Institute for Social and Environmental Studies, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.

O'Connor, Howard G., Bayne, Charles K., Yukler, Arif, and Foley, Frank C., 1979, Public Water Supplies During Droughts in Eastern Kansas: Open File, Unpublished Report, Kansas State Geological Survey, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.

Shurtz, Earl B., Professor of Law, September 1967, Kansas Water Law: University of Kansas for the Kansas Water Resources Board, Lawrence, Kansas.

Shurtz, Earl B., Special Assistant Attorney General, November 1960, Report on the Laws of Kansas Pertaining to Ground Water, Bulletin Number 5, Kansas Water Resources Board.

Socolofsky, Homer E., and Self, Huber, January 1972, Historical Atlas of Kansas.

Stanley Consultants Inc., November 1981, Environmental Assessment for Municipal and Industrial Water Supply in Eastern Kansas: Muscatine, Iowa.

STORET, March 1982, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Division, Computer Data Base.

Strand, G.J., Hydrologist, December 1963, The Little Arkansas River Basin and its Potential for Water Supply Development: Wichita Water Department, Wichita, Kansas.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Kansas Water Resources Board, 1980, Southeast Kansas Water Supply Study.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, 1957, Weekly Weather Crop Bulletin, Volume XLIV, No. la.: Washington, D.C.

Water Resources Board, September 1967, Irrigation in Kansas, Report No. 16.

Water Resources Institute, August 1981, Water Right for Public Water Supplies in Kansas: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.

WATSTORE, U.S. Geological Survey Computer Data Base, Water Resources Division.

i Related Work

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Project Data Sheet: Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, May 1979, Towanda Lake, Whitewater River, Kansas Stage 2 Documentation Post Authorization Studies: Tulsa District, Corps of Engineers, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1979, Kansas City Urban Study, Appendix 6 - Institutional Analyses: Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri.

I .

.,,.,. ctt,. H"'f'onson C.. tor • Do41" Cit, W/chlte• ....,....75 t ... LOCATION

_ll ' ~ <> ICL~Y - ----l "' Abii -J nt

LINCOLN

SALINE .,. • -­

--RUSH r-:::.--,

RENO ~~ - -=--Jt-1\1T\- ...,-'

l"ftATT KIOWA --- - SUMNER ELK CRAWFORD ~0 ~ ~0 60

-- ~ SCA.i..E --1N MILES Rev/sed June /987 ' KANSAS AND OSAGE RIVERS,KANSAS WATER SUPPLY STUDY AREA

In I sheet Sheet No. I Scale: as shown CORPS OF ENGINEERS U. S. ARMY KANSAS CITY 01'\TRICT

. PLATE NO. I ,.. :::; ~ ~ : . l a: 9. • • • <( • ~ •·- " I • ~ '• 0- / • • -- ·' :::>"' r L•I" >- # i- •.. .. " .... • -•"0 0 • " ~ " ., ~ .,. 0 > • a: :! • ~ • 0 • 0. • • I' •u • u _,iS • - 0 N " ' • z oa:: ' • • w ~ t < " - < - • a:< w ~• • w >-w 0 z u• -• 2 "'~ • 0 ;j ;ji• ~ " •u , 5~ ' ~ • ~ a. " • 0 ~ - > (,j " < > ~ < ~ • > ..J § > • -• u ., • •< • • ... , • •0 ~ ~ ,• ~ 0 ~ ·~' •, • - <

5 ? s I 1 / ' \ U' f ~ ~ { ~ I I I ~ I I \ I I

-- ~ c-1 -\-'- -.- -+----~-t--r-----'~

'

' ) ) / \

l

w ·-' - •'

• f' I

. -- ,_ __ --- \ I \ I I

) /

fA- t ·----~

• CORPS OF ENGINEERS U.S. ARMY

1 NEP.~KA ~

BUR.LINOA ME

•

... . l .I.W RE N~M~ ~ONA LAKE ERIUAN

I s s 0 U R I

s A G E c 0 u N T LOCATION 10 o 10 •o ..o a.c.o.u ,,. "'''-''

zz~II"' ::>- 0~ u

r ETERTON I ~ 1}77~ CREEK

OSAOE CITY

F R A N K L N

c 0 u N T

H),WO/IfA '77> lK A LYNDO N N s

Jooo o l OOO 1000 110110 SCAO.( IN "U:T Loke Capocriy '230.000 Acre feet ~l.\003)

1986 PROJECT MAPS POMONA LAKE LEGEND MARAIS DES CYGNES RIVER , KANSAS MUNOREO AND Tf:N MlU CRE£11. Lake ol flood control pool level ______ct: :·:*:::t:·.·*=·~ =:tb Lake at sedimentzl1on and FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT multipurpose pool level _ LAKE AREA d Road (concrete or surface treated) __ Improved Road {gravel or. stone) ____ _ In 2. sheets Sheet No. I Graded Roed ______!(ANSA$ CJTT, WO U. 5 ARM'!' tNCINCEII OI$TRIGT 110 S[PTfWBER 19 M Un1mproved Road ------·======-= KANSAS CITY Public Use Area ___ ------f'IL( NO P. f' .-8e -~2 L•mit o( lake Area ______----- PLATE 3 ...... -.... .-- ...... -......

U.S. ARMY

8 ~ l 'fo' _/ .. I.. I ~ •• ...... !:...... R'V A s K A • - ' •.. -· - · ·------':::, ~~ li i ~ S0"\ 1 \

p 0 T WI A T 0 M I E U N T Y

LOCATION l O 0 ZO " O .o '

HOME CITY CYCU AREA (UNOCR AXfS OF K A

M A R S H A L L c 0 u N T Y

OPERATED LEV££

t}u { w~ 1'- M ! ~ BWE RAPIDS I

FT RII...I>Y

" MILITARY

WALSOURC ~VAT IOI'o

= - "'"" N i <:::::( ~it~ I I ~ ?:': RILEY C 0 U N T Y -4 - - -·- ·- - - ~ILJ..I::. AS H JNG\TI ON C 0 U N T

AJ)! t 10 ·1· , 1000 0 10 00 •• oco 11000 sc.o. u oN rut Loke Capacity ' 2.346,000 Acre feel (EL.1136)

1986 PROJECT MAPS

LEGEND TUTTLE CREEK LAKE B IG BLUE RI VE R, KANS AS Lol\e at flood control pool leveL----<{ •:: .... '\':t:z) FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT Multipurpose pool leveL------__ , • > LAKE AREA Paved Rol'd (concrete or surface ln!ated) Improved Road (gravel or stone) __ In 2 Sheeb Sheet No. I Se~ l e u shown Graded Road ______U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT KAUSAS CIT Y, WO "::::::::::s KANSAS CITY 30 $EPTEN8£ " 1986 Pub l1 c Usc Area ------__ L L1 m11 of lake Jre..i ______FJL£ NO. P. F:- 88 - 18

I'"'l" ,.A-1Tr:1._ L_r

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

KANSAS WATER PLAN

PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE

LAKE DRAWDOWNS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE STATE OF KANSAS AND THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CONCERNING THE PURCHASE OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY STORAGE

1. Purpose. The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to establish a cooperative partnership between the State of Kansas and the Department of the Army to achieve the greatest possible level of benefits from reservoirs operated by the Corps of Engineers in the Kansas, Neosho, Marais des Cygnes, and Verdigris River Basins in Kansas.

2. Background. Since 1948, seventeen reservoirs have been con­ structed in Kansas by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The purposes of these reservoirs include flood control, water supply, water quality, navigation, and other purposes. Water users below Federal reservoirs have enjoyed significant water supply benefits during periods of low flow due to water quality releases.

The rules for operating these reservoirs for flood control are well established. The following problems concerning low flow conditions in Kansas have been identified:

a. Water quality releases are not protected by the State.

b. The State has not obtained reservation rights to store inflows into Federal water quality storage.

c. The State has established minimum flow standards (for water quality, fisheries purposes, etc.) on several streams below Federal reservoirs. The State has not yet coordinated the program to maintain these flows with Federal reservoir operating plans.

d. The State water marketing program, utilizing water supply storage in Federal reservoirs, was designed to provide a dependable water supply. However, some entities have purchased this storage only as "insurance” for use during sporadic low flow conditions. Water supply releases made to these entities during low flow conditions are diffi­ cult to protect and much of the water is lost in transit. Maintenance of a regulated flow to meet both water supply and minimum flow standards would be far more efficient to administer. e. Water quality standards and storage to meet these standards were developed prior to enactment of Public Law 92-500. This Act shifted the burden from the assimila­ tive capacity of the rivers to the point of discharge. Operations of the projects have not been modified to reflect current water quality standards. Because of this, certain amounts of storage may not be used currently for the highest and best uses.

3. Overview of Initiative. The Federal/State partnership established in this MOU is designed to take advantage of a unique opportunity to solve the problems listed in paragraph 2, above, while simultaneously increasing the economic benefits to be derived from the system of Corps reservoirs in Kansas, increasing the level of dependable water supplies to meet the needs of municipalities and industries in Kansas, and increasing the level of recovery of past Federal investments in water resources development. In order to achieve these objectives, the Department of the Army, in conjunction with the State, intends to conduct storage reallocation studies on nine reservoirs to determine if storage can be reallocated from water quality or other conservation purposes to water supply. It is anticipated that such realloca­ tions can be achieved without serious affects on the purposes for which the projects were authorized and constructed for two reasons: (1) significant progress has been made in recent years to improve the quality of point-source discharges into these river systems, and (2) significant technological advances have been made in recent years in the area of computer-based river system simulations. It is expected that the reduction of dilution requirements and system-wide operation of multiple reservoir river systems will increase the effectiveness of available storage. This may allow significant quantities of storage to be reallocated to water supply.

For its part, the State of Kansas intends to purchase such reallocated storage, which will be used to provide an increased level of dependability to downstream water users within the State. Such purchases will be financed partially from revenues generated from the State's proposed Water Assurance Program, which will be introduced into the State legislature in 1986. Under the Assurance Program, water users in each of the four river basins would be authorized to form an Assurance District. The Assurance District will provide municipal and industrial water supplies to users under low flow conditions in return for payment associated with the cost of the storage space and the operation and maintenance expenses of such space incurred by the State.

2 In addition, the State intends to pursue legislation, if deemed necessary, providing for the protection of water quality releases, with the objective of preventing water from being withdrawn for other purposes from releases made for water quality.

Because of the unique nature of this opportunity, the Department of the Army will provide to the State a right of first refusal option on all storage to be reallocated. The purchase price of such storage will be considered as if it were authorized originally as municipal and industrial water supply storage. This procedure, which is responsive to the provisions of the 1958 Water Supply Act, represents a variation of standard procedures governing calculation of cost recovery requirements. This variation would be mutually beneficial to both State and Federal interests since this MOU represents the most effective way to maximize economic benefits, levels of water supply dependability, and Federal cost recovery. The State of Kansas is the only entity that has the capability of providing comprehensive solu­ tions to the water resources problems in the Kansas, Neosho, Marais des Cygnes, and Verdigris River Basins in Kansas, in conjunction with the Department of the Army.

The expected sequence of events related to actual reallo­ cation of storage and modified operation of the reservoirs is as follows:

a. Reallocation studies will establish the new storage requirements for water quality and other purposes.

b. Storage that is no longer required for water quality or other conservation purposes will become available for water supply.

c. The Corps and the State of Kansas will jointly establish a date for implementing new operating procedures for water quality at each reservoir. Project operations will follow the new procedures as of that date.

d. The storage identified for water supply will be made available to the State of Kansas during the period of and under terms of this MOU.

4. Procedures.

a. The Kansas Water Office intends to:

(1) Propose to the State legislature in 1986 a Water Assurance Program designed to accomplish the objectives summarized in paragraph 3, above.

3 (2) Place into an escrow account, by July 1, 1986, an amount of four million dollars ($4,000,000), which will be used toward purchases of storage made as a result of this MOU. (3) Pay the cost of each increment of water supply storage as purchased and as described in paragraphs 4b(2) and (3) below.

• (4) Obtain State legislation, if necessary, authorizing water quality reservation rights to the State and protection of water quality inflows and releases prior to the purchase of any storage under this MOU.

(5) Cooperate and work with the Army Corps of Engineers toward timely completion of the required realloca­ tion studies.

(6) Participate equally in the costs of each realloca­ tion study through in-kind or cash contributions up to a maximum of $40,000 per reservoir. Costs to be shared in this manner are limited to significant additional costs incurred by the Army Corps of Engineers in conducting reallocation studies pursuant to this MOU. b. The Department of the Army intends to:

(1) Conduct reallocation studies on the reservoirs listed below to determine whether storage may be reallocated to water supply, the amount thereof that may be reallocated to water supply, and to adhere to the indicated schedule by the respective Corps Districts to the extent possible:

(a) Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers

Tuttle Creek (by September 1986) Pomona (by September 1986) Melvern (by September 1986)

(b) Tulsa District, Corps of Engineers

John Redmond (by July 1987 ) Mari on (by December 1987) Council Gr ove (by December 1987) Elk City (by July 1988 ) Toro n to (by July 1988 ) Fall River (by July 1988 Allow the State of. Kansas to ha ve a r igh t of first refusal for the purchase of all sto:cage that may be

4 reallocated to water supply storage pursuant to this M O U . This purchase option shall be in effect for a period of 10 years from the effective date of this MOU, During this period, the State may purchase one or a multiple of storage increments of not less than* 10 percent which may be available for reallocation in each reservoir. To reduce administrative' bur­ dens, no more than three contracts shall be allowed for each project under- this MOU. Should another party offer a purchase contract to the Department of the Army for all or a portion of such storage during this period, the State shall have 60 days to exer­ cise its option under this paragraph or lose the option for that particular quantity of storage.

(3) Calculate the purchase price for storage that may be reallocated to water supply storage pursuant to this MOU as if it were authorized originally as municipal and industrial water supply storage. Under this procedure, a 10-year interest free period, as provided in the 1958 Water Supply Act, would be allowed. Thereafter, interest would be compounded annually at the project water supply interest-rate. The State shall pay the cost of each increment of storage at the time of purchase. The State would be responsible for 100 percent of the actual operation and maintenance, major replacement, and major rehabilitation costs allocated to storage placed under contract.

(4) As part of the reallocation studies, perform studies required for NEPA compliance.

(5) Diligently pursue Congressional approvals of storage reallocations, if deemed necessary.

5. Conditions.

a. This MOU shall be effective for a period of 10 years from July 1, 1986, which is the effective date of this MOU.

b. This MOU is predicated upon the pursuit of solutions on a comprehensive basis. Should the initiative not move forward on a basin-wide basis due to failure of the State to create the Water Assurance Program, or to enact the legislation, if deemed necessary, as described in paragraph 4(a)(4), above, or should no Water Assurance Districts be formed within the effective period of this MOU, then the understandings contained herein shall become null and void.

5 I

I

c. Final approval of reallocation studies for each reservoir and sale of water supply storage for each reservoir, pursuant to this MOU, will be contingent upon the Kansas Water Office obtaining reservation rights for water quality storage remaining after reallocations.

d. This MOU may be modified or terminated by mutual consent of the signatories of the MOU or their designees or successors. All such changes shall be documented by written MOU.

Robert K. Dawson Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)

(date)

Witnessed by:

(date)

6 KANSAS WATER PLAN

Kansas-Lower Republican Basin Section Marais des Cygnes Basin Section Management Section Sub-section: Large Reservoir Management Kansas Water Plan Kansas-Lower Republican Rasin Section Subjection: Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Assurance Kansas Water Office 109 S.W. Ninth, Suite 200 Topeka, Kansas 66612-1215 An Equal Opportunity Employer

Pages 1-3 *i

I s s u e ...... 2 Problem D escription...... 2 Applicable State Program and Guidelines ...... 2 References .

t Ni • i

Approved by the Kansas Water Authority

September 1986 Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Assurance ISSUE There is a need for the assurance of municipal and industrial water supply below federal lakes during drought conditions. A management plan for operating the federal lakes in this basin as a coordinated system should be developed to achieve maximum reservoir operation efficiency.

Problem Description 4. Water marketing contracts to a few users in the There are cities and industries in the Kansas-Lower future would limit the availability of water from Republican Basin that rely on streamflows for their the four reservoirs to the basin as a whole. water supply. The rivers have ample flows most of the 5. Yields from the four reservoirs will decline over time, but during periods of natural drought condition, time as a result of sediment encroachment in the low streamflows can occur for extended periods of conservation pools. At the same time, user de­ time. During these periods of time, all water right mand on those yields will be on the increase. holders on the river reaches below Milford, Tuttle In 1985, a memorandum of understanding was Creek, Perry and Clinton lakes have depended on signed by the state and the Corps of Engineers, pro­ water quality releases from the lakes to enhance the viding a mechanism for the state to gain access and streamflows to meet their needs. control of federal reservoir storage at original costs.2 In the Kansas-Lower Republican Basin there are Inherent in that mechanism is the design of a river- four federal large lakes which would be included in a reservoir management system for efficient distribution river-reservoir management system. Three of these of water supplies in the Kansas River. Steps necessary lakes, Milford, Perry and Clinton, have a total of to implement the memorandum of understanding in­ 539,200 acre-feet of state-owned water supply storage. clude conducting yield studies of the individual res­ Presently, 15 percent of the Water Marketing Program ervoirs, determination of available storage to be real­ water supply storage is sold. '• 3 Tuttle Creek has located for water supply purposes, state protection of 145,500 acre-feet of water quality storage that could be water quality storage and releases and development of purchased by the state if an assurance district is an assurance program to manage water supplies dur­ formed. ing droughts. Releases from storage from the four lakes are being At the local level, formation of an assurance district used by all downstream water users. Water released must be deliberated. Questions regarding manage­ from storage to fulfill water marketing contracts is the ment operations and impacts on water supply would only situation in which there is an agreement between have to be answered prior to the decision to form a the State of Kansas and the federal government for the district. O f particular concern to the local users will be release of water for use from the lakes in the basin. costs, membership of an assurance district, benefits of Under other conditions, water supply from the lakes in water quality and water supply and impacts to the this basin is not assured for municipal and industrial recreation and flood control functions of the basin uses. Additional situations relating to this problem reservoirs. These questions can be evaluated through are: simulated drought exercises with federal, state and 1. Releases from storage for water quality from the local participation. lakes in this basin are not protected by the State Establishment of minimum desirable streamflows of Kansas. for the mainstem Kansas River and for those major 2. Water quality releases are meant to improve tributary streams that are either uncontrolled by a water quality of the stream through dilution by large federal lake or downstream from one should not enhancing low streamflows. If these releases be completed until after the initial implementation of were used for other purposes, streamflow water a river-reservoir management system for the Kansas quality would degrade and streambeds would River. dry out. Subsequent releases from storage would refill the streambeds and would be lost from their Applicable State Program and intended use. Thus, inefficient transmission of water supply would result.2 Guidelines 3. Operation of reservoirs as individual units leads to inefficient distribution and timing of water Kansas Water Office—Assurance Program. supplies during drought conditions. The Assurance Program is designed for municipal

2 and industrial users to supplement their demands during low flow periods by reservoir operations.3 In conjunction with the marketing program, this ap­ proach develops a system for management of water supplies in the rivers and reservoirs of the Kansas- Lower Republican Basin leading to greater efficiency and reliability over the current situation.

Guidelines: 1. The Kansas Water Office should work with mu­ nicipal and industrial users in the basin to help them make an informed decision regarding de­ velopment of an assurance program along the Kansas River. 2. A drought exercise simulating present-day reser­ voir conditions and demands during a recurrence of the 1950’s drought was held December 5, 1985. This drought exercise included the local municipalities, industries and state and federal agencies. 3. Design of a river-reservoir management system with revised operations for water supply and water quality was completed early in 1986. 4. A second drought exercise simulating future de­ mands and reservoir conditions with a river-res­ ervoir management system in place during a re­ curring drought was held in June 1986. 5. Local municipal and industrial users should de­ liberate the formation o f an assurance district by 1987. 6. If an assurance district is formed and the mem­ bers commit themselves to the use of reservoir storage, the state shall purchase additional stor­ age in Tuttle Creek Reservoir by 1990. REFERENCES 1. Kansas Water Office, State Water Plan, Management Section, Water Marketing, 1985.

2. U.S. Department of the Army, Memorandum of Understanding Between the State of Kansas and the U.S. Department of the Army Concerning the Purchase of Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Storage, 1985.

3. Kansas Water Office, State Water Plan, Management Section, Large Reservoir Management, 1985.

OC05e0188 Kansas Water Plan Marais des Cygnes Basin Section Sub-section: Municipal and industrial Water Supply Assurance Kansas Water Office 109 S.W. Ninth, Suite 200 Topeka, Kansas 66612-1215 An Equal Opportunity Employer

Pages 1-3 -- ' ■ t — ■»-

I s s u e ...... 2 Problem D escription...... 2 Applicable State Program and Guidelines ...... 3 References ...... 3

Approved by the Kansas Water Authority

September 1986 Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Assurance ISSUE There is a need for the assurance of municipal and industrial water supplies below large federal lakes during drought conditions. A management plan for operating the federal lakes in this basin as a coordinated system should be developed to achieve maximum reservoir operation efficiency.

Problem Description water quality by enhancing low streamflows and di­ The municipalities and industries in the Marais des luting pollutants. When these releases are used for Cygnes Basin are dependent upon surface sources for other purposes, water quality is reduced and their water supply. Basinwide, approximately 90 per­ streambeds may dry out. Subsequent releases from cent of the municipal demands are supplied from storage resaturate the streambed, but are lost for their surface sources.1 intended use.3 The U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers has constructed 2. In the future, the federal government will limit three large reservoirs in the Marais des Cygnes Basin. water quality releases when drought conditions pre­ These are Hillsdale, Melvern and Pomona lakes. vail. This will preclude use by entities which have Table 1 provides basic information regarding each historically depended upon water quality releases for reservoir. their water supply. The state presently owns 19,479 acre-feet of storage 3. The future growth of municipalities and indus­ in Hillsdale Lake which is available for purchase tries in the basin will depend upon additional water through the Water Marketing Program. At present, being available from storage. Full appropriation of 1,132 acre-feet have been sold to municipal or indus­ natural low-flows in the Marais des Cygnes River is trial users.2 being approached. Releases from storage from the three lakes are being 4. Current marketing policies and the operation of used by downstream water users. Release of water reservoirs as individual units lead to inefficient dis­ from storage in Hillsdale Lake to fulfill water market­ tribution and timing of releases, especially during ing contracts is presently the only situation in which drought conditions. there is an agreement between the state and the fed­ 5. Full access to the storage in Melvern and Po­ eral government covering release of water from fed­ mona reservoirs for water supply purposes is not eral reservoirs. In this situation, a continued water guaranteed under the current situation. supply from the federal reservoirs in the basin for municipal and industrial use is not assured under all In 1985, a memorandum of understanding was conditions. Additional aspects relating to this problem signed by the state and the Corps of Engineers, pro­ are: viding a mechanism for the state to gain access and 1. Water quality releases from the federal reservoirs control of the storage in nine federal reservoirs at are not protected from diversion and use by the State original costs.3 Inherent in this mechanism is the de­ of Kansas. Such releases are intended to improve sign of a river-reservoir management system for efYi-

Federal Reservoir Information Marais des Cygnes Basin

D r a in a g e C lo s u r e Fool Capacity R e s e r v o ir A r e a D a te C FC T

(sq. miles) (1,000 acre-feel)

Pomona 322 Jul 1962 84 162.5 246.5 Melvern 349 Oct 1970 137 200 337 Hillsdale 144 Jun 1980 68 81 160 C—Conservation Pool; FC— Flood Control Pool; T—Total Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Table 1

2 cient distribution of water supply in the Marais des Guidelines: Cygnes River. Steps necessary to implement the 1. The Kansas Water Office should work with mu­ memorandum of understanding include conducting nicipal and industrial users in the basin to help yield studies of the individual reservoirs, determina­ them make an informed decision regarding for­ tion of storage to be reallocated for water supply mation o f an assurance district along the Marais purposes, state protection o f water quality storage and des Cygnes River. releases, and development o f an assurance program to 2. A drought exercise simulating present day reser­ manage water supplies during droughts. voir conditions and demands during a recurrence At the local level, formation o f an assurance district of the 1950’s drought will be held in March 1987. must be deliberated. Questions regarding manage­ 3. Design o f a river-reservoir management system ment operations and impacts on water supply need to with revised operations for water supply and be answered prior to a decision to form a district. Of water quality will be initiated in 1987. particular concern to the local users will be costs, 4. A second drought exercise simulating future de­ assurance district membership, benefits to water mands and reservoir conditions with a river-res­ quality and water supply and impacts to the recreation ervoir management system in place during a re­ and flood control functions of the basin reservoirs. curring drought will be held in 1988. These questions can be evaluated through simulated 5. Local municipal and industrial users should con­ drought exercises with federal, state and local partici­ sider the formation o f an assurance district by pation. 1989. 6. If an assurance district is formed and the mem­ bers commit themselves to the use of reservoir storage, the state shall purchase additional stor­ age in Melvern and Pomona reservoirs by 1995. Applicable State Program and Guidelines REFERENCES 1. Kansas Water Resources Board, The 1975 National Water Kansas Water Office—Assurance Program. Assessment, 1979. The assurance program is designed for municipal 2. Kansas Water Office, File Data. and industrial water users to supplement their sup­ plies during low flow periods through reservoir 3. U. S. Department of the Army, Memorandum of Understand­ operation changes.4 In conjunction with the marketing ing Between the State of Kansas and the U. S. Department of program, this approach provides system management the Army Concerning the Purchase of Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Storage, 1985. of water supplies in the reservoirs of the Marais des Cygnes Basin, leading to greater efficiency and reli­ 4. Kansas Water Office, State Water Plan, Management Section, ability over the current situation. Large Reservoir Management, 1985.

OC06C0188

3 i*. • ' -* - - - t*, Kansas Water Plan Management Section Sub-section: Large Reservoir Management

Kansas Water Office 'T M f L £ 7 7 £ aj 7 t O 109 S.W. Ninth, Suite 200 Topeka, Kansas 60612 An Equal Opportunity Employer

- • * >'v " * * — ;f*f > Pages 1-8

T*-T**'

Introduction ...... 2 C o n cep ts...... 2 Policy Issues, Options and Recommendations 3 Control and Access of Reservoir Storage . . . 3 Protection of Reservoir Storage and Releases 6 Summary of Policy Recommendations...... 7 Plan Implementation ...... 7 Legislative Action ...... 7 Administrative Action ...... 7 Financial R equirem ents...... 7 Time Schedule ...... 8 References ...... 8

Approved by the Kansas Water Authority I

Ii

I LARGE RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT INTRODUCTION According to the State Water Appropriation Act, “ all The Water Supply Act of 1958 established a policy water within the state of Kansas, is hereby dedicated for federal and state water supply development. The to the use of the people of the state, subject to the Act intended: “ to recognize the primary responsibili­ control and regulation of the state. . . .” K.S.A. ties of the states and local interests in developing 82a-927(4) also calls for “ the sound management, both water supplies for domestic, municipal, industrial and public and private, of the . . . surface and other purposes that the federal government should groundwater supplies of the state.” These principles participate and cooperate with states and local inter­ include water within federal reservoirs. However, the ests in developing such water supplies in connection state cannot fulfill these management directives until with the construction, maintenance and operation of it has obtained sufficient control of existing storage to federal navigation, flood control, irrigation or multiple meet its goals and needs. The existing reservoirs in purpose projects.” Kansas has taken advantage of Kansas need to be managed by the state to insure water supply authorizations by purchasing storage in optimum benefits. The first step in reservoir manage­ nine reservoirs. The state markets a portion of the ment is control over the use of the existing storage. yield from these reservoirs which would be sustained through the drought occurring on the average of one year in 50. To date, 21 contracts, comprising 24 per­ CONCEPTS cent of the state water supply yield, have been signed There are now 24 federal reservoirs in Kansas. In by municipal and industrial users to obtain reliable addition to flood control and water supply purposes, water supplies. Table 1 summarizes the state water certain reservoirs serve water quality, recreation and marketing program. fish and wildlife needs, as well as irrigation and navi­ Original cost of the water supply storage in the nine gation. reservoirs approaches $69 million which is being paid Seventeen of the reservoirs constructed in the state back to the federal government under low interest are operated by the Corps of Engineers. All 17 reser­ rates through nine repayment agreements, each over a voirs have flood control storage and a conservation 50-year period. In addition, operation and mainte­ pool comprising water supply or water quality storage nance costs which vary annually are charged to the or both. The storage allocation between water supply state on a reservoir-by-reservoir basis. The annual and water quality varies in each reservoir. The re­ payment to the federal government was about $1.8 maining seven reservoirs are operated by the Bureau million for FY 1984, while revenues from the market­ of Reclamation. The primary purpose of six of the ing program were $1.09 million. The balance has been reservoirs is irrigation supply. Cheney Reservoir sup­ drawn from the State General Fund. These negative plies water to the Wichita area. cash flows are expected to continue through this cen­ tury.

Water Marketing Program

Water Supply 2%* Amount of Yield Percent No. of Reservoir Storage Yield Contracted Contracted Contracts

Elk City 24,300 af 16.35 mgd 5.206 mgd 31.8 1 Big Hill 25,700 af 7.11 mgd 1.500 mgd 21.1 1 Marion 38,300 af 5.69 mgd 1.711 mgd 30.1 3 Council Grove 24,400 af 5.62 mgd 3.305 mgd 58.8 3 John Redmond 34,900 af 26.50 mgd 26.500 mgd 100.0 1 Hillsdale 53,000 af 17.38 mgd 1.012 mgd 5.8 3 Clinton 89,200 af 18.80 mgd 13.575 mgd 72.2 8 Milford 300,000 af 128.60 mgd 20.000 mgd 15.0 1 Perry 150,000 af 79.50 mgd 0.000 mgd 0.0 0 739,800 af 305.55 mgd 72.809 mgd 23.8 21 * State Water Plan val ues af = acre-feet mgd = million gallons per day Table 1.

2 Many users have benefited at no cost from enhanced tives were development of a reservoir system streamflows resulting from water quality releases from operating plan and adequate control of conservation reservoirs. Appropriators should only divert water water storage necessary to conduct the operating plan. from natural flows passing through the reservoirs. The state must initiate a series o f policies guiding the However, state law requires a formal agreement be­ management of existing reservoirs in order to develop tween the state and the federal government before the river and reservoir benefits to the maximum extent. Chief Engineer can protect reservoir water quality releases from diversion by appropriators. In the ab­ sence of an agreement, any reservoir water quality release can be diverted by appropriators. POLICY ISSUES, OPTIONS During the 1983 drought, an acute situation devel­ AND RECOMMENDATIONS oped on the Verdigris River. The Verdigris reservoirs Tw o major policy issues must be resolved in devel­ had been releasing 22 cfs but no flow was reaching the oping a plan for large reservoir management. These state line. Apparently, downstream appropriators, in­ issues are: cluding irrigators, were diverting water quality re­ 1. Control and access o f reservoir storage leases, which was unauthorized by the federal gov­ 2. Protection of reservoir storage and releases ernment. The Corps of Engineers announced its CONTROL AND ACCESS OF RESERVOIR STORAGE intention to restrict releases to the natural inflow of the four reservoirs in the Verdigris Basin. The Corps Water users in the state have two avenues to obtain o f Engineers intended to offer short-term contracts to water; water rights and the Water Marketing Program. municipalities which would receive water from Fall However, the Water Marketing Program uses only River and Toronto reservoirs. Those releases could nine reservoirs in the state. Meanwhile, water right have been protected from unauthorized use. The holders downstream of reservoirs have enjoyed en­ Corps of Engineers changed its position after con­ hancement of low flows through water quality re­ gressional intervention and subsequent review of the leases, thereby allowing their water rights to be met authorized purposes of those reservoirs. longer than under natural conditions. Ultimately, this low flow enhancement would be precluded by con­ Review of the authorizing language for Toronto and tractual commitment o f all storage through federal and Fall River reservoirs revealed that the conservation state programs. Furthermore, use of storage to satisfy storage at these two projects could be used to supple­ water rights without reimbursement is not authorized ment low flows for municipal and industrial uses and under federal policy. There are no assurances over the pollution abatement at no charge to the state or local use of federally controlled storage in existing reser­ users. The other reservoirs in Kansas do not have this voirs. “ no charge” authorization, making the reimbursement Tw o options exist in obtaining control and access of provisions at Toronto and Fall River reservoirs unique reservoir storage in the state. First, the state could in the state. purchase existing conservation storage. This option Ultimately, management of the river-reservoir sys­ would assure the state of complete control over much tem is necessary to realize maximum benefits for the of the storage in reservoirs. However, this option may state. This system management leads to the question be extremely costly to the state, not only for the initial of control over the reservoirs. Conservation storage in capital costs, but the annual operation and mainte­ some reservoirs is allocated to 100 percent water sup­ nance costs for this storage. At updated indexed costs, ply under state control or 100 percent federal water purchase of all existing storage in Corps of Engineers quality storage. Currently, areas needing water supply reservoirs would cost approximately $200 million, ex­ are far from available marketing water. Since water cluding any operation costs. In order to avoid a situa­ supply storage is unevenly distributed within the tion where the state may acquire storage for which no state, it needs to be reasonably reallocated for a bal­ need will arise, any future purchase should be tied to anced distribution. actual anticipated needs. Such needs may be ex­ A 1984 study by Black and Veatch on the Kansas pressed as a signed contract between the state and the River indicated that coordinated reservoir releases user prior to any acquisition o f additional storage. would enhance water supplies to their maximum po­ Storage may be purchased from either Corps of Engi­ tential. This potential may not be reached under ex­ neers or Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs. Some isting policies. Among the study’s management objec­ Bureau o f Reclamation reservoirs are undergoing se-

3 vere dewatered conditions, thus are unlikely to pro­ could have provisions for subsequent purchase of vide original estimates of water supply. Table 2 lists storage for reliable water supplies, use of water in the total storage potentially available for purchase. drought emergencies and protection of releases and The purchase approach allows the state to acquire storage. An agreement must specify conditions over additional storage and develop a new program to use the control of storage. For example, any agreements reservoir water from water supply storage in meeting should preclude the federal government from issuing downstream water rights during periods of low flow. long term contracts for storage to any user without This assurance program would be designed to satisfy a prior approval by the state. While the state does not portion of the authorized quantity of water appro­ gain ownership of storage, this option provides the priated downstream through eligible water rights. By lowest cost to the state. The state would need to assure only meeting partial quantities, the program reflects its contract rights held in such agreements are ob­ implementation of drought contingency conservation tained in perpetuity. plans by municipal and industrial users. Future water An alternative to a state assurance program possible appropriations of flow enhanced by water supply under this approach would be development of drought storage would also be allowed. Municipal and indus­ contingency operations for reservoirs. The Corps of trial users would be the beneficiaries of the assurance Engineers has adopted policies under their regula­ program. tions to handle drought contingencies. These policies A portion of the reservoir releases could serve in- include: stream benefits such as water quality, fish and wildlife 1. Regulate Corps of Engineers projects in response and recreation. The cost associated with those benefits to public needs, including droughts. would be absorbed by the federal government. The 2. Identify potential modifications to project regu­ remaining storage would be available for the market­ lation that would increase each project’s capabil­ ing and assurance programs. Specific allocations ity to respond to a drought under current admin­ among these programs as well as instream purposes istrative, legislative or other constraints. must be made for each reservoir. State-owned storage 3. Develop drought contingency plans on a re­ not used by the assurance program would be available gional, basin-wide and project basis as an integral in the Water Marketing Program. part of water control management activities. Such a program may be high in initial cost to the 4. Make provisions for coordination with appro­ state for acquiring storage at indexed costs. These priate state and other federal interests during costs, as well as operation, maintenance and adminis­ occurrence of drought conditions as part of tration costs eventually would be passed on to the drought contingency plans. users. These users would be assessed an annual “ pre­ 5. Identify during development of drought contin- mium,” regardless of actual use during the year. In gency plans long-term opportunities to modify order for such a program to be implemented at a project storage allocations. relatively reasonable cost to individual users, manda­ Additionally, the Water Control Manuals for each tory participation by all eligible right holders would reservoir, governing reservoir operation and manage­ be necessary. A flat rate would be applied to all ment, are to contain “ . . . a section on special eligible users, regardless of the purpose of their use. regulations to be conducted during emergency situa­ Costs would be distributed on a percentage basis of tions, including droughts. Preplanned operations and each appropriator’s authorized quantity relative to the coordination are essential to effective relief or assist­ total quantity appropriated downstream. Individual ance.” costs would be adjusted as the amount of appropria­ To date, no such contingency plans have been de­ tion changed. veloped for any project in the state because of a lack of Eligible right holders must be consistent with the federal funding. Such plans could be developed and authorized purposes of the reservoirs used in the as­ coordinated in conjunction with basin plans. Such surance program. In many reservoirs, irrigation would plans could allow for short term contracts (up to two not be authorized. In those situations, a distinction years) for e m e rg e n cy use by municipalities. Unit must be made between natural flow which may be prices for providing emergency water would be based appropriated by any water right, reservoir releases for on original costs of the necessary storage, current use by eligible rights and reservoir releases protected operation and maintenance costs for that storage and a for instream purposes. Use for domestic purposes modest administrative charge. Water in water quality, would be exempt from any administration. A trigger to sediment or navigation storage may be used for emer­ implement an assurance program and associated ad­ gency purposes. This program would likely be ministrative tasks, including conservation plans, cheaper to users than a state assurance program. Fur­ would be necessary. thermore, this program is tied directly to user needs An alternative approach in reservoir control utilizes through short-term contracts. Thus, an annual pre­ negotiated and signed agreements between the state mium to users is avoided. However, this program and the federal government regarding the mutually anticipates natural flow is usually adequate to meet a agreed use of conservation storage. Such agreements user’s needs. This program would not serve as a sup-

4 Control of Kansas Reservoir Storage

Storage in Acre-Feet Presently Year Under Potentially Completed Reservoirs State Control Available Total

1948 Kanopolis 1 0 27,000 27,000 1949 Fall River2 0 15,000 15,000 1951 Cedar Bluff3 0 143,100 143,100 1955 Kirwin 3 0 74,100 0 1956 W ebster3 0 65,100 0 1957 L o v e w e ll4 0 24,900 0 1960 Toronto 2 0 10,300 10,300 1963 Pomona 0 46,500 46,500 1963 Tuttle Creek 1 0 145,500 145,500 1964 John Redmond 34,900 27,600 62,500 1964 Council Grove 24,400 17,500 41,900 1965 Cheney 5 0 0 0 1965 Norton 3 0 29,000 29,000 (Keith Sebelius) 1965 Wilson 6 0 0 0 1966 Elk City 24,300 18,000 42,300 1967 Milford 300,000 0 300,000 1968 Marion 38,300 44,600 82,900 1969 Perry 150,000 0 150,000 1969 Glen Elder 4 0 202,300 202,300 (Waconda Lake) 1974 M elvem 0 130,500 130,500 1977 Clinton 89,200 21,200 110,400 1980 El Dorado 7 0 0 0 1981 Big H ill 25,700 0 25,700 (Pearson-Skubitz) 1981 Hillsdale 53,000 15,000 68,000 Total 739,800 1,057,200 1,797,000

1. Preliminary estimates of available storage. 2. Reservoirs operated for municipal and industrial uses at no charge. 3. Currently allocated for irrigation rights, currently experiencing serious water shortage. 4. Currently allocated for irrigation rights. 5. All conservation storage contracted by Wichita, Kansas. 6. Water too poor in quality for most uses. 7. All conservation storage contracted for municipal purposes by El Dorado, Kansas.

Storage represents the effective multipurpose storage after the designed sediment storage is filled.

Table 2 ply of reliable water, but as a reserve to get through mented prior to the availability of emergency water severe drought periods. This program does not guar­ supplies. antee water w ill be available. Thus, a user’s assurance The federal authorizing language for this option o f water is lower under this approach. applies to protecting public health and welfare and Under this option, emergency water supply may be could exclude industrial use of emergency water. Ad­ provided to off-channel users as well as downstream ditionally, the statutes and regulations allowing the appropriators. Users would have exclusive use of any Corps of Engineers to develop drought operations are emergency release. The state would have to use any subject to change. Thus, the state would need to enter surplus water supply in its marketing program before into an agreement to assure emergency water supplies any emergency water was made available. Further­ while those statutes and regulations remained in more, drought contingency plans for conserving water place. use by municipal users would have to be imple­ Finally, the federal authority applies only to “dis­

5 tressed areas” defined as “ an area which the secretary portions of the conservation storage. On the other [of the Army] determines due to drought conditions land, complete diversion and storage for water quality has an inadequate water supply which is causing, or is purposes can preclude use of natural flow by appro- likely to cause, a substantial threat to the health and priators upstream and downstream of the reservoir. | welfare of the inhabitants of the area including threat An alternative to dedication of all inflow to water ^ or damage or loss of property.” This language is re­ quality storage is to use the current water reservation | strictive in two respects. It gives the sole discretion of rights to resupply water supply storages and a sec­ determination of distressed areas to the Corps of En­ ondary reservation right which allows diversion and gineers. It applies only in times of droughts involving storages of inflows above a specific threshold level. “ substantial threat to health and welfare” implying While this option does not place water quality storage very serious droughts, not short dry situations. If the with the same priority as water supply storage, it does state purchased the storage space, the state could be insure that a portion of higher inflows are used to more liberal in the availability of water. It is unknown replenish water quality storage. Since flood flows whether the definition of drought and the mechanism likely will refill a majority of storage behind reser­ to trigger emergency relief could be negotiated by the voirs, this option should have little effect on most state in the development of drought contingency plans users. This policy will require expansion of the exist­ and operations for reservoirs. Policies regarding use of ing stream gaging network to document inflows. Fur­ water in Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs also need to thermore, a storage accounting system allocating in­ be examined. flows, releases and losses to various storages would be Development of negotiated drought contingency necessary to check and balance reservation rights, plans and an assurance program utilizing purchased storage rights and inflow bypasses. storage is recommended. Either approach may be Associated with providing water quality storage is used in particular situations. Some reservoirs may use the protection of water quality releases from the res­ an assurance program, whereas others would have no ervoirs. Currently, no protection is provided to water need for that approach. However, a drought contin­ quality releases because no written agreement exists gency operation plan would have great utility for those between the state and the federal government regard­ reservoirs. Thus, selection of one approach over an­ ing such releases. State law requires such an agree­ other must be made on a case-by-case basis, requiring ment prior to any release protection. Because the the availability of both programs. The state should releases are not being protected, they are treated as pursue any additional purchase of storage at the origi­ natural flow and subject to appropriation. The extreme nal cost of that storage. Furthermore, no purchase will example of this situation was the Verdigris River in be made unless ultimate users commit themselves to 1983, where 22 cfs was released from Elk City, Fall ^ the storage. River and Toronto reservoirs and no flow was crossing In acquiring control of storage, the state may trade into Oklahoma. This situation eliminated a primary excess marketing storage held by the state in certain purpose of those releases, dilution of wastewater from reservoirs for federal storage in other reservoirs. This downstream communities to keep the water at an trading balances the reservoir system in the state with adequate level of quality for subsequent use. the Water Marketing Program to provide a source of Protection of releases would affect all rightholders reliable water. The Water Marketing Program is tar­ regardless of the seniority of their rights. Such protec­ geted to supply areas of need through storage reallo­ tion would be hard to administer, especially if large cation and trading. The specific quantity and cost of amounts of water were allowed to pass by diversion storages remain subject to negotiation. Actual needs points and out of the state. Distinction between natu­ would have to be identified through subsequent basin ral flow and reservoir release is an administrative planning. Any trades of storage would have to come problem, as is transit losses of releases moving down­ after prior commitments for that storage by the ulti­ stream. mate users. The state should recognize the value of protecting water quality releases and should negotiate provisions PROTECTION OF RESERVOIR STORAGE AND to protect releases as part of the agreement process. RELEASES However, the amount of release to be protected The state may grant water reservation rights to allow should be tied directly to actual downstream require­ diversion and storage of inflows to federal reservoirs. ments. The conditions under which such protection While such rights have been filed for most reservoirs occurs should be specified. Implicit in that require­ in the state, only four rights have been issued and ment is identifying drought conditions which benefit these apply only to the water supply storage within from the water quality releases. The actual pattern of the reservoirs. Water quality storage is not authorized releases is open to negotiation. For example, periodic any inflow under reservation rights. However, water flushing releases may be used instead of maintaining a quality storage currently may be used during emer­ constant release. Since natural inflow is available for gencies, as well as for recreation, fish and wildlife and appropriation, the previously discussed gaging net­ water quality maintenance. Yields from the reservoirs work and storage accounting system would be neces­ are limited without some allocation of inflow for all sary to document downstream release protection.

6 SUMMARY OF POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS within such an agreement should adopt the policies The following policies are recommended: recommended within this plan section. Specific pro­ 1. The state will negotiate agreements with the visions in the agreement should account for: federal government to develop drought contin­ 1. Trading storage space among reservoirs. gency plans and operations for emergency water 2. Purchasing of any additional storage space as supplies in applicable reservoirs. needed. 2. The state w ill develop an assurance program 3. Allocating inflows for water quality storage. which utilizes reservoir storage to satisfy down­ 4. Protecting of water quality releases. stream municipal and industrial water rights. 5. Developing of drought contingency plans and 3. The state will utilize the assurance program and operations for individual reservoirs. drought contingency plans on a case-by-case The Water Office should coordinate the develop­ basis for reservoirs in the state. ment o f any drought contingency plan through the 4. The state w ill not purchase any additional stor­ basin planning process. Coordination will involve age without prior commitments by ultimate federally authorized operations, local user needs and users. impacted water interests. The state will also need to 5. The state may negotiate with the federal govern­ identify marketing needs for water supply to base any ment to trade storages among reservoirs to bal­ storage trades and additional storage acquisition. This ance water availability under the Water Market­ task should be accomplished in the early stages of the ing Program. basin planning process. The Water Office, through basin planning, should develop applicable assurance 6. The state w ill issue reservation rights to allocate programs for specific reservoirs. a portion of flows above specified thresholds to refill water quality storage. Expansion of the existing stream gaging station net­ work to monitor inflows to reservoirs will be necessary 7. The state will reach agreement with the federal to reasonably allocate any diverted inflows to the government on protection of water quality re­ appropriate storage. The Division of Water Resources leases for downstream needs and under specific and the Kansas Water Office should also develop a conditions, especially drought. storage accounting system for each reservoir. Such a system will account for inflows, releases and losses prorated among storage allocations. The information obtained by those actions will aid in the day-to-day PLAN IMPLEMENTATION storage assessments and any administrative actions on water appropriations and reservoir operations such as LEGISLATIVE ACTION pool level management or drought releases. The state Congress will need to approve any reallocations of agencies will continue to coordinate on reservoir existing storage which exceed authorized amounts operations for fish and wildlife needs, water supply within the discretion of the Chief of Engineers or the purposes, and recreation. Secretary of Interior. If any storage is purchased, con­ Once agreements are reached, the state shall protect gressional action may be necessary to allow purchase the necessary water quality releases from designated of storage at costs lower than updated indexed costs. reservoirs. Concurrently, reassessment of existing Revision of the State Water Plan Storage Act will be minimum desirable streamflows on the affected regu­ necessary to allow reservation rights for the state to lated streams would be appropriate to reflect pro­ divert and store waters in federal water quality storage tected water quality releases. for purposes of emergency water supply, water qual­ FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS ity, fish, wildlife and recreation. As a state water assurance program is developed, the Legislature will The costs associated with the control of reservoirs in the state for mutually agreed to uses and operation by need to enact a policy authorizing the state to use the state and federal government cannot be deter­ reservoirs to assure water to eligible downstream mined at this time. However, the cost to users to water appropriations. satisfy their downstream needs during drought emer­ ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION gencies would be based on a charge that is computed State and federal agencies should first derive a on the original project cost, plus operation and main­ common methodology to determine the actual amount tenance and an administrative cost determined for of water to be yielded from reservoirs under drought each reservoir in the state. This cost would only be conditions. These actual yields will be the data to base assessed to downstream users for water received from all agreements, purchases and trades, as well as to storage during the drought emergency. This recom­ update the existing marketing program. mendation would provide the lowest cost option to The state, primarily the Division o f Water Re­ water users and to the state. If an assurance program is sources and the Kansas Water Office, will negotiate developed, the costs to the state, in terms o f storage, with the federal government on the control, use and operation and maintenance and administration, would operation of federal reservoirs. Provisions included be passed on to the participants. It is likely this cost will be more than that for water for emergency use.

7 I

The state will not purchase any additional storage Development of an expanded gaging station net­ ithout prior commitments by the ultimate users, work to provide documentation for the administration herefore, any additional storage purchased by the of these programs will require additional costs to the rate would result in increased revenues to the State state. The actual expenditures will depend upon the leneral Fund and the Conservation Storage Water number of stations required, the number of existing upply Fund through additional contracts negotiated stations moved to new locations and the number of nder the Water Marketing Program or the assurance existing stations discontinued in other areas of the rogram. As a result, any additional expenditures by state. However, based on a preliminary estimate pro­ le state for the purchase of water supply storage vided by the Kansas Water Office, ongoing expendi­ hould be offset by the increased revenues of the state. tures for installation and operation of additional gag­ There will be additional administrative expendi- ing stations would be approximately $36,000 a year. ares associated with the protection of reservoir stor- TIME SCHEDULE ge, reservoir releases and administration of drought ontingency plans and operations and the assurance The basin planning process should begin in 1985. irogram. Based on the preliminary estimates provided Identification of water supply needs, reservoir yields >y the Division of Water Resources, first year admin- and water quality needs should be completed in 1985. strative costs are estimated at approximately $35,000, Agreements should be completed in 1986 and reauth­ vith ongoing administrative costs for ensuing fiscal orizations proposed by that year as well. Enabling rears estimated at approximately $100,000. legislation for an assurance program should be intro­ duced in 1986.

REFERENCES 0) Black and Veatch, Report on Kansas River Water Supply for Kansas River Alliance, 1984. (2) Kansas Water Office, Background Paper No. 5, Existing Reservoirs in Kansas, 1983. (3 ) Kansas Water Office, The State Water Plan Water Supply and Storage Program, Seventh Annual Report, 1982. (4 ) Kansas Water Office, Background Paper No. 17, Water Mar­ keting Program, 1984. (5 ) Gianelli, Assistant Secretary of the Army William, C o r r e ­ spondence to Governor John Carlin, March 30, 1984. (6) Harkins, Joseph, Financing and Managing Major Federal Reservoirs in Kansas, Conference on Sanitary Engineering, 1984. (7 ) Kansas Water Office, Data Sheets for Bureau of Reclamation Lakes, 1984. (8) U.S. Corps of Engineers, Project Purpose Planning Guid­ ance; Engineering Regulation 1105-2-20, Water Supply, Chapter 7, January 29, 1982. (9 ) U.S. Corps of Engineers, Water Control Management; Engi­ neering Regulation 1110-2-240, Engineering and Design, October 8, 1982. ( 10) U.S. Corps of Engineers, Drought Contingency Plans; Engi­ neering Regulation 1110-2-1941, Engineering and Design, September 11, 1981. (ID Amrine, Colonel Robert M., District Engineer, U.S. Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District, Correspondence to Joseph Harkins, September 28, 1984.

130185 8 «

t'. y Colonel John H. Atkinson III District Engineer Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers 700 Federal Building 601 East 12th Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Attn: MRKPD-R

Dear Colonel Atkinson:

This draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (Report) is

provided pursuant to the fiscal year 1988 Scope-of-Work Agreement for

the Kansas and Osage Rivers, Kansas Study between the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service) and the Kansas City District, Corps of

Engineers (Corps). This Report was prepared 1n accordance with

provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et

seq.), and constitutes the report of the Secretary of the Interior on

the project within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of this Act.

The Corps requested the Service to limit Its analysis to: (1) instream flow needs downstream of affected reservoirs; and, (2) identification of

Impact on lakes resulting from water supply and instream flow withdrawals. This Report, therefore, presents the Service's analysis of reallocating the water-storage capacities of Melvern, Pomona and Tuttle

Creek Lakes. Included in this Report 1s the Service's estimate of the amounts of water that would need to be released from the reservoirs to maintain the condition of the downstream fisheries 1n the Marais des

Cygnes River, 110-Mile Creek, the B1g Blue River and the lower Kansas

River (minimum Instream flow recommendations), and the Service's assessment of how the downstream flow requirements, and the proposed reallocations, affect each reservoir's fishery. Also Included 1n this

Report is updated threatened and endangered species Information. 1

| Cooperation and information utilized in the preparation of this Report i was obtained from personnel with the Kansas Department of Wildlife and

I Parks and the Corps. Appendix A of the attached Substantiating Report i contains a letter dated ______from the Secretary of the Kansas i' Department of Wildlife and Parks concurring with the findings of this I 1 Report. i ) The water supply portion of the Kansas and Osage Rivers, Kansas Study 1s

being conducted in response to three Congressional resolutions adopted

February 2, 1977 and May 10, 1977. These Congressional resolutions

requested that the Corps investigate the need for and desirability of

reallocation of current storage to water supply 1n existing Federal

reservoirs in the Kansas and Osage River basins in Kansas. This study

was also undertaken pursuant to the terms of a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) between the State of Kansas and the Department of

the Army dated December 11, 1985.

The Service prepared a series of technical assistance reports addressing

preliminary reallocation plans for five Corps lakes 1n Kansas (Melvern,

Pomona, Kanopolis, Wilson and Tuttle Creek Lakes) in September and

October, 1983. These Planning Aid Reports primarily addressed the

amount of water that would need to be released from the lakes to

maintain the condition of the fishery downstream of these lakes (minimum

Instream flow recommendations), and an assessment of how these

downstream flow requirements and alternative reallocation plans affected

one another and each lake's fishery.

2 Melvern, Pomona and Tuttle Creek Lakes were finally selected as the

three Corps lakes having the greatest potential for reallocation.

REALLOCATION PLAN

The proposed volumes of storage to be reallocated at Melvern, Pomona, and Tuttle Creek Lakes are 50,000 acre-feet, 32,000 acre-feet, and

50,000 acre-feet, respectively. Under each of the reallocation plans, the volume of water released from each reservoir to maintain downstream water supply/water quailty/navigat1on would not decrease from present levels (Table 1).

It is important to document, both for the economic analysis and the environmental analysis, that impacts are based on the assumption that releases from water supply storage remain 1n the basin. In other words, reallocation does not Imply or assume any Interbasin transfer from

Melvern, Pomona, or Tuttle Creek Lakes. A major transfer from the

Marais des Cygnes River basin to the Neosho River basin, or a major transfer from the Kansas River basin to the Arkansas River basin could result in additional economic or environmental impacts.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Instream Flow Analysis

To determine what minimum releases from the reservoirs would allow for the maintenance of the usual condition of the downstream fish populations, the Service conducted, in cooperation with the Kansas

3 Table 1. Corps of Engineers Developed Plans for Reallocation of Storage from Multipurpose to Water Supply at Melvern, Pomona and Tuttle Creek Lakes.

Lake Storage Yield Shortage (1000 acre-feet) (c.f.s.) (percent)

Melvern

Current Conditions Water Quality 90 20 1 Water Supply — — — Recreation 47 — — —

Proposed Reallocation Water Quality 40 30 10 Water Supply 50 11 2 Recreation 47 — -

Pomona

Current Conditions Water Quality 43 15 1 Water Supply 1 1 2

Proposed Reallocation Water Quality 11 6.6 10 Water Supply 32 0 2

Tuttle Creek

Current Conditions WQ/MO RIV NAV 122 Unspecified - Water Supply — — — - -

Proposed Reallocation WQ/MO RIV NAV 72 300 10 Flows in KS RIV 500 Topeka 1 750 Lecompton 1 1,000 DeSoto 4 1,200 Mouth 7 Water Supply 50 252 2

4 Department of Wildlife and Parks, an instream flow analysis using the

Service's Instream Flow Incremental Methodology for Melvern and Pomona

Lakes. An instream flow assessment was conducted below Tuttle Creek

Lake using the Effectively Utilized Habitat Modification of the

Service's Insteam Flow Incremental Methodology. A detailed description

of the Service's Instream Flow Incremental Methodology can be found in

Bovee, K.D., 1982, A Guide to Stream Habitat Analysis Using the Instream

Flow Incremental Methodology. Instream Flow Information Paper 12,

U.S.D.I., Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services,

FVIS/OBS-82/26, 248 pp.

Reservoir Analysis

In order to compare the effects of the various developed reallocation plans upon the reservoirs' fisheries, it was decided to consider how water level changes caused by the various plans would affect the reproductive success of the reservoirs' sportflsh. l^Mle factors other than reproductive success could significantly affect the condition of the reservoirs' fisheries, their effects are very difficult to estimate, particularly by a study having the present time limitations and scope.

However, 1t can be assumed that 1f reproductive success 1s frequently and severely decreased, 1t 1s unlikely that the fishery will be sustained 1n good condition.

To accomplish such a comparison, computer generated hydrographs supplied by the Corps, displaying lake elevation changes that would have occurred had the reservoirs been operated under the conditions called for under the base and reallocated conditions, were examined. The period of

5 analysis covered the timeframe 1940-1981. For the species of interest for each lake, a system was developed to quantify the impact of water- level fluctuations upon the species reproductive success for the base and reallocated conditions.

DISCUSSION

Instream Flow

A comparison of median flows for the existing and reallocated conditions was made. Median flows meet or exceed the Service's minimum instream flow recommendations (Table 2) 100 percent of the time for Melvern Lake for existing and reallocated conditions; 75 percent of the time for

Pomona Lake for existing and reallocated conditions; and, 100 percent of the time for existing conditions and 83 percent of the time for reallocated conditions for Tuttle Creek Lake. At Tuttle Creek Lake, flows 1n excess of 2,200 c.f.s. 1n May and June would negatively Impact the downstream fishery. Public Health Service recommended flows at

Ottawa, Kansas, would be met 100 percent of the time under both conditions.

It should also be noted that 1n addition to the recommended minimum releases Identified 1n Table 2, provision of flushing flows, paddleflsh spawning flows, water for the annual filling of the Marais des Cygnes

State Waterfowl Management Area, drought condition flows, and fish restocking efforts (contingency plans) are needed. These Items are not features of the "without" or "with" project condition.

6 Table 2. Fish and Wildlife Service Recommended Minimum Instream Flows 1n 110-Mile Creek and the Marais des Cygnes River Immediately Below Pomona and Melvern Lakes, and the Big Blue River Below Tuttle Creek Lake.

MONTH FLOW (CFS)

TUTTLE CREEK POMONA LAKE MELVERN LAKE COMBINED* LAKE

January 15 20 35 450 7,000**

February 15 20 35 450 7,000

March 25 30 55 450 7,000

Apr11 40 40 80 450 2,200

May 50 50 100 450 2,200

June 40 40 80 450 2,200

July 25 25 50 450 7,000

August 15 20 35 450 7,000

September 15 20 35 450 7,000

October 15 20 35 450 7,000

November 15 20 35 450 7,000

December 15 20 35 450 7,000

7 * Contribution to Marais des Cygnes River flows below confluence of

110-Mile Creek and the Marais des Cygnes River.

** Releases greater than identified flow would have a negative impact

on downstream fishery.

8 Periodic flushing flows (24-hour-long releases about once every ten

days) are needed in the Marais des Cygnes River, Il0-M1le Creek, and the

Big Blue River to maintain the Integrity of the stream channel.

• -«

Paddlef1sh spawning migrations are likely to occur in the Marais des

Cygnes River at certain times of the year. It may be possible to utilize releases from Melvern and Pomona reservoirs in such a manner to extend the duration of appropriate conditions for reproductive success of the species.

Water for filling of the pools at the Marais des Cygnes Waterfowl

Management Area 1s needed from September through November. The Kansas

Department of Wildlife and Parks has acquired a 2,000 acre-foot (maximum removal rate of 0 c.f.s.) water-right to available flows from the river for this purpose. This water-right should be maintained.

It 1s recognized that periodic drought 1s a reality within the study area. During such an Identified drought condition, it may be appropriate to decrease the reservoir release rates to those needed to maintain either the flows 1n the Marais des Cygnes River that have been established by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to be the minimum desirable streamflows or those which maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations of 5.0 ppm or greater downstream of all three reservoirs.

Also, 1t may be necessary to restock the lakes themselves and/or the rivers downstream of the lakes with fish 1f a prolonged drought 1s

Identified (1.e., 50-year drought). A contingency plan should be

9 developed and stand ready for implementation if such an identified event occurs.

Reservoi rs

It was determined that the reallocation plans for Melvern, Pomona and

Tuttle Creek

Lakes would not have greatly differed from one another 1n respect to their over-all effects upon the reproductive success of the reservoir's sportfish. The effects due to operation under the reallocation plans were also not much different from those which would have occurred under the base plans. Therefore, the annual reservoir fluctuation plans jointly developed by the Corps and the Kansas Department of Wildlife and

Parks should continue to be implemented. It may even be feasible to improve the reservoirs' fisheries with Implementation of the reallocated plans.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In summary, the Service recommends the following be incorporated in the reallocation plans to lessen the impacts of these plans on the affected stream and reservoir fisheries:

1. The following minimum Instream flows should be provided downstream

of each lake to maintain the condition of the downstream fishery.

10 TUTTLE CREEK MONTH POMONA LAKE MELVERN LAKE COMBINED* LAKE (c.f .s.) (c.f .s.) (C.f.s.) (c.f .s.)

January 15 20 35 450 7,000**

February 15 20 35 450 7,000

March 25 30 55 450 7,000

April 40 40 80 450 2,200

May 50 50 100 450 2,200

June 40 40 80 450 2,200

July 25 25 50 450 7,000

August 15 20 35 450 7,000

September 15 20 35 450 7,000

October 15 20 35 450 7,000

November 15 20 35 450 7,000

December 15 20 35 450 7,000

* Contribution to Marais des Cygnes River flows below confluence of 110-MHe Creek and the Marais des Cygnes River.

** Releases greater than identified flow would have a negative impact on downstream fishery.

11 2. Periodic flushing flows in excess of 400 to 500 c.f.s. (24-hour-

long releases about once every ten days) 1n the Marais des Cygnes

River are necessary to maintain the integrity of the stream

channel. Flushing flows from Tuttle Creek Lake should be in excess

of 450 c.f.s.

3. Paddlefish spawning migrations are likely to occur 1n the Marais

des Cygnes River at certain times of the year. Releases from

Melvern and Pomona Lakes should be utilized during wet years in

such a manner that flood evacuation peaks are reduced in magnitude,

but of increased duration, during periods of potential paddlefish

spawning activity.

4. Water for filling of the pools at the Marais des Cygnes Waterfowl

Management Area is needed from September through November. The

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks water-right should be

mai nta1ned.

5. It is recognized that periodic drought is a reality within the

study area and that all water users suffer during such periods.

Consequently, 1t is likely that at times sufficient water may not

be present tn the reservoirs to justify maintaining the release

rates Identified 1n recommendation number 1. During such an

identified drought condition, it 1s suggested that releases be

allowed, 1f necessary, to decrease to those needed to maintain

either the flows in the Marais des Cygnes River that have been

12 established by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to

be the minimum desirable streamflows or those which maintain

dissolved oxygen concentrations of 5.0 ppm or greater downstream of

all three reservoirs. At Tuttle Creek Lake, releases should be

made to maintain water quality standards and sustained flows in the

Kansas River at Topeka (500 c.f.s.), Lecompton (750 c.f.s.), DeSoto

(1,000 c.f.s.) and Kansas City at the mouth (1,200 c.f.s.).

6. It may be necessary to restock the lakes themselves and/or the

rivers downstream of the lakes 1f a prolonged drought 1s Identified

# (i.e., 50-year drought). A contingency plan should be developed

and stand ready for Implementation 1f such an Identified event

occurs. A portion of the cost of the State's assurrance program

should be allocated for the purchase of replacement fish, 1f

necessary.

7. Reservoir operations should not be appreciably changed from the

current base operation condition. The annual reservoir fluctuation

plans currently developed with the Kansas Department of Wildlife

and Parks should continue to be Implemented.

The preceding information 1s provided as an aid to the Corps of

Engineers' assessment of reallocation of multipurpose storage to water supply at Melvern, Pomona and Tuttle Creek Lakes. The Fish and Wildlife

Service appreciated the opportunity to provide this Report. Thank you for your continued cooperation.

13 Si ncerely,

Dennis Buechler Field Supervisor

Attachment

14 • • P, assCt, Kansas City, Kansas EPA, (MS64411) KS Manhattan, FWS, (MS60120) CO Denver, FV€, Kansas Department of Health and Environment and Health of Department Kansas Parks and Wildlife of Department Kansas Kansas Water Office Water Kansas Manhattan, KS (Manhattan District Office) District (Manhattan KS Manhattan, oea KS Topeka, Office) District (Osage KS Carbondale, oea KS Topeka, rt, S Evrnetl Services) (Environmental KS Pratt, (EIS Review Section) Review (EIS oea K (otes einl Office) Regional (Northeast KS Topeka,

15

PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE

KCD to EPA 16 Dec 1980 EPA to KCD 9 Jan 1981 KCD to EPA 16 Mar 1981 KCD to US Fish & Wildlife 16 Mar 1981 EPA to KCD 27 Jul 1981 EPA to KCD 12 Nov 1982 KCD to KWO 18 May 1983 KCD to US Fish & Wildlife 6 Sep 1983 US Fish & Wildlife to KCD 15 Sep 1983 US Fish S. Wildlife to KCD 14 Feb 1984 OCE to MRD 27 Jan 1986 EPA to KCD 21 Apr 1986 KWO to Asst Sec of Army 2 May 1986 Asst Sec of Army to KWO 28 May 1986 EPA to Ks Dept of Health & Env 9 Jan 1987 1 s L'£c ?9 MRK£I>-RA

Kathleen W. Gamin. Ph.D Regional Administrator. Region VII environmental Protection Agency 324 Last 11th Street Kansas City, MO 6410ft

bear I'r. Camin:

This i« to inforr you of the Kansas City District's current involvement in studies of vater supply needs in the Kansas and Osage River basins located in Kansas, and to request your agency's cooperation. Tin* Inclosed water supply fact sheet (Incl 1) describes the problems and needs in the study area. The work Is being coordinated closely with Kansas State agencies.

One of the alternative plati£ to meet present and future municipal and Indus­ trial vater supply needs would require reallocation of storage apace in one or more of five Corps of F.nglnsers lakes: Melvern, Pomona, hanopolls, Wilson, and Tuttle Creek. Melvern was designed with water quality storage to provide 2d c.f.6 low flow end Pomona was designed to provide 15 c .f.s., both on a 1 percent chance of shortage. It is with regard for this aspect of the study that we need your help. keallocatlon studies are in progress for Melvern and Pomona Lakes at this time. Loth of these multipurpose projects are operated in such a way as to provide a minimum flo v o f 35 c . f . s . in the Marais des Cygnes River at Ottawa to satisfy water quality requirements specified by the Public Health Service. Melvern Lake contains 90,000 acre-feet of storage to maintain 20 c . f . s . minimus: ralease for vater quality. The remaining 15 c.f.s is provided from 55,000 ecre-feet of storage in Pomona Lake. Similar studies at Wilson, Kanopolla, and Tuttle Creek Lakes w ill begin soon. A display of the present storage allocations at these five lakes is attached (Incl 2).

In conjunction with the Corps’ resllocatlon studies, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFVS) is conducting analyses of lnstream flo v needs downstream of each dan. The I'SFWS has submitted a preliminary recommendation for i net ream releases at Pomona and Melvern Lakes. I would be glad to arrange a meeting with my staff, your staff, and the USFWS to discuss the relationship of lnstream needs and water quality to other storage requirements. Ms. Cornstock/cb/3637/15 Dec 80 mrkeiv-ba Or. Kathleen W. Camin 1 6 D E C i e q r | The draft reports on Melvem and Pomona Lakes are scheduled for review during tne spring of 19C1. Therefore, I would appreciate a letter from you indica­ ting reaffirmation of the need for water quality storage or stating that it is no longer deeuiee necessary. If water quality releases are still required, please specify the flow rate and include a description of the resulting benefits.

If you have questions about the reallocation studies or would like us to host an Interagency meeting as mentioned above, you may c a ll Ms. Roberta Coma Lock, of rav staff at 374-3637.

Sincerely,

C lucl WALTER C. BELL As stated Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer

4

2 STORAGE CAPACITIES IN ACRE-FEET REALLOCATION STUDIES KANSAS OSAGE RIVER BASINS, KANSAS'

KANOPOLIS LAKE STORAGE

Flood Control 370,434 Multipurpose (includes sedimentation) 55,241 TOTAL 425,675

KELVERK LAKE

Flood Control 200,000 Multipurpose 137,000 Water Quality (90,000) Recreation Storage (A 7,000) Sedimentation 26,000 Total 363,000 rOMONA LAKE

Flood Control 162,500 Multipurpose 56,000 WTater Quality (55,000) Water Supply (1,000) Sedimentation 28,000 Total 246,500

TUTTLE CREEK LAKE

Flood Control 1,933,000 Multipurpose 185,000 Water Ouality Control and Navigation • Sedimentation 228,000 Total 2,3A6,000

WILSON LAKE

Flood Control 511,000 Multipurpose 225,000 Irrig a tio n Sedimentation 40,000 Total 776,000 WATER SUPPLY — FACT SHEET

The Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers has begun a water management study of problems in the Kansas and Osage River basins in Kansas. This study was authorized by resolutions of the Public Works Committees of the United States Senate and House of Representatives through requests initiated by the Kansas Water Resources Board. The study has two purposes, which are water supply and mineral intrusion control. These studies have been combined with an ongoing study of bank stabilization on the Kansas River and tributaries.

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION Many rural areas and cities throughout Kansas have suffered water shortages and physical hard­ ships during the severe and even moderate droughts of recent and past years. Existing municipal and industrial water supplies are proving to be inadequate to meet current needs, let alone meeting in­ creased demands of the future; small cities and other water supplying agencies often lack the financial ability to assure themselves of a reliable supply to meet present needs during severe droughts and to provide for future reserves. This description reinforces the need for a study of water supply within an area which may generally be described as northeast Kansas with a portion of southeast and southcen­ tral Kansas included. It is the most populous portion of the State. Problems and needs may be associated with the source of supply, which may be a flowing water­ course, groundwater, or an impoundment of some type; the treatment of the supply to potable stand­ ards; or the distribution of the potable supply to customers or to an area of demand. They may also be associated with the institutional aspects of supplying water. Financing is an institutional consideration of great importance. It is the purpose of this subsection to describe those defined problems and needs of the study area toward which this study should be directed. Long Term Water Requirements. Projected water supply needs have been compiled by the Kansas Water Resources Board. Survey data on urban and rural domestic demands were used to estimate public water supply demand for future years. Urban domestic, rural domestic, and industrial water uses from public water systems in 1975 are shown in Figure 1. Within the study area urban domestic usage was estimated to be 53.2 billion gal-

211.44

2 0 7 73 319.73 ! 24 I 49 1292.34 104.66 97.63 142.24 133.33 ' '22.76 IOONIPHAN 1 2.20 0. 16 38.11 3.96

"^WASHINGTON |fcU*SHALL |*CMAHA 134 7. IT H «0.7*/ 26264 4.3:.3r T l 89.80 L ie j 113.95; (POTTAWATOMIEAWATOMIE 14 6. 14 I 0.31 14 7.31 ! 0 la21 '.237.5V. 1.36 Lac* son 20 28 tiLAY P 5-76 116380.66 E* .113 73 *|894 43- ;dottc J:!? “ |"J 8e.33 »» > • 205.10 *| 1 '.0212337.I 1 .0 3 (SHAWNEE JI7Q 0 2 T 2.99 L®C**Y JWAWABAUNSEE - — --1175.32 6357.26 IDICKINBON 2 6 9 . 4 0 »DOUGLAS JOHNSON 311.63 264.09 8 74 59 59l 330.70 70.32 72.03 '**” rr.TTT 396.46 2 59 2 84 0J5 * 158 26 244 40 ELLSWORTH 8.60 1.66 0SA9E FRANK LIN MIAMI 163.81 114 3 16 98.57 (106.73 McPherson 0.66 ! 0 37 ANDERSON LINN

H A JtV tr 4 2 6 4 0 126 23 13970.61 20.5 6 I 4 17.02 BOURBON 4937.16

SEDGWICK

STUDY AREA TOTALS

UPPER FIGURE - URBAN 00MEST1C USAGE------32, 499.74 MIODLE FIGURE-RURAL DOMESTIC USAGE______6,955.54 LOWER FIGURE - INDUSTRIAL USAGE FROM PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM - 10,433.80

FIGURE 1 1975 rUBLIC WATER SUPPLY USAGE BY CATEGORY (MILLION GALLONS PER YEAR) REGION VII 324 EAST ELEVENTH STREET KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI - 6 41 0 6

January 9, 1981

Colonel Walter C. Bell District Engineer Kansas City District Corps of Engineer 700 Federal Building Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Dear Colonel Bell:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Kansas City D istrict's studies for the reallocation of water storage in five Corps of Engineers lakes: Melvern, Pomona, Kanopolis, Wilson, and Tuttle Creek.

My staff has contacted Ms. Roberta Comstock of your staff and indicated that ve plan to attend the meeting on the Kansas and Osage Rivers in Topeka, Kansas on January 21, 1981. I also understand that a meeting has tentatively been scheduled for the first week in February with the, U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, the Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency. This meeting w ill be for the purpose of discussing the minimum stream flows required for water quality purposes in the Kansas and Osage Rivers.

Every effort w ill be made to provide the Corps of Engineers an expeditious answer to the minimum stream flow requirements in these two rivers*

The person on my staff most familar with this action is Mr. Cecil Taylor who can be contacted at 374-2281.

Sincerely yours,

Kathleen Q. Camin, Ph.D. Regional Administrator Mr. Tatachl/sc/5063 HRKiiD-Ba 1 9 m 1981

Mr. W illiae W. Rice Acting Regional Administrator VS Environmental Protection Agency 324 East 11th Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Doer Mr. lice.

Tlie Kansas City district, US Array Corps of rloglnears, la preparing a Draft Environmental Lrpact Statement (D£IS) cad a Draft F e a sib ility Report (DFR) for e water supply study covering central and northeastern Kansas* The study w ill examine existing and anticipated municipal end industrial water supply needs In e JO'-county area.

To Insure that air and water quality concerns are adequately addressed la our reports, 1 ea requesting that id5A, Region V I I # be a cooperating agency In the preparation and review of these documents.

Your Agency's participation In the 21 January 1931 Pederal/State scoping meeting held in Topeka, Kansas, wee appreciated.

If you have any questions regarding this natter, please do not hesitate to contact ou or Dr. Joan L. Tatscnl of my sta ff at (610) 374-306 3.

Sincerely,

JAVID C. SAPP L.TC, Corps of Engineers Acting Jl9trlct engineer ;tr. Tatacul/sc/I>061i •.UuUr-liK 1 6 MAR- 1381

lr. Tod Jauuucr-j City «.ria office I'j l'Liit. aju wiidm*.- Service - 72i iijCKcr^cu Perkwav M # # 9 . % WA4 • fW* / • i u ^ a n v iI io

ocar .*ic . Snunuers.

!<:<_ ..arts us City District. US Ar^y Cor pa of Engineers. i» preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DclS) ana a u rafl r e d i b i l i t y Report (UfK) for a water supply etuwy covering central and oortneastcru Raosaa. The stuuy w ill cxufciiue existing and anticipated municipal and iuOuatrial water aupcly naeda in a lb-county area.

To injure taut £ia:» and w ildlife concerns arc ude^uateiy addressee in our resorts, I a-\ re^ucstin^ your agency to o« a cooperating aptacy in the prepari-

LI0 . 4 aui review ol tueac documents.

Inc Service’s participation iu the 21 January iJCx Federal/State Scopiu^ laectinji ,ieiu in Tope*td, ^uiisad, van ai-picciateu. if you nave any questions re ardiup t:ii*» uacter, pieaue d o not aeaicate to contact sic or Ur. Juan L. latucUi of uy staff at („lu) 274-5'iOl.

Sincerely.

DAVID C. SAPP LTC, Corps of Engineers Actin; District Engineer

CP: ^ Jp - B P 11D-X Dist. Read File o UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION VII 324 EAST ELEVENTH STREET KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI - 64106

JUL 27 1981

Mr. Paul D. Barber Chief, Engineering Division Kansas City District Corps of Engineers 700 Federal Building 601 East 12th Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Dear Mr. Barber:

Roberta Comstock of your Division requested an EPA written position on re-allocating the water quality storage in the Melvern and Pomona Reservoirs. This statement is needed to support the Corps of Engineers report now being finalized on the Kansas and Osage Rivers.

The State of Kansas' 1980 Legislature passed House Bill No. 2737 which relates to minimum streamflows of water courses within the State. The State has been conducting a study to evaluate minimum streamflows. EPA*$ position is not to endorse changing storage allocations pending the State of Kansas' determinations regarding needed water quality storage in their minimum streamflow studies.

Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Allan S. Director, Water Division

cc: Gerald Stoltenberg, KDHE Roberta Comstock, K.C. Corps of Engineers UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION VII 324 EAST ELEVENTH STREET KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI - 64106

N O V 1 2 1 9 3 2

Ms. Roberta Comstock (PD-A) Special Studies Branch PIanning Division Kansas City District Corps of Engineers 700 Federal Building 601 East 12th Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Dear Ms. Comstock:

Thank you for notifying EPA of the two public hearings to be held in Kansas for possible reallocation of multi-purpose water storage at Tuttle Creek, Kanopolis and Wilson Lakes. However, we will be unable to attend.

We are very interested in tracking the Corps of Engineers activities related to these three possible reallocation actions. We would appreciate a copy of your public meeting summary(ies).

If you have additional questions, please contact me. The member of my staff who is most familiar with this subject, Mr. Cecil Taylor, (2281) can also pro­ vide additional information.

Sincerely yours, Hay 18, 1983

PlanPD-P 1 ornaulati FILE on COPY ©ranch Planning Division

Mr. T oui Stiles Kansas Water Office 5J3 kansas Avenue Topeka, Kansas 66603

Dear Hr. Stiles:

This is in response to your letter ot April 20, 1983, to Mr. Kenneth Thornton of my staff requesting comments on possible state planning strategies to implement K.S.A. 82t-703a, which calls for establishing minimum desirable strearaflows• We have reviewed the draft paper and offer the following comments for your consideration.

The first 3-1/2 pages present a good discussion of the problems and opportunities inherent in administration of a minimum streamflow policy, and we have no comment on that bection. Our comments pertain to the use of lake storage to maintain minimum stream!lows. The comments reflect some of the planning assumptions and philosophy which guide our lake reallocation study.

One concern which Immediately surfaces is definition of terras used In the discussion. From s Federal point of view it is important to distinguish between water quality storage and storage for regulation of streamflow. Prior to enactment of Public Law 92-500 In 1972, water quality storage was included in many Federal lakes to provide e means of diluting pollutants. Section 102 of that act made BPA responsible for a determination of the need for, and value of, water quality storage, but made the Corps of Engineers (or Bureau of Reclamation) responsible for determining the need for storage for regulation of stream- flow. Enclosure 1 is an excerpt from Corps Engineering Pamphlet 1165-2-1 which summarizes that point.

In December 1980, this office requested a determination by the Region VII Administrator of EPA as to whether storage for water quality purposes is still needed and, If so, what the resulting benefits would be. Enclosure 2 Is a copy of the July 27, 1981, reply, which deferred a decision pending outcome - 2- Thornt of your minimum desirable stream flow studies. Our studies since that time have assumed that the amount of storage which would be provided for regulation of streamflov (other than for water quality) would likely be adequate to take care of water quality needs, if any, as well. Enclosure 3 presents our preliminary assumptions of streamflow regulation needs. Should you determine, and recommend to EFA, that a greater amount of storage is needed for water quality (public health) than would otherwise be included for regulation of streamflow, the value and impact of the storage must be documented.

You discuss the possibility of operating a lake with multiple purposes having different frequencies of snoriage (10 percent, . percent, 1 percent). I must point out that, as we have discussed with the Kansas Water Office and other State agency representatives in the past year, this may be a difficult proposition. The main problem is that, even with a good water accounting system, it is not possiole to tell when a drought becomes more severe than, say, 10 percent. Hence, it is difficult to know when to curtail use for a particular purpose. This problem must be considered in your evaluation of alternative administration schemes.

We will be pleased to meet with you and discuss the above comments further. Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft paper on minimum desirable atreamflows•

Sincerely,

> • V

Philip L. P.otert Chief, Manning Division

Enclosures

Copy furnishedi Regional Administrator Environmental Protection Agency Region VII 324 East Eleventh Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106

ED-X Dist Reading File 0C September 6, 1983

Environmental Resources Branch Planning Division

Maurice Anderson Project Leaner US Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Office P.O. Box HSU Pierre, South Dakota 57SOI

Lear i*ir. Anaerson:

The Kansas-Osage Water Management Study was authorized by Congress to address the water supply need of approximately one-fourth of the State of Kansas. The study area is comprised of 38 counties generally located in northeast Kansas (see attached map). The major purpose of this study is to evaluate the reallocation of the existing multipurpose pool storage in five Federal lakes (Melvern, Pomona, Tuttle Creek, Wilson, and Kanopolis). Another purpose is to develop measures that would reduce natural salt contributions to the Saline and Smoky hill Rivers in Saline and Dickinson Counties (see map) .

In accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, the Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers, requests information regarding any Federally listed or proposed to be listed endangered or threatened species (or their critical habitat) which may be found within or adjacent to the five existing Federal lakes listed above. In addition to the lake areas, reallocation of storage could also have an impact on stream flow in the river downstream from each dam.

• I aru aware that there are five Federally listed endangered and threatened species for the planning area. The bald eagle (Hallaeetus leucocephalus) is a regular winter resident at Corps lakes and migrations of both the whooping craned(Grus americana) and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) have been identified as occurring in the study area. MRKPD-R Tatschl/sc/5063/30 Aug 83 - 2-

The last Eskimo curlew (Numenius borealis) collected in Kansas was sold in the marke to lace in 19&2. Since then, there has only been one unconfimed sighting of the species in the state, Tnat occurred in Pratt County in August 1978.

Another endangered species is the blacK-footed ferret (Hustola nigripes). There were 14 unconfirmed sightings of. this mammal within a 13-year period (1970-1983) in Kansas. Of this total there were four unconfirmed sightings in 1983, one each in Pawnee, Flush, Lane, and Russell Counties. Only one of tnese uiiconfirmed black-footed ferret signtings was within tne boundaries of the planning area and that was in Russell County near the town of Eunker Hill.

If you have any questions regarding this request or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me or Dr. John L. Tatschl of my staff at FTS 758-5063 or (SIC) 374-5063.

Sinceroly,

Cumie C. Gunter Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Enoinaer

Attachment 9 0° o

O — 40 10 z 100° ___.____L______. ------• 1sm*th * CHEYENNE RAWLINS J DECATUR ! NORTON | PHXUP8

SHERMAN { TH0WA9 SHERlOAN GRAHAM ROOKS

----- Jr . WALLACE ! LOGAN GOVE tLLI S

V ------p j ------1----- GREELEY■ rr> rw •' WICHITA V SCOTT n LANE ; NESS RUSH

---- L-----L----- 1----- S------“*| HAMILTON T 1 KEARNYRPARMv I EINNEY 1 HODGEMAN ! L. ----1 • COWARDS — 1 \--- J PRATT |------• KINGMAN STANTON (JR ANT j KIOWA

SUMNER j COWV.ET 1 I moNTOv’ME"*' t»nF-TTR p CMe»»0KEE MEADE L.(------^ J .______I . » TAPPER ' j J I.WAII’AUQIIA I j I MORTON'„7; ~' ~ 1 J STEVENS ^ " -- '(-----8EWAR0 *1 • i i ; '• I • I I _ I ; ___1______f--- _ * .1 T 60

SCALE »N MILES I

i i*

United States Department of the Interior i

IN REPLY REFER TO I i POST OFFICE BOX 250 PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA 57501 September 15, 1983

Col. Gurnie C. Gunter District Engineer Corps of Engineers 700 Federal Building Kansas City, NO 64106

Dear Col. Gunter:

This is in response to your letter of September 6, 1983, requesting information on Federally listed endangered species which may be found within or adjacent to Melvern, Pomona, Tuttle Creek, Wilson, and Kanopolis lakes and their associated streams.

In accordance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act as amended, we have determined that the following listed endangered species may be present in the project area.

Listed Species Expected Occurrence

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) migration, winter resident Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) migration, winter resident Whooping crane (Grus americana) migration Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) prairie dog towns

According to our records, the bald eagle occurs as a migrant and winter resident on all five lakes and their associated streams. Kanopolis, Wilson, and Tuttle Creek lakes appear to have the highest concentration of eagles.

The peregrine falcon occurs statewide as a migrant and winter resident. Within the area of concern,, sightings have been confirmed in Saline, Osage, Geary, Shawnee, Johnson, and Wyandotte Counties.

Wilson and Kanopolis lakes are within the whooping crane migration corridor. A confirmed whooping crane sighting was reported at Wilson lake on April 16, 1967. 2

The potential range of the black-footed ferret extends as far east in Kansas as the eastern portions of Ottawa, Saline, and McPherson Counties. The most recent reported sighting in the project area was in May 1983 in Russell County. If prairie dog towns are affected by this action, we request that you contact this office regarding the need and procedures for black-footed ferret surveys.

Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely yours,

Maurice E. Anderson Endangered Species Coordinator United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IN KKPI.Y RKFFR. TfV mmKwwwmmwcjmiaKRKXBKaxvu**** POST OFFICE BOX 250 PIERRE. SO l’TH DAKOTA 57501 February 14, 1984

Mr. Philip L. Rotert Chief, Planning Division Kansas City District Corps of Engineers Environmental Resources Branch 700 Federal Building Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Dear Mr. Rotert:

This is in response to your letter of February 1, 1984, and the amended biological assessment for the Kansas-Osage Rivers Water Management St udy.

We concur with your conclusion that the project as currently planned will not affect the peregrine falcon, bald eagle, whooping crane, or black-footed ferret. However, if changes are made in the project plans or operating criteria, or if additional information becomes available, the Fish and Wildlife Service must be informed so that we may consider the proposed changes.

Thank you for considering our comments and amending the original assessment.

Sincerely yours, i

Maurice E. Anderson Endangered Species Project Leader DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S, Army Corps of Engineers WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314

REPLV TO 27 JAN J936 ATTENTION OF:

DAEN-CWP

SUBJECT: Kansas Water Plan

Commander, Missouri River Division

1. Over the past four months, our offices have been working closely with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) to develop a Kansas Water Plan. This close association culminated in a meeting held in the Kansas City District Office on 3 December 1985. This meeting, also attended by representatives of the Southwestern Division and the State of Kansas, permitted a discussion of, and then a resolution of all issues.

2. As a result of the 3 December meeting, a Memorandum of Agreement on the subject issue, which had been submitted by the State of Kansas, was redrafted in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This MOU was subsequently signed on December 11, 1985, by Robert K. Dawson, representing the Department of the Army, and Joseph F. Harkins, representing the State of Kansas. The MOU was also witnessed by Senator Robert Dole, United States Senator from Kansas.

3. Paragraph 4b(l) of the MOU indicates the Kansas City District will perform certain reallocation studies within a specific time period. The dates provided are those of the District Engineers report. Cost of the storage space is to be determined in accordance with paragraph 4b(3) of the MOU. If these reallocation reports have not reached HQUSACE, ATTN: DAEN-CWP, by 31 December 1986, please provide me a status report on the studies.

4. A key element of the MOU i s a statement of inten t by the Department of the Army to calc ulate the pr ic e of any water supply storage that may be mad e ava illabl e as a resul t of the agreement with Kansas on the s ame basis that would have occurred if such storage origi nally had been author ized as DAEN-CWP SUBJECT: Kansas Water Plan municipal and industrial water supply storage. In order to assure that the decision to calculate the price in this manner is not used improperly in other situations, a document setting forth the basis of the decision has been prepared and is provided as Enclosure 2.

5. A similar letter is being sent to the Commander of the Southwestern Division. FOR THE COMMANDER:

2 E n d s H. J. HA as (dupe) Major Gener Director of Civil Works

-2- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII 726 MINNESOTA AVENUE KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101

APR 2 1 1986

Phil Rotert, Chief, Planning Division U.S. Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District 700 Federal Building 601 East 12 Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Dear Mr. Rotert:

Thank you for having your staff coordinate your progress on the Kansas and Osage River Reservoirs reallocation study with EPA. Enclosed are our prelimi­ nary draft targets for minimum stream flows in the Kansas River below Tuttle Creek Reservoir, and in the Marais des Cygnes River below Melvern and Pomona Reservoirs for the specific purposes of providing adequate flow to preclude upgrading sewer treatment facilities and to protect fisheries.

In Kansas, wastewater treatment plants are designed to meet approved Water Quality Standards which have criteria that apply at either 7Q10 flows, or 1 cfs, whichever is highest. On regulated streams, protected stream flows are considered in applying WQS criteria.

Based upon current draft wasteload allocation guidance, 15 years has been proposed as the appropriate stress-free period of time to protect ecosystems from drought situations. This differs from the Corps' proposal to provide water quality releases for a one-in-ten year drought. (See enclosed February 16, 1986, Wasteload Allocation Draft Guidance: Stream Design Flow for Steady-State Modeling, especially page 3-3.)

We look forward to receiving further information on the Corps of Engineers' progress to address flows for wastewater treatment facilities. It appears that the Kansas Legislature will pass legislation commensurate with the Kansas/ Department of Army Memorandum of Understanding which could ensure the Kansas ten-year option to reallocate some Corps of Engineers' reservoir storage.

It should be noted that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment is working on the minimum flow levels needed to meet the water supply use designa­ tion on these streams. Initial indications are that the KDHE flows will be higher than the ones we have recommended solely for wastewater treatment plants and fisheries. >%

\

2

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment upon your study.

If you have any questions, please contact me. The member of my staff who is most familiar with this subject, Mr. Cecil Taylor, 913/236-2817, can also provide additional information.

Sincerely yours,

Larry B. Ferguson, Chief Water Compliance Branch Water Management Division

Enclosure LOW FLOW TABLE

I. Tuttle Creek Reservoir - began discharging April 29, 1963

USGS Hi stori cal Operational State Target Draft Streamf1ow Station Location 7Q10 (cfs) 7Q10 (cfs) Protected Flow (cfs)

06887000 Big Blue River 26.17 18.28 to be determined near Manhattan (1951-1984) (1963-1984) 26.17 cfs

06887500 Kansas River 356.84 417.40 to be determined 417.40 cfs at Wamego (1919-1934) (1963-1984)

06889000 Kansas River 401.81 499.03 to be determined 499.03 cfs at Topeka (1918-1984) (1963-1984)

06891000 Kansas River 414.74 566.37 to be determined 566.37 cfs at Lecompton (1936-1984) (1963-1984)

06892350 Kansas River 486.32 659.37 to be determined 659.37 cfs at DeSoto (1918-1984) (1963-1984)

Marais des Cygnes River (Pomona Reservoir began discharging 6/5/1965)(Melvern Reservoir began discharging 4/4/1975)

USGS Hi storical 1965 - 1975 1975 - 1984 State Protected Target Draft Streamflow Station Location 7Q10 (cfs) 7Q10 (cfs) 7Q10 (cfs) Flow (cfs)

06913000 Near Pomona 0.04 15.93 21.48 21.48 cfs (1923-1984)

06913500 Near Ottawa 0.06 14.22 22.98 J/15, F/15, M/15, Sept thru May-22.98 cfs*; (1903-1984) A(*)/l5(40), June thru Aug-25 cfs*; M(*)/20(50), *spawning flows in Apr(40), J(*)/25(50), May(50), June(50) to be J/25, A/25, S/20, managed if reservoirs in 0/15, N/15, D/15 flood pool

06916600 Near KS/MO Li ne 0.68 13.79 1.13 -- Use yield required for (1959-1984) Truman Reservoir but not less than 1.13 cfs STATE OF KANSAS

|olm C..11 Ini. (iovciiuM

KANSAS WATER OFFICE .SlIlK LMHI Joseph F. Harkins I u p S\V Nmih Dirccior I npck.i. K.ms.i" |‘J-1*2 | *» May 2, 1986 t»i >-*j*is;.

Mr. Robert Dawson Assistant Secretary of the Army Department of the Army Washington, D.C. 20310-0103

Dear Secretary Dawson:

Re: Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Purchase of Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Storage in Corps' Reservoirs in Kansas

I am pleased to advise you Kansas has implemented all precedent conditions necessary to fully implement the subject memorandum on July 1, 1986.

Memorandum of Understanding I tern Legislative Action

4.a.(1) "Propose to the State H.B. 2705 passed by the legislature in 1986 a Water Legislature and approved Assurance Program...." b y t h e governor on 4/25/86 authorizes the creation of water assurance districts.

4.a.(2) "Place into an escrow H.B. 3161 passed by the account, by July 1, 1986, an Legislature on 4/27/86 amount of four million dollars is the Omnibus appropria­ ($4,000,000), which will be used tions bill. It provides, toward purchases of storage made on page 18, for the as a result of this MOU." establishment of a $4 million escrow account on June 30, 1986.

4.a.(4) "Obtain State legislation, H.B. 2704 passed by the if necessary, authorizing water Legislature and approved quality reservation rights to the by the Governor on State and protection of water 4/25/86 in Sec. 3(f) and quality inflows and releases prior Sec. 4 provides for the to the purchase of any storage protection of inflows under this MOU." into the water quality capacity of reservoirs under water reservation rights. Mr. Robert Dawson Page 2 May 1, 1986

We look forward to working with the Corps of Engineers to complete all other provisions of the agreement.

Sincerely,

Joseph F~-" Harkins Directoi:

JFH:dk Attachments H.B. 2704 H.B. 2705 H.B. 3161 cc: Colonel Robert M. Amrine Colonel Franklin T. Tilton H. Philip Martin, Chairman, Kansas Water Authority DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY TKC o r TM MOTT AMT MCRCTART WMMMOTON. OC

2 8 MAY 1985

Mr, Joseph F. Harkins Dittotor Kansas Water Office 109 8W Ninth, Suite 200 foptktf Kansas $6612*1215 Dear Hr. Harkins Thank you for your recent letter informing me of the legislative actions which have been taken by the State of Kansas with respect to our Memorandum of Onderstanding (KOU) on the purchase of water supply stocage in Corps reservoirs. Congratulations are in order for all of thoae who were Involved in the legislation. This la the first step in implementing the MOU. The next is the comple­ tion of reallocation studies at the Tuttle Creek, Pomona, and Malvern Reservoirs, I understand from the Corps that those studies, as well as the others, are proceeding on schedule, I hope that completion of those studies will result in the sale of storage to the State as provided for in the MOU, Again, congratulations; I look forward to working with you on this and other issues in Kansas, 8incerely, SIQSQ)

Robert K, Dawson Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) UNITED.STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII 726 MINNESOTA AVENUE KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101

OfrICE OK THE REGiON'Av A D W S T R A TQR 1987

Gyula F . Kovach, P.E. Director, Bureau of Water Protection Kansas Department of Health and Environment Forbes Field Topeka, Kansas 66620

Dear Mr. Kovach:

In response to your letter of December 8, 1986, regarding the role of the Environmental Protection Agency 1n the reallocation of storage 1n federal reservoirs, EPA's role 1s to provide technical assistance and oversight to the state 1n Implementing their water qualIty*standards and assure compliance with other provisions of the Clean Water Act, especially §402 and §404, Including wetlands. We would also review environmental assessment information developed by the Corps of Engineers as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

KDHE 1s responsible for assuring that water quality standards, Including antidegradation provisions, are met 1n the state.

As you are aware, flow regulation studies conducted during pre­ authorization studies for most federal reservoirs 1n Kansas were conducted prior to enactment of PL 92-500. Those studies evaluated the need for low flow augmentation to meet water quality standards In lieu of adequate waste treatment. EPA policy, subsequent to PL 92-500, has been that regulation of stream flow shall not be used as a substitute for the provision of adequate treatment or other methods of controlling waste at the source. Therefore, the original basis for the low flow augmentation and related storage may not be applicable at the present time. If 1t is determined that there are sources of pollution that cannot be controlled, It may then be appropriate to provide for low flow releases to help meet water quality standards.

EPA Region VII will participate, as appropriate, In meetings related to this action and will review and comment, as appropriate, on all draft documents related to this Issue which are received from other federal agencies or the state of Kansas. 2

If you have any questions, please call me. The member of my staff who 1s most familiar with this subject, Mr. Larry Ferguson, (913) 236-2817, can also provide additional Information.

Sincerely yours,

bcc: David Sabock (WH-585) John Maxted (WH-585) Ellen Goldman (CNSL) Edward Vest (ENRV) Bruce Elliott (Region VI) Carroll Scoggins (Tulsa Dist. CofE) Phil Rotert (KC Dist. CofE) LAKE DRAWDOWNS

Melvem Lake Jan 1940 through Dec 1981 Pomona Lake Jan 1940 through Dec 1981 Tuttle Creek Lake Jan 1940 through Dec 1982 MARAIS des CYGNES BASIN YIELD STUDY NOVEMBER 1987 .t MELVERN LAKE

... REALLOCATION CONDITIONS --- EXISTING CONDITIONS ★ SYMBOL INDICATES LAKE MULTIPURPOSE POOL, ELEVATION = 1036 F T ., NGVD > SYMBOL INDICATED BOTTOM OF LAKE (2035), ELEVATION = 984 FT., NGVD

ELEVATION IN FEET, NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM

980 990 1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 1060 1070

♦ 1035.59 i 1035.2! 1034.76 ! 1034.6 i 1035.67 ! 1035.16 ! 1033.73 ! 1033.14 I 1033.6 ! 1032.95 I 1033.39 ! 1033.56 ♦ 1036 i 1036 ! 1036 : 1036 J 1036 : 1036 ! 1036 i 1036 ! 1036 ! 1043.52 ! 1036 ! 1036 + 1036 i 1036 1 1036 ! 1036 ! 1036 : 1036 J 1035.61 ; 1036 ; 1036 : 1036 ; 1036 ! 1036

)9 *80 9*0 1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 lObO 1070 1036 1036 1036 1035.76 1036 1036 1036 1035.39 1034.86 1034.56 1034.05 1033.96 1033.85 1033.79 1036 1047.79 1036 1036 1035.66 1036 1035.79 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1043.35 1037.19 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1035.72 1035.59 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1035.57 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1035.91 1036 1036.67 1036 1036 1035.5 1034.43 1033.74 1033.23 1032.81 1033.75 5 980 990 1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 1060 1070 JAN 1953 4 - -4— 4 — 4 — 4...... 4 1030.82 FEB 1953 ! ) ! ! 1030.48 MAR 1953 ! > i ! 1030.42 APR 1953 ! > ! ! 1030.23 HAY 1953 ! > ! ! 1030.16 JUN 1953 ! > ! ! 1029.24 JUL 1953 ! > ! ! 1028.4 AUG 1953 ! ) ! ! 1027.59 SEP 1953 ! ) ! ! 1026.81 OCT 1953 1 > ! ! 1026.23 NOV 1953 ! > ! ! 1025.85 DEC 1953 ! > ! ! 1025.44 . JAN 1954 4- 4 4 4 4...... 4 1024.98 FEB 1954 ! > J ! 1024.64 HAR 1954 ! > ! ! 1024.25 ' APR 1954 1 ) ! i 1023.7 HAY 1954 > ! ! 1023.6 JUN 1954 ! > ! ! 1024.82 JUL 1954 ! > ! ! 1023.82 AUG 1954 ! ) I ! 1023.52 SEP 1954 ! > ! ! 1022.89 OCT 1954 ! > ! ! 1022.81 NOV 1954 ! > ! ! 1022.3 DEC 1954 ! ) ! ! 1021.87 JAN 1955 4---> 4 4 4 4...... 4 1021.56 FEB 1955 1 ) ! ! 1021.59 HAR 1955 ! > ! ! 1021.42 APR 1955 ! ) ! ! 1021.1 HAY 1955 ! ) ! ! 1021.55 JUN 1955 I > ! ! 1021.26 JUL 1955 ! > ! ! 1020.77 AUG 1955 ! ) ! ! 1020.48 SEP 1955 ! > ! ! 1020.07 OCT 1955 ! ) ! 1 1019.86 NOV 1955 ! > ! 1 1019.02 DEC 1955 ! ) ! 1018.29 JAN 1956 4---> ♦ 4 4 4...... 4 1017.66 FEB 1956 > ! ! 1017.06 HAR 1956 ! ) ; : 1016.31 APR 1956 ! > ! ! 1015.4 HAY 1956 ! > ! ! 1015.21 JUN 1956 ! ) ! ! 1014.71 JUL 1956 ! ) ! ! 1014.05 AUG 1956 ! ) ! ! 1012.93 SEP 1956 ! > ! ! 1011.81 OCT 1956 ! > ! ! 1010.96 NOV 1956 1 ) ! ! 1010.27 DEC 1956 1 > ! ! 1009.35 JAN 1957 4-~ > 4 4...... 4 1008.28 FEB 1957 ! ) ! ! 1007.38 HAR 1957 1 > ! ! 1006.58 APR 1957 1 ) ! ! 1013.88 HAY 1957 ! ) ! ! 1024.61 JUN 1957 ! > ! ! 1031.14 JUL 1957 1 > ! ! 1031.32 AUG 1957 ! > ! ! 1030.47 SEP 1957 ! > ! ! 1031.4 OCT 1957 1 > ! ! 1032.35 NOV 1957 ! > ! ! 1033.31 DEC 1957 ! ) ! ! 1033.52 980 990 1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 1060 1070 980 990 1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 10S0 1060 1070 ♦ 1036 I 1036 ; 1036 I 1035.53 ! 1035.01 ! 1035.39 ! 1035.31 ! 1034.17 ! 1033.46 ! 1032.85 ! 1032.31 ! 1031.83 ♦ 1031.41

: 1 0 3 1 . 0 1 1030.6 ! 1032.31 ! 1032.1 ! 1033.07 ! 1031.97 ! 1031.33 ! 1030.97 i 1030.34 I 1031.3 ! 1031.76 ♦ 1031.93 ! 1032.13 ! 1034.84 ! 1036 ! 1035.41 ! 1039.44 1036 ! 1035.55 ! 1036 1 1035.93 ! 1035.6 i 1036 ♦ 1036 ; 1036 : 1036 ; 1036 ; 1036 ! 1035.97 ! 1035.53 ! 1035.55 ! 1034.76 1034.1 ! 1033.54 ! 1033.1 ♦ 1032.75 ! 1032.37 ! 1031.92 1033.46 ! 1033.3 ! 1037.3 ! 1036 ! 1035.83 ! 1036 ! 1036 ! 1036 : 1036 1036 1036 1035.94 1036 1036 ' 1036 1036 1036 1035.51 1036 1036 1036 1036 # 1036 1036 i 1036 1036 1037.39 1036 1036 1036 . 1036 • 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 , 1036 1036 * 1036 1035.13 1034.16 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1035.76 1035.84 1036 1036 1035.76 1035.13 1034.9 1035.18 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1035.7 1036 1035.7 1035.37 1034.93 1035.5 1036 i 980 990 1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 1060 1070 1036 1036 1039.16 1036 1036 1036 1036 1035.64 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1034.88 1035.54 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1035.48 1036 1035.81 1035.28 1035.27 1035.48 1035.13 1034.92 1034.82 1036 1036 1036 1035.45 1034.53 1033.93 1033.69 1033.3 1033.02 1032.9 1032.77 1032.95 1032.91 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 1036 980 990 1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 1060 1070

» %

« i MARAIS des CYGNES BASIN YIELD STUDY NOVEMBER 1987

POMONA LAKE

... REALLOCATION CONDITIONS --- EXISTING CONDITIONS * SYMBOL INDICATES LAKE MULTIPURPOSE POOL, ELEVATION = 974 FT., NGVD > SYMBOL INDICATED BOTTOM OF LAKE (2035), ELEVATION = 942 FT., NGVD

ELEVATION IN FEET, NATIONAL GEOOETIC VERTICAL DATUM

940 945 950 955 960 965 970 975 980 985

------— * ------— JAN 1940 — ♦...... ------♦...... — ♦...... ------♦...... - f - t * ...... — ♦...... 973.79 FEB 1940 973.61 HAR 1940 973.41 APR 1940 973.24 HAY 1940 974 JUN 1940 973.68 JUL 1940 972.57 AUG 1940 972.12 SEP 1940 972.88 OCT 1940 972.46 NOV 1940 973.06 DEC 1940 973.31 JAN 1941 974 FEB 1941 974 HAR 1941 974 APR 1941 974 HAY 1941 974 JUN 1941 974 JUL 1941 974 974 AU6 1941 974 SEP 1941 985.57 OCT 1941 974 NOV 1941 974 DEC 1941 974 JAN 1942 974 FEB 1942 974 HAR 1942 974 APR 1942 974 HAY 1942 971 JUN 1942 973.81 JUL 1942 974 AUG 1942 974 1942 SEP 974 OCT 1942 974 NOV 1942 974 DEC 1942 940 945 950 955 960 965 970 975 900 985 974 974 974 974 974 974 974 973.47 973.27 973.03 972.75 972.82 972.89 973 974 992.28 974 974 973.63 974 973.84 974 974 974 974 974 974 985.36 975.85 974 974 974 974 974 973.95 973.95 974 974 974 974 974 974 973.89 974 974 974 974 974 974 974 974 975.04 974 974 973.69 972.96 972.46 972.1 971.83 973.23 940 945 950 955 960 965 JAN 1948 -4~ ■4— 4-- ■4 — FEB 1948 > HAR 1948 > ! 1I APR 1943 > : 1 HAY 1948 > ! 9 JUN 1948 > ! JUL 1948 > ! f1 AUG 1948 > SEP 1948 > 1 OCT 1943 > ! NOV 1943 > 1 DEC P 4 3 ) ! 1 JAN 1949 FEB 1949 HAR 1949 APR 1949 HAY 1949 JUN 1949 JUL 1949 AUG 1949 SEP 1949 OCT 1949 NOV 1949 DEC 1949 JAN 1950 FEB 1950 HAR 1950 APR 1950 HAY 1950 JUN 1950 JUL 1950 AUG 1950 SEP 1950 OCT 1950 NOV 1950 DEC 1950 JAN 1951 i i FEB 1951 > : : i i i i HAR 1951 > : ! i i i i APR 1951 > ; ; i i i i HAY 1951 > ! : i i i i JUN 1951 > i : i i i i JUL 1951 > : ; i i i i AUG 1951 ) : ; i » i i SEP 1951 > ; : i i i 1A OCT 1951 > : : i 1 i 1 NOV 1951 } : i i 1 i 1A DEC 1951 > : : i 1 JAN 1952 FEB 1952 HAR 1952 APR 1952 HAY 1952 JUN 1952 JUL 1952 AUG 1952 SEP 1952 OCT 1952 NOV 1952 DEC 1952 ♦ 970.51 ! 970 39 ! 970.36 i 970.17 ! 970.24 ! 969.42 ! 968.56 ! 967.72 ! 966.93 ! 966.45 ! 966.18 1 965.86 ♦ 965.52 ! 965.31 ! 965.02 ! 964.5 \ 964.31 ! 967.82 ! 966.74 ! 966.41 ! 965.72 ! 965.47 ! 965.01 I 964.68 ♦ 964.42 ! 964.46 ! 964.21 ! 963.77 ! 965.03 964.97 i 964.37 i 964.67 ! 964.2 ! 963.96 ! 963.52 J 963.17 ♦ 962.89 962.63 ! 962.3 ! 961.82 ! 961.71 ! 961.37 ! 960.99 ! 960.34 ! 959.25 ! 958.14 ! 957.41 ! 956.75 ♦ 956.15 ! 955.64 i 955.18 ! 966.53 ! 974 ! 974 ! 974 ! 973.28 ! 974 ! 974 ! 974 ! 974 }

940 945 950 955 960 965 970 975 980 985

♦ 940 94$ 950 •5$ 9t0 96$ 970 97$ 900 9S$ 974 FEB 1963 974 MAR 1963 974 APR 1963 9 7 3 .8 3 MAY 1963 9 7 3 .4 2 JUN 1963 974 JUL 1963 974 AUG 1963 9 7 3 .1 9 SEP 1963 9 7 2 .7 6 OCT 1963 9 7 2 .3 5 NOV 1963 9 7 2 .0 5 DEC 1963 9 7 1 .7 7 JAN 1964 9 7 1 .5 5 FEB 1964 9 7 1 .3 5 MAR 1964 9 7 1 .1 6 APR 1964 9 7 3 .9 8 HAY 1964 9 7 3 .8 6 JUN 1964 974 JIJL 1964 973.21 AUG 1964 9 7 2 .7 2 SEP 1964 9 7 2 .4 9 OCT 1964 972.01 NOV 1964 9 7 3 .4 6 DEC 1964 974 JAN 1965 974 FEB 1965 974 MAR 1965 974 APR 1965 974 HAY 1965 9 7 3 .8 JUN 1965 9 7 9 .3 7 JUL 1965 974 AUG 1965 9 7 3 .7 SEP 1965 974 OCT 1965 974 NOV 1965 9 7 3 .8 7 DEC 1965 974 JAN 1966 974 FEB 1966 974 MAR 1966 974 APR 1966 974 HAY 1966 974 JUN 1966 974 JUL 1966 973.51 AUG 1966 9 7 3 .5 SEP 1966 9 7 2 .9 9 OCT 1966 9 7 2 .5 6 NOV 1966 972.24 DEC 1966 972 JAN 1967 9 7 1.84 FEB 1967 9 7 1 .6 4 MAR 1967 9 7 1 .4 APR 1967 974 MAY 1967 974 JUN 1967 9 7 6 .5 3 JUL 1967 974 AUG 1967 974 SEP 1967 974 OCT 1967 974 NOV 1967 974 DEC 1967 974 940 94$ 950 955 960 965 970 975 900 985 f

I 940 945 950 955 960 970 900 JAN 1973 4 - + -4- -♦— 4 974 FEB 1973 ! ) ! 974 MAR 1973 ! > ! 9 7 6 .7 9 APR 1973 : ) ! 974 NAY 1973 ! > ! 974 JUN 1973 ! ) ! 974 JUL 1973 ! > ! 974 AUG 1973 ! ) ! 9 7 3 .8 4 SEP 1973 ! > ! 974 OCT 1973 I ) i 974 NOV 1973 ! > ! 974 DEC 1973 : > ! 974 JAN 1974 4 - --> ■»...... 4 4-...... 4 4 4 4 4 — + 974 FEB 1974 ! > ! 974 MAR 1974 ! > ! 974 APR 1974 ! ) ! 974 HAY 1974 ! ) ! 974 JUN 1974 ! > ! 974 JUL 1974 ! > ! 9 7 3 .3 AUG 1974 ! ) ! 9 7 3 .5 9 SEP 1974 ! > ! 974 OCT 1974 { ) ! 974 NOV 1974 ! ) ! 974 DEC 1974 ! > ! 974 JAN 1975 4 - --> ♦— ... 4 4— ...... 4 4 4 4 4 — 4 974 FEB 1975 ! ) ! 974 HAR 1975 ! > ! 974 APR 1975 ! > ! 974 HAY 1975 ! > ! 974 JUN 1975 ! > ! 974 JUL 1975 : ) ! 974 AUG 1975 : ) ! 9 7 3 .9 3 SEP 1975 ! > ! 974 OCT 1975 ! ) ! 9 7 3 .8 7 NOV 1975 ! > ! 974 DEC 1975 ! > ! 974 JAN 1976 4 - - > 4...... 4 4 4 4 4 — 4 974 FEB 1976 ! > ! 974 HAR 1976 ! ) « ! 974 APR 1976 ! > ! 974 HAY 1976 ! > J 974 JUN 1976 ! ) ! 974 JUL 1976 ! ) ! 974 AUG 1976 ! > ! 9 7 3 .4 5 SEP 1976 J > ! 9 7 3 .3 OCT 1976 ! > ! 9 7 3 .3 9 NOV 1976 ! ) ! 9 7 3 .4 3 DEC 1976 ! ) ! 9 7 3 .5 5 JAN 1977 4 - 4...... 4 4...... 4 4 4 4 4 — 4 9 7 3 .7 8 FEB 1977 ! ) ! 9 7 3 .9 6 HAR 1977 ! > ! 974 APR 1977 ! ) ! 9 7 3 .9 7 HAY 1977 ! > ! 974 JUN 1977 : > ! 974 JUL 1977 ! ) 974 AUG 1977 : > ! 974 SEP 1977 ! > ! 974 OCT 1977 ! > ! 974 NOV 1977 : > ! 974 DEC 1977 : > ! 974 I I 1

940 945 950 955 960 965 970 975 900 985

JAN 1978! ♦— >----♦...... --- 4..... — i...... --- 1...... --- 4...... --- 4...... — &4..... ---4...... ---4- — 974 FEB 1978 974 MAR 1978 974 APR 1978 974 HAT 1978 974 JUN 1978 974 JUL 1978 974 * AUG 1978 974 SEP 1978 # 974 OCT 1978 974 NOV 1978 974 DEC 1978 974 JAN 1979 974 FEB 1979 974 MAR 1979 974 APR 1979 974 HAY 1979 974 JUN 1979 974 JUL 1979 974 AUG 1979 I 9 7 3 .9 9 SEP 1979 * 9 7 3 .8 4 973.91 OCT 1979 » NOV 1979 » 974 DEC 1979 • > 974 JAN 1980 >4 974 FEB 1980 974 HAR 1980 974 APR 1980 974 MAY 1980 9 7 3 .9 7 JUN 1980 9 7 3 .7 5 JUL 1980 9 7 2 .9 4 AUG 1980 9 7 2 .8 7 9 7 2 .6 4 SEP 1980 OCT 1980 9 7 2 .8 7 9 7 2 .8 9 NOV 1980 9 7 3 .1 7 DEC 1980 9 7 3 .3 1 JAN 1981 9 7 3 .4 8 FEB 1981 9 7 3 .7 5 HAR 1981 9 7 3 .5 5 APR 1981 9 7 3 .9 4 HAY 1981 974 JUN 1981 974 JUL 1981 974 AUG 1981 974 SEP 1981 974 OCT 1981 974 NOV 1981 97* DEC 1981

t.

1 KANSAS RIVER BASIN YIELD STUDY NOVEMBER 1987

TUTTLE CREEK LAKE

... RUN KN0114H, REALLOCATION CONDITIONS -- RUN KN0115H, EXISTING CONDITIONS ★ SYMBOL INDICATES LAKE MULTIPURPOSE POOL, ELEVATION = 1075 FT., NGVD > SYMBOL INDICATED BOTTOM OF LAKE (2035), ELEVATION = 1047.5 FT., NGVD

ELEVATION IN FEET, NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM 1040 10S0 1060 1070 1080 1090 1100 1110 1120 1130

1070.86 1067.84 10 70.99 1070.02 10 72.88 1075 10 74.12 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 10 7 3 .9 7 1075 1075 1075 1075 10 8 1 .9 9 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 i 1040 1050 1060 1070 1080 1090 1100 1110 1120 1130 JAN 1943 ♦.... >-♦ +— 4--- ♦..... ■ 4--- 4-- 4--- 1075 FEB 1943 ) i 1075 HAR 1943 > \ 1075 APR 1943 ) | 1075 HAY 1943 ) ! 1075 JUN 1943 ) | 1093.06 JUl 1943 > ! 1075 AUG 1943 ) ! 1075 SEP 1943 > ! 1074.74 OCT 1943 > 1075 NOV 1943 1075 DEC 1943 > ! 1074.88 JAN 1944 ♦ 1074.41 FEB 1944 ) 1075 HAR 1944 > 1075 APR 1944 > 1075 HAY 1944 ) 1075 JUN 1944 > 1075 JUL 1944 > 1075 AUG 1944 ) 1075 SEP 1944 ) 1075 OCT 1944 ) 1075 NOV 1944 > 1075 DEC 1944 ) 1075 JAN 1945 f >-♦ 1075 FEB 1945 ) 1075 HAR 1945 > 1075 APR 1945 ) 1075 HAY 1945 > 1098.75 JUN 1945 ) 1097.19 JUL 1945 ) 1090.09 AUG 1945 ) 1075 SEP 1945 ) 1075 OCT 1945 ) 1075 NOV 1945 > 1075 DEC 1945 > 1075 JAN 1946 ♦ >-♦ 1075 FEB 1946 ) ! 1075 HAR 1946 ) ! 1075 APR 1946 ) ! 1075 HAY 1946 > | 1075 JUN 1946 ) ! 1075 JUL 1946 ) ! 1075 AUG 1946 ) 1075 SEP 1946 ) 1075 OCT 1946 > 1 1075 NOV 1946 ) ! 1075 DEC 1946 ) ! 1075 JAN 1947 ♦. . . . M 1075 FEB 1947 ) ! 1075 HAR 1947 ) ! 1075 APR 1947 ) ! 1075 HAY 1947 > ! 1075 JUN 1947 ) ! 1100.01 JUL 1947 > ! 1082.46 AUG 1947 ) ! 1075 * SEP 1947 ) | 1075 OCT 1947 ) J 1074.81 NOV 1947 > 1073.6 DEC 1947 ) ! 1074.66 1075 1075 1085.12 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1082.42 1075 1075 1089.36 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1074.19 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1081.09 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1116.66 1126.11 1099.79 1099.26 1079.64 1075 1075 1075 1075 '• 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1071.31 1067.8 1066.89 1068.19 1066.09 1065.72 1063.99 1062.27 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1073.14 1070.67 1068.42 1075 1075 1075 1074.07 1075 1075 1073.24 1069.08 1071.2 1067.6 1063.17 1057.35 1047.01 1058.29 1048.59 1047.01 1071.85 1075 1073.41 1068.59 1061.85 1048.88 1047.01 1056.01 1047.01 1058.11 1067.2 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 10(0 1050 1060 io n 1000 1090 1100 1110 1120 11% 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1074.18 1074.7 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1073.66 1075 1074.73 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1071.57 1069.32 1066.75 1064.74 1063.09 1065.89 1070.02 1071.02 1094.43 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1040 1050 1060 1070 1080 1090 1100 1110 1120 : ! 1 1075 JUN 1968 ! > ; ! ! 1075 JUL 1968 ! ) ! ! ! 1075 AU6 1968 ! > ; ! 1 1075 SEP 1968 ! ) ! ! ! 1075 OCT 1968 ! > i ! ! 1075 NOV 1968 ! > : ! ! 1075 DEC 1968 ! > i ! ! 1075 JAM 1969 4------>-♦ ♦ 4 4 4...... 4 -4...... 4 1075 FEB 1969 ) : ! '! 1075 HAR 1969 ) : : ; 1084.16 APR 1969 ) ; I ! 1075 HAY 1969 > ; ! ! 1075 JUN 1969 ) : I 1 1075 JUL 1969 > : ! ! 1075 AU6 1969 > : 1 ! 1075 SEP 1969 > : ! 1 1075 OCT 1969 > : ! ! 1075 NOV 1969 > : ! ! 1075 DEC 1969 > : ! ! 1075 JAN 1970 ♦------>-♦ ♦ 4 4 4...... 4 4 -4...... 4 1075 FEB 1970 ) i ! ! 1075 HAR 1970 > ! ! ! 1075 APR 1970 ) : ! ! 1075 HAY 1970 ) : i ! 1075 JUN 1970 > ; ! ! 1075 JUL 1970 > ; ! ! 1075 AU6 1970 >: 1 ! 1075 SEP 1970 > : ! ! 1075 OCT 1970 > ; ! ! 1075 ! ! 1075 NOV 1970 >: ! ! 1075 DEC 1970 > ; -4...... 4 1075 jan n/i t...... 4 4 4 4...... 4 ! I 1075 FEB 1971 ) : ! ! 1075 HAR 1971 >: ! ! 1075 APR 1971 ) ! J ! 1075 HAY 1971 > ! JUN 1971 > : j ! 1075 J ! 1075 JUL 1971 >: j ! 1075 AU6 1971 > ; • ! 1074.73 SEP 1971 > : J ! 1075 OCT 1971 ) ; ! ! 1075 NOV 1971 > ; ! 1 1075 DEC 1971 > ; -4...... 4 1075 JAN 1972 4...... )-♦ 4 4 4...... 4 - 4 i ! 1075 FEB 1972 > | ! 1075 HAR 1972 ) J ! 1075 APR 1972 ) J ! 1075 HAY 1972 > ! ! 1075 JUN 1972 > J ! 1075 JUL 1972 > ! ! 1075 AU6 1972 ) 1 j 1075 SEP 1972 > J ! 1075 OCT 1972 > ! ! 1075 NOV 1972 > ! ! 1075 DEC 1972 > 1040 1050 JAN 1973 4...... ) “♦ 1075 FEB 1973 ) ! 1075 HAR 1973 ) i 1076.96 APR 1973 ) : 1075 MAY 1973 ) i 1075 JUN 1973 > ! 1075 JUL 1973 ) : 1075 AUG 1973 ) ; 1075 SEP 1973 > ! 1079.19 OCT 1973 ) 1110.5 NOV 1973 ) ! 1102.35 DEC 1973 ) : 1088.66 JAN 1974 ♦...... >-♦ 1075 FEB 1974 ) ! 1075 HAR 1974 > ! 1075 APR 1974 1075 HAY 1974 > ! 1075 JUN 1974 ) ; 1075 JUL 1974 ) ! 1075 AUG 1974 > ! 1075 SEP 1974 > ! 1075 OCT 1974 ) : 1075 NOV 1974 ) ! 1075 DEC 1974 ) ! 1075 JANTill 1975 ime j * ------>-♦ 1075 FEB 1975 ) ! 1075 HAR 1975 ) ! 1075 APR 1975 ) ! 1075 HAY 1975 ) ! 1075 JUN 1975 > ! 1075 JUL 1975 ) : 1075 AUG 1975 > ; 1075 SEP 1975 ) ! 1075 OCT 1975 > ! 1075 NOV 1975 ) ! 1075 DEC 1975 ) ! 1075 JAN7 a ii 1976 i m / +j ...... >-+ 4 4...... 4 4------4 1075 FEB 1976 ) ! 1075 HAR 1976 ) 1 1075 APR 1976 > J 1075 HAY 1976 > ! 1075 JUN 1976 ) I 1075 JUL 1976 > 1 1075 AU6 1976 ) ! 1075 SEP 1976 ) ! 1072.72 OCT 1976 ) 1 1074.28 NOV 1976 > ! 1072.14 DEC 1976 ) ! 1070.31 JAN7*n 1977 i m i j ♦...... >-♦ 4 4 1067.68 FEB 1977 > 1068.51 HAR 1977 ) 1069.9 1072.73 APR 1977 ) 1075 MAY 1977 > JUN 1977 > 1075 JUL 1977 ) 1075 AUG 1977 ) 1075 SEP 1977 > 1075 OCT 1977 ) 1075 NOV 1977 > 1075 DEC 1977 > 1075 1075 1075 1085.48 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1109.86 1098.38 1085.85 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1074.62 1075 1073.42 1075 1074.14 1075 1075 1074.97 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075 1077.55 1079.8 1083.27 1075 1075 1075 1075 1075