HomeMy WebLinkAbout5A - Motion recommending a Management Option for Thunderbird Lake at Burke Park CITY OF BOULDER
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: September 22, 2008
AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion Recommending a
Management Option for Thunderbird Lake at Burke Park
PRESENTERS:
Jan Geden, CPRP, Director, Parks and Recreation
Alice Guthrie, Parks and Planning Superintendent
Matt Claussen, Urban Resource Manager
Joy Master, Conservation Ecologist
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this memo is to provide the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
(PRAB) with additional information on potential management options for Thunderbird
Lake as requested by the PRAB at its February 25, 2008 meeting. The PRAB is asked to
make a recommendation to City Council on a management option for the lake. PRAB's
recommendation and public input will be provided to City Council at a subsequent
meeting.
Staff and consultants have been investigating actions to manage the lake including
evaluating ways to add water to the lake. A comprehensive evaluation of each
considered option can be found in Attachment A.
During the 2009 budget process, staff included $200,000 in the Capital Improvement
Program budget for potential actions at Thunderbird Lake, recognizing that a plan of
action had not been determined as yet. To date in 2008, staff has spent approximately
$87,500 and projects spending an additional $33,000 before the end of the year.
To assist in the decision-making, staff has included a matrix of benefits and impacts for
each option (Attachment B) as well as additional information on cost estimates for each
option (Attachment C).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In consideration of the goals of the department's master plan and the city and
department's current fiscal situation, staff recommends not adding water, but proactively
addressing the existing and anticipated environmental conditions at the lake (Adaptive
Management - No Supplemental Water). This recommendation supports the Parks and
AGF,M)A ITEM # V-A PAGE I
Recreation Master Plan goal to "Maintain and protect our parks and recreation facilities
and programs." With this option, staff will dedicate the resources needed to manage the
lake and surrounding area in the manner established in 2Q08 (maintain the water
circulation unit, add microbes to control algae; remove duckweed, maintain the view
corridors, monitor the water level, monitor for Culex mosquitoes and apply Bti when
present). Additionally, the existing file drain would be maintained, so water would flow
into the Iake when the groundwater is adequate. Ongoing maintenance costs will be
calculated and budgeted in the Parks and Planning Division's operating budget and will
result in internal re-prioritizations and reallocations.
If the PRAB does not support the staff recommendation and determines that adding
supplemental water to the lake is a priority, staff recommends adding potable water for a
period of three years (multiple times per year, according to apre-determined water
budget). This would be the least costly way to achieve the goal of having a visible lake
with minimal odors. Staff would manage the lake and surrounding area and take the
following actions: weed control, mosquito mitigation, algae control, maintain circulation
unit, water quality sampling and maintain the view corridors. All expenses (resources
and staff time) would be tracked. The three-year time frame coincides with the renewal
of the wetland permit. At the end of the three-year period, staff would return. to the
PRAB to review the management information and discuss the continued addition of
potable water.
Kcy Issue Identification:
The key elements identified for Thunderbird Lake are the changing hydrology of the area
and the capital and ongoing funds that will be required for management of the lake. The
PRAB will need to balance the priorities of the community as reflected in the
department's master plan, the expressed interest of the neighbors, the feasibility of adding
water to the lake and the financial resources necessary for ongoing management of the
lake. The PRAB is asked to recommend a management strategy, given the City Council
filters of economic, environmental, and social sustainability.
COUNCIL FILTER IMPACTS:
• Economic: Some nearby residents have expressed concern that property values
may decline if the lake is not returned to its former condition.
• Environmental: According to biologists, the lake in its current condition is a
healthy, functional ecosystem providing wetlands and wildlife habitat. With the
changes in hydrology in the area, it will be difficult to guarantee sustained water
levels in the lake over time.
• Social: Community members have expressed diverse perspectives on the
condition of the lake. Wetlands and wildlife habitat provide learning
opportunities for residents and the nearby school children. Other residents have
indicated that the park and lake are important to them as a place to be outdoors
AGENDA ITEM # V-A YAGF; 2
and recreate. They value a lake full of water that contains fish with little
vegetation on the banks.
OTHER IMPACTS:
• Fiscal: The costs to add water to Thunderbird Lake on an ongoing basis are
substantial and range from $74,930 to $760,500, depending on the method (not
including any adaptive management actions that may be desired). The estimated
cost to manage the lake without adding water range from $20,500 to $157,160,
depending on the level of management and any additional amenities constructed
around the lake.
• Staff time: All of the management options presented, with the exception of "No
Action," will require additional staff time, resulting in modifications to the Parks
and Planning Division's 2008 and 2009 work plans.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK:
Since 2007, members of the community have contacted the PRAB and City Council
requesting that the water level of the lake be returned to previous levels and that it be
managed to achieve its historic aesthetic condition. The department held two
neighborhood meetings (September 27, 2007 and February 21, 2008) to discuss the
changes in the lake and to gather community input on potential management options.
Community members have been updated monthly since September 2007 on the work of
the consultants and management actions taken at the lake. The updates were emailed and
mailed to community members and posted on the department's web site at
http:/hvww.houldcrcolorado.~ov/index.rhp?option=com content&task=view&id=4221 &
Itemid--3171. In addition, staff has been in regular contact with interested residents.
BACKGROUND:
"The background information on the history of Thunderbird Lake was provided to the
PRAB in a February 25, 2008 memo that can be found at
http://w~~~~.bouldercolorado.~ov/index.php?option=com content&task=view&id=4554&
Itemid=1889.
February 2008 -PRAB ?iscussion
For the February 25 PRAB meeting, Biohabitats, Inc. prepared a report, Potential Future
Management Options for Thunderbird I ake,
(http://www.bouldercalorado.gov,Windex.phU?o~,~tion=com content&task=view&id=8764
&Ltemid=3171.) that analyzed the four management options listed below:
• Option 1 -Repairing/retrofitting the existing the drain that currently feeds the lake
• Option 2 -Filling the lake with the storm water
• Option 3 -Filling the lake with water from a groundwater well
• Option 4 -Continuing with adaptive management
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 3
The report included an assessment of water quality, water quantity, preliminary cost
estimates and next steps. Staff provided cost estimates for initial capital costs and
ongoing management costs for each option and noted that there was uncertainty regarding
whether water rights would be needed to pursue Options 2 or 3, among other unknown
factors.
The PRAB made the recommendations listed below. The actions taken by staff since the
February meeting to address the recommendations are included.
• PRAB recommendation: Assess, and if possible, complete the inspection and
cleaning of the original the drain.
o Staff action: The original the drain was cleaned and videoed where the
the drain could be accessed by equipment (approximately 2300 feet).
Staff did not pursue locating access points on private property when
groundwater levels were determined to be at least 1.5 feet below the
' elevation of the the drain.
• PRAB recommendation: Assess and install groundwater monitoring wells.
o Staff action: Nine groundwater monitoring wells were installed the week
of April 7 and three of the wells were initially dry. Currently only one
well is dry. Data collection devices were installed to monitor the
groundwater levels on a daily basis. Biohabitats is developing a
monitoring plan.
• PRAB recommendation: Assess, install and obtain pump test for evaluation of
the well option.
o Staff action: A pump test was conducted at the corner of Inca and Caddo
Parkways (wells # 1 and #6) the week of May 19. (See Attachment D,
September 17, 2008 Biohabitats Memorandum, page 9).
• DRAB recommendation: Obtain cost estimates for lake dredging, and look at the
impacts and benefits of dredging.
o Staff action: Estimates for dredging the lake ranged from $30,000 to
$90,000. Staff determined that the impacts and benefits could be
evaluated at a later date when the final management option is decided.
Dredging alone without finding a source for water may not solve the water
quality concerns and will likely be temporary, as the water that enters the
lake is groundwater that can be high in nutrients. Dredging may not be
necessary if the lake can be filled with enough water to allow for outflow
on a regular basis.
• PRAB recommendation: Request a supplemental appropriation from the fund
balance of the .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund to fund the project.
o Staff action: Staff will include the request in the third adjustment to base
in November 2008. It will include funds expended to date as well as
projected expenses through the end of 2008.
• PRAB recommendation: Evaluate the options in the report after obtaining the
additional information on groundwater levels and dredging.
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 4
o Staff action: "I'he September 17, 2008 Biohabitats Memorandum
(Attachment D) includes this evaluation, although dredging was not
assessed at this time.
CURRENT MA1~lAGEMENT:
While pursuing additional infoi7nation for long-term management strategies (see
information in subsequent sections of this memo), since May 2008 staff has conducted
the following management activities at Thunderbird Lake:
• Maintained the water circulation unit
• Added microbes to the lake to control algae
• Removed duckweed
• Maintained the view corridors for views of the lake
• Monitored the water level in the lake
• Added 525,000 gallons of potable water
• Monitored for Culex mosquitoes and applied Bti when present
The results of ongoing monitoring indicated that the existing the drain was not providing
enough water to fill the lake and a decision was made to add approximately 1.5 acre feet
of potable water to 'Thunderbird Lake. A wetland permit was obtained for adding water
to the lake and removing vegetation along the shore of the lake that would become
inundated and decay, causing potential odor problems. Beginning on July 9, 525,000
gallons of water were added to the lake over five days, equaling 12 inches in depth.
Since the addition of water, staff has monitored the water levels and evaporation rates.
By August 6, 6.72 inches, or 56 percent, of the additional water had evaporated.
Staff is working with consultants to lower the existing outlet from the lake by the end of
the year, at a cost of approximately $10,000-$12,000. When the water Level is lower than
the outlet (existing condition), the lack of flow-through results in poor water quality, as
evidenced by increases in algae and duckweed. This modification will allow staff to
manage water flows depending upon water availability. With the existing outlet, the lake
has a surface area of 2.4 acres when full. By lowering the outlet, the surface area of the
lake would be reduced to 2 acres when full.
FU'I'i?RF, MANAGEMENT OPTIUN InENTIFICATION:
Current Analysis
At its February 25 meeting, PRAB requested that staff conduct additional research to
evaluate the management options, including the feasibility and cost of supplemental
sources of water for Thunderbird Lake. Due to the complexity of this issue, department
staff consulted with other city staff (Water Utilities and Planning & Development
Services) as well as experts in several disciplines -geomorphology, hydrology, wetland
ecology, engineering, water rights and Colorado water law. The following technical
reports provided by the experts infornl this multifaceted issue:
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 5
• Biohabitats Inc. Memorandum - analysis of potential water sources, flow rates
and water quality (Attachment D)
• AMEC (formerly Hydrosphere) Memorandum -preliminary information on
augmentation plans (Attachment E)
• Ronni Sperling Memorandum -legal review of water rights (Attachment F)
• HDR Technical Memorandum -preliminary engineering analysis of the Bear
Canyon Creek option (Attachment G)
• Guide to Colorado Well Permits, Water Rights, and Water Administration - a
State of Colorado publication (Attachztzent H)
Based on the original options presented at the February 25 PRAB meeting and additional
community input, further analysis by staff and experts identified costs and constraints and
resulted in an expanded menu of management options for consideration. Seven options
for management of Thunderbird Lake have been evaluated and are presented here for
discussion.
The options were assessed using the following evaluation criteria:
• Water rights
Sustainability
• Feasibilitylimplementation
• Environmental factors
• Neighbors' desires
• Wetland permitting
• Policy implications
• Timeframe to implement
• Cost
A brief summary of each option is discussed below. A matrix of all the factors is included
far comparison (Attachment B).
• No Action
• Adaptive Management (Original Option 4)
• Potable Water
• Groundwater Well * (Original Option 3)
• Retrofitted/Lowered Tilc Drain * (Original Option 1)
• Stormwater * {Original Option 2)
• Diversion from Bear Canyon Creek
These options include the addition of supplemental water.
No Supplemental Water
Two management options do not include the addition of water to the lake and expected
results and management actions are described below.
AGENDA ITEM V-A PAGE 6
No Action
Staff would manage the lake and surrounding area according to current
department park maintenance standards (mowing, trash removal, irrigation, health
and safety repairs). In addition, the existing the drain would be maintained so that
groundwater, if available, could enter the lake. This option is the most
economically and operationally feasible, however it would not meet the aesthetic
desires of the neighbors.
Adaptive Management
Staff will continue to manage the lake and surrounding area in the manner
established in 2008 (maintain the water circulation unit, add microbes to control
algae, remove duckweed, maintain the view corridors, monitor the water level,
monitor for Culex mosquitoes and apply Bti when present). With this option the
lake and surrounding area would look similar to the existing conditions pictured
in Attachment I, depending upon the amount of groundwater and precipitation.
Enhancements and capital projects could be explored, including re-assessment of
the park amenities, the addition of a boardwalk or dock and the re-configuration
of the Lake. A rendition of potential lake enhancement is provided in Attachment
J. This option would meet most, if not all, of the evaluation criteria and may
address the neighbors' desires for a clear, visible lake.
Add Supplemental Water
The following management options include the addition of supplemental water to
Thunderbird Lakc. It should be noted that in periods of drought supplemental water may
not be available. For any option that adds supplemental water to the lake, various permits
will be required, including a city of Boulder standard wetland permit. If the wetland
permit is approved, mitigation for the affected wetland would need to occur either on site
(preferred) or at a different location. A slightly smaller lake would be beneficial from a
wetland habitat and mitigation perspective, therefore staff recommends that the lake be
maintained at a slightly reduced size as discussed in the Biohabitats Memorandum
(Attachment I~) and as seen in a rendition (Attachment K}.
Potable Water
Of the supplemental water options, the addition of potable water would be the
least costly. All the other supplemental water options require an application to the
water court for approval of an augmentation plan andlor a change of the terms of
a water right. While the original assessment of this option was fora "one-time fill
per year," this amount of water may be insufficient to provide the desired water
quality benefits. As a result the addition of'potable water "multiple times per
year" was evaluated.
Both the "Potable Water -one time per year" and the "Potable Water -multiple
times per year" options are economically and operationally feasible and meet
many of the evaluation criteria. The Water utility has established a potable water
budget based on Block Rates for Thunderbird Lake only. While filling the lake
multiple times per year would have a slightly higher cost due to modifications to
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 7
the irrigation system and the cost of the additional water, this option is more
likely to meet the neighbors' desires for a clear, visible lake.
Groundwater Well
The groundwater well options (either 8.5 or 3 gallons per minute) are viable from
water availability and water quality perspectives. In order to proceed with this
option, a well permit and augmentation plan will be required because the wel]
would extract water from a depth lower than the existing file drain (Attachment L)
and is not allowed within the associated water right decree. In order to develop an
augmentation plan, additional groundwater data is required. Staff estimates the
cost associated with conducting the groundwater research is $22,000 $47,000.
Staff estimates that the total initial cost for this option would be $280,500 -
$587,500 including the legal, research, engineering and construction costs. This
process would take 30 to 48 months to implement. This option would meet most
of the evaluation criteria and would address the neighbors' desires for a clear,
visible lake.
RetrofittedlLowered Tile Drain
When originally evaluated, the scope of this option was to repair or retrofit the
existing file drain at its existing location. Data from groundwater monitoring
demonstrated that the groundwater level is below the file drain. As a result staff
has researched the possibility of lowering the file drain to intercept more
groundwater. Consultation with the city's water attorney indicates that water
court approval or a change of water right would be required in order to lower the
file drain. This process is complex and would involve the possible reassessment
of the existing water right. This option has a degree of uncertainty as it is
dependent on the availability of groundwater. Staff estimates that the legal,
engineering and construction costs would be $390,500 - $722,500. Due to these
factors, this option meets few of the evaluation criteria and would not meet the
neighbors' desires for a clear, visible lake.
Stormwater
The stormwater option, as originally referenced in the February 25 PRAB memo,
would have coordinated with a Stormwater management project identified in the
Boulder Stormwater Master Plan. Ilowever, this project is a lower priority for
Public Works/Utilities and, when originally considered, this option was the most
expensive to implement due to extensive infrastructure development costs.
Therefore, Biohabitats assessed a modified Stormwater option using existing
infrastructure (diverting stormwater runoff into existing drain lines and catch
basins). The costs associated with the modified option are $360,500 - $595,500
and concerns remain about water availability and water quality. While this option
meets some of the evaluation criteria, it is unlikely to meet the neighbors' desires
for a clear, visible lake due to the dependence on rainfall and water quality
considerations.
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 8
Diversion from Bear Canyon Creek
Upon reviewing the analysis of the water rights needed for a groundwater well, it
was suggested that it might be easier to divert city-owned water shares from
Anderson Ditch through Bear Canyvn Creek to 'T'hunderbird Lake. The water
would be available from April through Octvbcr. This option would require the
following infrastructure development (Attachment G, HDR Technical
Memorandum):
• Installing a pump station on Bear Canyon Creek
Obtaining access across University of Colorado property
(President's residence)
• Installing a pipe under CU property and under Caddo Parkway
from Erie Drive past Inca Parkway (approx. 2,740 feet)
Additionally, further analysis would need to be performed in order to file an
application to water court fvr a change of use. This option is one of the most
expensive ($455,500 - $760,500) due to significant design and construction costs
(see Attachment C and G). "Chic vption satisfies many of the evaluation criteria
and meets the neighbors' desires for a clear, visible lake.
A comprehensive review of each option, including the evaluativn criteria of water rights,
sustainability, feasibility/implementation, environmental factors, neighbors'desires,
wetland permitting, policy implications, timeframe to implement and cost, may be found
in Attachment A. The Biohabitats memorandum (Attachment D) explains in detail the
lake elevation, outflow, timing of water availability; nutrient Loading, design and
construction costs and timeframe and briefly addresses benefits or limitations and next
steps. Specific water rights information can be found in the AMEC Memorandum
(Attachment E) and the Sperling Memorandum (Attachment F).
Funding
The department prioritizes parks and recreation facility development based on criteria
identified in the master plan. Priorities include providing safe parks and facilities,
maintaining the current system, complying with the 1995 Ballot Initiative, and re-
investing in revenue producing facilities. While criteria are included in the master plan,
they are intended to be flexible and the rationale for specific capital projects is reviewed
each year by the PRAB, Planning Board and City Council during the budget process.
During the 2009 budget process, staff included $200,000 in the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) budget in Fund 118 (.25 Cent Sales Tax Fund) for potential actions at
Thunderbird Lake, recognizing that a plan of action had not been determined.
If the cost estimate of the recommended management option is in excess of $200,000,
staff will review the CIP budget for 2010 and beyond and return to the PRAB with a list
of potential trade-offs. Potential sources of funds for implementing the management
option for Thunderbird Lake are Fund 230 (Permanent Parks and Recreation), Fund 118
(.25 Cent Sales Tax Fund) and Urban Parks Renovation and Refurbishment (Fund 230
and Fund 118). Since those funds are currently allocated, the monies for project
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 9
implementation at Thunderbird Lake will require that currently identified CIP and major
maintenance projects be deferred.
Ongoing maintenance costs will be calculated and budgeted in the Parks and Planning
Division's operating budget and will result in internal re-prioritizations and reallocations.
QUESTIONS FOR PRAB:
1. Does PRAB support the staff recommendation?
2. If PRAB does not support the staff recommendation, which of the supplemental
water options does PRAB recommend to City Council?
NF,X'I' STEPS:
The recommendation of the PRAB and the public comment received at the public hearing
' will be presented to City Council at a subsequent business meeting, tentatively scheduled
for November 25, 2008. Based on the management option selected by City Council, staff
will develop an implementation plan that includes a task list, schedule, detailed cost
estimate, on-going maintenance costs and potential funding sources. Staff will return to
the PRAB at a future date for a discussion of the implementation plan.
Approved By:
Jan Geden,
Department Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Evaluation of Management Options for Thunderbird Lake
Attachment B: Comparison of Management Options
Attachment C: Cost Estimates for Thunderbird Lake Management Options
Attachment D: Biohabitats Memorandum, September 17, 2008
Attachment E: AMEC (formerly Hydrosphere) Memorandum, September 10, 2008
Attachment F: Ronni Sperling Memorandum, September 10, 2008
Attachment G: HDR Technical Memorandum
Attachment H: Guide to Colorado Well Permits, Water Rights, and Water
Administration
Attachment I: Vegetation 'Zones at Thunderbird Lake -Current Water Levels
Attachment J: Illustration of Thunderbird Lake Options without Supplemental Water
Attachment K: Illustration of Thunderbird Lake Options with Supplemental Water
Attachment L,: Water Right Diagram
AGEnDA ITEM # V-A PAGA: l0
Attachment A
Evaluation of Management Options for Thunderbird Lake
Seven options for management of Thunderbird Lake have been evaluated and separated
into two main categories -the addition of supplemental water or not. Five of the options
include the addition of supplemental water to the lake. The options were assessed using
the following evaluation criteria:
• water rights,
• sustainability,
• feasibility/implementation,
• environmental factors,
• neighbors' desires (to see a clear lake surface and have access to the water),
• wetland permitting,
• policy implications,
• timeframe to implement
• cost.
For each of these options, it is assumed that the existing water right decree remains
viable;. The the drain system that was scoped and cleaned in 2007/2008 will be
maintained ($2,000 - $4,500). The outlet will also be lowered for each option ($10,000
- $12,000).
For each option community education and outreach would be beneficial in order to
address concerns and keep the public informed as to the process and progress. As was
discussed during the February 25 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) meeting,
this would also include interpretive sings being posted around the lake. The cost would
be approximately $8,500 - $10,000 for the first year and is included for each option.
No Supplemental Water
No Action
This option would control for potential health issues but would not provide the clear,
visible lake some of the neighbors have requested. Staff would manage the natural area
around the lake and the lake itself as it was prior to the drought of 2002. Management
actions would focus on the health and safety of the public and include the following
actions:
o weed control (part of staff work plans, so no additional cost)
o mosquito mitigation (part of existing contract)
0 other health and safety management actions
o maintenance
Analysis of Evaluation Criteria
Water Rights
• Not applicable if no addition of water.
Sustainability
• Most sustainable option as it would let the water stabilize given current .
circumstances.
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE i 1
Attachment A
Evaluation of Management Options for Thunderbird Fake
Fcasibility/Implementation
• Most feasible option as there would be no new practices to implement.
Environmental
• The ecosystem would evolve and if water did not increase naturally, it wot?ld
likely transform into a more vegetative wetland with more diverse habitat value.
Neighbors' Desires
• Would not meet the expressed desires of some of the neighbors.
Wetland Permitting
• Would not require a wetland permit.
Policy Implications
• None
Total Estimated Timcframe to Implement
• Immediate
Total Estimated Cost: $20,500 - $26,500 for the first year
• Initial set-up: $18,500 - $22,000
• Legal: none
• Ongoing: $2,000 - $4,500 for the file drain -other maintenance is already
incorporated into budget
Adaptive Management
'This option would incorporate and go beyond the "No Action" option. It would attempt
to address the neighbors' concerns. This is similar to the current level of management
being performed at the lake. Staff would manage the natural area around the lake and the
lake itself including the following actions:
o weed control (part of staff work plans, so no additional cost)
o mosquito mitigation (part of existing contract)
o adding microbes to decrease algae and sludge ($4,000 - $5,000/year)
o maintaining Solar Bce® circulation unit ($1,000 - $1,500/year)
o water quality sampling 0$720 - $2,160/year)
n removing duckweed ($1000 - $5,000/year)\
o continuing management of the trees along the shoreline including thinning
per the best management practices 0$500 - $1,000)
o maintaining simple wetland permit and clearing of view corridors
(51,500 - $3,000 includes permit and consultant fees)
¦ permits may or may not be approved; permits take approximately
1-2 months to obtain and need to be rc-issued every three years
AcrNVA rr~:nz ~ v-,a t~nct~: i z
Attachment A
Evaluation of Management Options for Thunderbird Lake
Staff may perform one or all of the following actions:
o Maintenance
¦ adding an aeration unit or a fountain to improve water quality
($13,000 - $18,000)
o Major Maintenance/Capital
¦ adding a boardwalk and dock to improve views and access to the
lake ($65,000 - $75,000) * A wetland permit would be required.
¦ rc-assessment of other amenities (cost unknown at this time)
• reconfiguring the lake (cost unknown as this time)
Analysis of Evaluation Criteria
Water Rights
• Not applicable if no addition of water.
Sustainability
• Sustainable as this option would let the water stabilize given current
circumstances but requires increases in staff resources.
Fcasibi lily/Implementation
• With exception of major maintenance/capital items, this option is very feasible as
there would be no new practices to implement. The major maintenance/capital
items vary in feasibility and are in order from most to least feasible.
Environmental
• The system would evolve and if water did not increase naturally, it would likely
transform into a more vegetative wetland with more diverse habitat value.
Neighbors' Desires
• May meet some to most of the neighbors' desires depending upon which items are
performed.
Wetland Permitting
• Would not require a wetland permit.
Policy Implications
• None
Total Estimated Timeframc to Implement
• Immediate to one year Ior major maintenance/capital items.
Total Estimated Cost: $125,220-$157,160 for the first year
• Initial set-up: $18,SUU - $115,000 (depends upon choice of maintenance and
major maintenance/capital items)
• Legal: none
• Ongoing: $28,720- $42,160
AGE'.VDA ITEM # V-A PAGE. 13
Attachment A
Evaluation of Management Options for Thunderbird Lake
Add Supplemental Water
The Adaptive Management items listed above may be performed in addition to adding
water to the lake (no matter the method) and some may still need to be performed if
addition of supplemental water is not sufficient to address the concerns on its own.. The
items incorporated would be dependent upon factors such as the amount of water, water
retention and the effects upon the ecosystem such as water quality. Therefore they arc
not currently included in the cost estimates.
The premise of adding water is that it was thought to be the best way to address the
desires of some neighbors. They have expressed an interest in being able to sec the
water, having the water surface clear of vegetation, having access to the lake and
potentially having fish restored to the lake. Improved water quality is a factor in
obtaining these results and while the microbes and Solar Bee® assist in this function, a
• flow-through system would increase the effects. The visibility of the water and the
. access can be addressed by either adding water to the lake or in other ways such as the
aforementioned installation of a boardwalk.
For any option that adds water to the lake, a "standard wetland permit" would need to be
obtained ($5,000 - $8,000) to change the hydrology and habitat of the wetland area. A
mitigation plan for the affected wetland area is part of the permit application. This permit
. may or may not be approved. If the permit is not approved by the Planning and
Development Services department, it can be called up by the Planning Board and if not
approved by that body, it can be called up to City Council. The process can take
anywhere from 3 to 8 months.
If approved, mitigation would need to occur once. The ratio of affected habitat to the
amount of habitat that would need to be created would depend upon the type of
mitigation. If a wetland could be restored, the mitigation ratio would be less than if one
needs to be created. Typically the ratio is 2:1 for creation and 1.5:1 for restoration.
There may be }ustification for Lower ratios if some of the wetland functions are able to be
kept versus totally destroying the wetland areas that are impacted. Mitigation costs vary
significantly since they are very site specific. Estimates range from $20,000 to $200,000
per acre for the creation of a new wetland.
Staff and Biohabitats recommend not filling the lake to its historic 2.4 acre surface area.
For the options that add supplemental water, the recommendation is to add enough water
to obtain 2.0 acres in surface area (up from the approximate l .5 acres it is now). The
desires of the neighbors should still be met anal there would be less impact upon the
existing habitat. This would better meet the wetland permitting requirement to show that
impacts to the wetlands were avoided or minimized. A change to the wetland with
mitigation within the buffer around the wetland to replace some of the impacted functions
on site would range in cost from $20,000 to $50,000.
If water is to be added to the lake, more groundwater monitoring wells may need to be
installed to determine the potential for the lake to be connected to the groundwater. In
some instances a few more monitoring wells may need to be installed to determine the
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 14
Attachment A
Evaluation of Management Options for Thunderbird bake
conditions between the water source and South Boulder Creek. This is further explained
in the memorandum from AMEC (Attachment E). The groundwater monitoring wells
could be installed in approximately two months for between $10,000-$25,000 dollars,
depending upon the number of monitoring wells. Some of the existing (9) monitoring
wells would also need to be permanently permitted at $250/each.
Each of the options described below is susceptible to being affected by drought and is in
no way a guarantee that water would be provided during such periods.
Potable Water Overview
This option could incorporate items of the Adaptive Management option, although some
of the items may not be necessary if conditions such as water quality can be improved.
For any option that adds potable water to the lake, an annual Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment (CDPIIE) Minimal Industrial Discharge (MINDI) permit
is required. A permit is required to have any discharge/flow out of the lake via the outlet
and a permit is necessary because the lake is not likely Lined and has the potential to
recharge the groundwater. Onc permit can cover both of these issues. The permits
typically have a 30-day review period. They are generally approved, but with conditions
such as necessary monitoring, sampling and flow metering. The MINDI permit was
waived for the addition of water earlier this year but would be required in the future. The
cost for the permit is currently $630 per year.
Using potable water would be the least costly supplemental water option because the
other options require significant monitoring and an application to the water court for
approval of an augmentation plan and/or change of the terms of a water right. The Water
Utility staff and Parks and Recreation Department staff have developed a tentative plan
for along-term water rate structure for the possible addition of potable water to the lake.
This plan is compatible with the city's newly-adopted water budget billing structure and
will supplant previous cost estimates for use ofpotable water. These previous estimates
were based on the city's bulk water rate for users such as water hauling companies that
fill from a designated tap at the city's maintenance complex. The 2008 rate f'or this type
of use is $8/1000 gallons or $2607/acre foot (af).
The proposed payment plan would set the budget for potable water for Thunderbird Lake
based on the average annual net evaporation amount (total evaporation less the amount
offset by precipitation) estimated to occur from the lake surface. 1'he net evaporation
would become the amount defined as 100 percent of the annual budget far this use.
Therefore, the Parks and Recreation Department would pay the Water Utility at Block 1
rates ($1.95/1000 gallons in 2008) for use up to 60 percent of the budgeted amount and
Block 2 rates ($2.60/1000 gallons in 2008) for the remainder of the budgeted amount.
Total potable water usage would be expected to stay at or below 1 UO percent of the
budget, but if it did not, payments for the additional water would be made at the higher
rates i'or Blocks 3, 4 or 5 in accordance with the established water budget rate procedure.
In 2UU8, these rates range from $5.20/1000 gallons to 513.00/1000 gallons. This proposal
is contingent on a commitment to maintain the existing the drain to obtain flows into the
AGENDA ITEIl1 # V-A PAGE 1 S
Attachment A
Evaluation of Management Options for Thunderbird Lake
lake that would offset seepage and provide for flow-through needs based on the existing
water right for the drain tile.
Under the proposal, potable water available to the lake would be reduced during droughts
severe enough to affect the entire municipal water system. The water budget would be
reduced in drought years, with corresponding higher charges if potable water use for the
lake was not reduced accordingly. In more severe draughts, potable water use for this
purpose could face mandatory restrictions or complete elimination.
This year, the Department paid the city Water Utility $100/af for water discharged into
Thunderbird Lake on a one-time basis only. This rate was based on the cost to bring
Windy Gap Project water over from the western slope through the Colorado-Big
Thompson Project facilities specifically for this purpose. The payment covered only the
pumping and delivery costs for the Windy Gap water. It did not cover any of the capital
cost for the water, treatment costs, pipe infrastructure costs or any of the other costs
incurred by the Water Utility in delivering treated water. Therefore, the $100/af rate
should not serve as the basis for along-term commitment for the provision of potable
water for Thunderbird Lake.
Analysis of Evaluation Criteria
Water Rights
• No water right application would be needed for this option because the potable
water will come from City water rights that are already legally decreed for all
municipal uses.
Sustainability
• Water will be available as long as there are no drought restrictions. City Council
previously adopted reliability criteria for the Water t;tility with the goal of
meeting all municipal water demands up to droughts severe enough to occur no
more often than once every 20 years on average. As long as a drought stage has
not been declared and no emergency situation exists with water system facilities,
water will likely be available from the municipal system to fill the lake.
Therefore, water should be available for purchase in approximately 19 out of 20
years. Some staff oversight and maintenance would be required.
Feasibi city/Implementation
• Feasible assuming the standard wetland permit is obtainable and mitigation
possible.
Enviromnental
• Depending upon the amount of water added, the existing habitat may be
minimally to mostly altered from emergent/wetland and upland/riparian habitat to
a small amount of emergent/wetland vegetation and more aquatic habitat. This
would be a less diverse habitat overall.
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 16
Attachment A
Evaluation of Management Options for Thunderbird Lake
Wetland Permitting
• Required
Policy Implications
This would set a policy precedent related to filling other city lakes.
Potable Water -One time per near fill of the lake
Filling of the lake could be accomplished each year by working with the city Water
Utility to tap into a nearby fire hydrant. This method was used to add water to the lake in
2008. The hydrant produced 250-325 gallons per minute (gpm) and provided 525,000
gallons of water 0$200 per the 2008 rate but future years will be subject to the rate
structure described above) in about five days (running approximately seven hours per
day).
This could be done at any time of the year, subject to priority needs of the water system
to meet municipal demands. This process involves:
• metering the amount of water
o $6080 to fill the first year and about $2,520 each year thereafter -given
2008 potable water rates and only filling to 2 acres in surface area
o $15,314 to fill the first year and about $3,241 each year thereafter -
givcn 2008 potable water rates and filling to about 2.4 acres in surface
area
• putting the water through a dc-chlorination chamber ($2,000 - $4,000)
• running a fire hose across the street
• signage f'or traffic and a speed bump to protect the hose
• diffusing the water with a diffuser and straw matting to decrease sediment
disturbance
• a staff person on site to monitor flow and chlorine content ($3,000 - $5,000)
• water quality sampling 0$720 - $2,160/year).
Analysis of Evaluation Criteria
Neighbors' Desires
• Will meet some of the neighbors' desires at least while lake retains water. Would
meet more if some of the Adaptive Management items were performed in
conjunction.
Total Estimated Timeframe to Implement
• 3 - 8 months depending upon permitting process.
Total Estimated Cost: $74,930 - $131,604 for the first year
• Initial set-up: $38,500 - $72,000
• Legal: none
• Ongoing: $36,430 - 559,604
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGN: 17
Attachment A
Evaluation of Management Options for Thunderbird Lake
Potable Water -multiple times per Year filling of the lake
The lake could once again be filled from a fire hydrant; however if potable water is to be
used on a recurring basis, it may be easier to retro-fit the existing irrigation system with
one or two lines discharging into the lake. This method could provide 100-200 gpm.
This would need to be worked within the current irrigation schedule and this rate would
require more time to fill the lake. One of the existing irrigation system taps is near
electricity and would therefore be easier to winterize. Filling could then be done between
mid-March and mid-December (9 months). This would incur some construction costs for
the new line and, potentially, a cobble bed to assist with de-chlorination ($5,000 -
$10,000).
Analysis of evaluation Criteria
Neighbors' desires (sec the water, surface clear of vegetation and lake access)
• Should meet the Neighbors' desires especially if some of the Adaptive
Management items were performed in conjunction.
Total estimated timeframe to implement:
• 3 to 8 months depending upon the permitting process.
Total Estimated Cost: $83,370 - $150,604 for the first year
• Initial set-up: $43,500 - $82,000
• Legal: none
• Ongoing: $39,870 - $68,604
The following options all require some version of water rights implications. While going
through the water rights process, our existing water right may be called into question. If
this happens, a change in the existing water right decree may also be needed.
Groundwater well at 8.5 or 3 gallons per minute (gpm)
As part of the groundwater monitoring and well feasibility evaluation, a monitoring well
has already been drilled at the corner of Inca and Caddo Parkways. (This monitoring well
cannot be used for filling the lake without a well permit and a plan for augmentation.)
This monitoring well was found to have a sufficient water supply for up to an 8.5 gpm
rate.
The 3 gpm rate would still provide outflow and, over the long term, would be more
desirable from a water rights augmentation perspective. It may not allow for a good
initial flushing of the system. A higher than 3 gpm amount could be settled upon for the
augmentation plan to cover flushing the system and then the amount of actual use can be
adjusted back down on a regular basis. The augmentation plan obligation is only to
augment whatever amount is actually pumped, so the higher rate could be decreed but
would not have to be used nor would it need to be augmented if it was not used.
However, if the higher rate is decreed and the well does not ultimately pump into the lake
at that rate, the gpm rate in excess of what is actually pumped might eventually be
cancelled in a diligence case. Implementation time is dependent upon the level of input
received by objectors and the State Engineer's Office.
AGENDA ITF.,M # V-A PAGE 18
Attachment A
Evaluation of Management Options for Thunderbird Lake
A pumping station would still need to be installed to transform the monitoring well to an
extraction well. This would include connecting to a power source (~$55,000~$65,000).
Analysis of livaluation Criteria
Water Rights
• The existing water right is not able to be utilized because the well would tap into a
part of the underground aquifer that the existing system could not. A well permit
would be required. This well is not exempt and would therefore require a plan for
augmentation prior to the permit being issued. An augmentation plan would
require that a depletions study/MODFLOW analysis ($10,000 - $15,000) be
performed to find out where the water for the well would be removed from and
where it would need to be augmented back to. In order to perform a depletions
study, eight to nine more groundwater monitoring wells may be needed.
Once this data is obtained and the depletions study complete, an augmentation
plan could be written, negotiations held with objectors to the plan, and, if no
settlement on terms to protect against injury to other water users can be reached,
trial preparation and participation would occur ($10,000 - $35,000).
Replacement water for an augmentation plan may be hard to secure and expensive
depending upon the location of the depletions, mainly Boulder Creek and likely
some South Boulder Creek. Water rights to augment depletions to Boulder Creek
may be available for purchase from the City Water Utility, but private sellers
would need to be sought for water rights on South Boulder Creek. Also, it may be
easier to gain use of reservoir storage space for augmentation water on Boulder
Creek than on South Boulder Creek as described in the AMF.C memorandum
(Attachment E).
The delayed effect from well pumping would need to be tracked for every day
that the well operates and provisions made to have water available when the
depletion affects the river. It may require two to four hours a week for a staff
person to do the augmentation accounting. For depletions to Boulder Creek, water
such as Anderson and Farmers Ditch could be acquired, either from the City
Water Utility or from a private seller. For South Boulder Creek, Howard or Dry
Creek No. 2 shares could be acquired from private sellers. The water shares
would need to be changed through water court to allow augmentation and storage
in a reservoir above the point on the stream affected by the well depletions. The
augmentation water could then be released as needed to match depletions
occurring to the river during the winter when the ditches that are the source of the
augmentation water are not operating. Since reservoir storage is likely to be at a
time when the space in Barker Reservoir would otherwise be filled with municipal
water, a small reservoir on Boulder Creek might need to be constructed. For any
depletions that occur to South Boulder Creek, the Department would have to
construct a reservoir since the Water Utility does not own any reservoir storage on
South Boulder Creek suitable for this use. Abroad estimate of cost to acquire
shares yielding sufficient augmentation water would be 540,000 to $80,000. Cost
AGE'.VDA ITE:11 # ~'-A PAGI? 19
Attachment A
Evaluation of Management Options for Thunderbird Lake
of constructing a small reservoir of about 10 acre-feet might be in the range of
$50,000 to $120,000.
The substitute water supply plan mentioned in the memorandum from Ronni
Sperling (Attachment F) could be approved during the time the application for
approval of a plan for augmentation and/or change of water rights is pending in
water court. Phis would mean that all potential objectors would need to be
notified rather than simply allowing objectors to come forward. It would also
require that the storage requirements, if any, be in place beforehand.
Although the water right will be a junior right, there will also be an augmentation
plan and therefore the well can pump (including during droughts) even though its
water right is out-of-priority as long as a water supply is available to augment the
well depletions. Thus, with a secure augmentation supply, the well will be able to
provide water to the lake year round unless the well itself dries up.
Sustainability
• Sustainable even during most drought years if the augmentation plan is solid
enough to account for drought. The water right will be an augmented junior right
that can only be pumped if augmentation water is available to satisfy senior water
rights. A shortage of augmentation water would mean that the well can't be used
at that time. This situation could happen in serious drought years, which might
occur every 10 to 25 years.
• Sustainable if the well does not go dry.
Feasibility/lmplernentation
• Feasible from water outflow and quality perspectives. Dependent upon water
rights. More "front-end" information is needed initially than other options but
similar in monitoring and tracking time at least for Diversion to Bear Canyon
Crock option.
Environmental
• Depending upon the amount of water added, the existing habitat may be
minimally to mostly altered from emergentlwetland and upla~id/riparian habitat to
a small amount of emcrgent/wetland vegetation and more aquatic habitat. This
would be a less diverse habitat overall.
Neighbors' Desires
• Shouid meet the neighbors' desires especially if some of the Adaptive
Management items were performed in conjunction.
Wetland Permitting
• Required
,~cFtin,~ rT~F:~t;~ v-.n r,~cL ,n
Attachment A
Evaluation of Management Options for Thunderbird Lake
Policy Implications
• None
Total Estimated Timeframe to Implement
• 30 to 48 months
Total Estimated Cost: $280,500 - $587,500 for the first year
• Initial set-up: $178,500 - $345,000
• Legal: $25,000 - $100,000
• Ongoing: $77,000 - $142,500
Retrofitted/Lowered file drain
This option has changed from its original intent. In February the DRAB asked staff to
further investigate the condition of the existing tilt drain to determine if by cleaning and
repairing it, flows might be increased into the lake. The main section of the file drain was
cleaned and scoped and found to be free of blocks or breaks. From the installation of the
groundwater monitoring wells, it was determined that the file drain is situated higher than
the groundwater level; therefore, staff did not pursue the process of finding, accessing,
cleaning and scoping the rest of the file drain.
Analysis of Evaluation Criteria
Water Rights
• The existing water right is anon-tributary water right, and it is not administered
within the priority system. Initial information suggested that the file drain could
be repaired or realigned within 200 feet of its current location without water court
approval (under the existing water rights decree). Staff began to explore the
potential to lower the file drain to meet the groundwater. It was later determined
by the city's water right attorney that while the file drain could be re-aligned
within 20U feet, it could not be lowered without water court approval or a change
of water right for the existing file drain water right, as it may result in diversion of
water from a different source or in amounts greater than those available from the
original depth.
Filing an application with the water court for a change of this water right will
likely put the current decree's non-tributary finding concerning the water right at
issue, with the risk that the non-tributary finding could be modified by the court.
If the source of water for the file drain water right is found to be tributary
groundwater, then the water right will thereafter be subject to administration
within the priority system, similar to the process described for the well.
Sustainability
• This option is not sustainable. 1'he amount of the additional water that could be
obtained is unknown. It relies upon rain and other groundwater sources that
fluctuate. If the file drain is lowered, the water table could drop even further.
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 2l
Attachment A
Evaluation of Management Options for Thunderbird Lake
Feasibility/Implementation
• A large portion of the the drain was cleaned and scoped and found to be in good
repair. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed and the water table was
found to be lower than the the drain and therefore, the only water reaching the the
drain is from rain ar other surface permeation. Given the water rights
implications of retrofitting the tilc drain, the unknown feasibility of being able to
lower the the drain and the fact that it would still rely on intermittent sources, this
option is minimally feasible.
Environmental
• Depending upon the amount of water added, the existing habitat may be
minimally to mostly altered from emergentlwetland and upland/riparian habitat to
. a small amount of emergent/wetland vegetation and more aquatic habitat. This
would be a less diverse habitat overall.
Neighbors' Desires
• May not meet any of the neighbors' desires especially without Adaptive
Management items as well.
Wetland Permitting
• Required
Policy Implications
• None
Total Estimated Timeframe to Implement
• 30 to 48 months
Total Estimated Cost: $390,500 - $722,500 for the first year
• Initial set-up: $288,500 - $480,000
• Legal: $25,000 - $100,000
• Ongaing: $77,000 - $142,500
Stormwater
The original stormwater option involved working with Public Works on future
improvements and the creation of a new system per the Boulder Stormwater Master Plan.
As the option was found to be expensive and less feasible than others, but was still an
expressed interest, the option was modified to evaluate tying into the existing system.
Anal semis of Evaluation Criteria
Water Rights
• The existing water right could not be utilized for this option as it would
potentially collect water that would not have made it into the file drain.
No decreed water right is required to run storm water through Thunderbird Lake
provided no storage occurs (i.e. the same amount of storm water that enters the
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 22
Attachment A
Evaluation of Management Options for Thunderbird Lake
lake must flow out of the lake). Storm water can be stored in Thunderbird Lake
during free river periods (when there are no downstream "calls" for water by
decreed water rights.) If storage occurs during periods of "call," a decreed water
right and an augmentation plan is required unless any storm water stored out of
priority is released from, or pumped out. of, the lake within a short time after the
storage occurs, generally within 24-72 hours of the storage. These requirements
would apply whether the storm water is directed into the the drain before being
delivered into the lake, or delivered directly into the lake." There would need to
be great attention toward monitoring the inflow and outflow of water on a daily
basis.
Sustainability
• An average precipitation year may provide enough water but drier years will not
and water is only available during storm events.
Feasibility/Implementation
• The nutrient load would be higher and therefore water quality would be lower
likely causing more management issues in regard to fish, algae and other
vegetation. A treatment wetland created on the western side of the lake may help
to offset the nutrients and pollutants: Significant staff time would be required to
prevent water rights violations without obtaining a decreed water right. Obtaining
a decreed water right is similar in feasibility to the well option.
Environmental
• Depending upon the amount of water added, the existing habitat may be
minimally to mostly altered from emergent/wetland and upland/riparian habitat to
a small amount of emergent/wetland vegetation and more aquatic habitat. This
would be a less diverse habitat overall.
Neighbors' Desires
• May not meet the neighbors' desires without Adaptive Management items.
Wetland Permitting
• Required
Policy Implications
• None
Total Estimated Timeframe to Implement
• Greater than l2 months without the water right and 30 to 48 months with it.
Total Estimated Cost: $360,500 - $595,500 for the first year
• Initial set-up: $258,500 - $353,000
• Legal: $25,000 - $100,000
• Ongoing: $77,000 - $142,500
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE 23
Attachment A
Evaluation of Management Options for Thunderbird Lake
Diversion of Anderson Ditch water from Bear Cannon Creek
ilpon analysis of the well, it was determined that, from a water rights perspective, it may
be easier to get water from the Anderson Ditch that has been released into Bear Canyon
Creek. This option was added to the assessment so that the water rights implications
could be evaluated against the design and construction implications. This option would
also require an easement agreement with CU. The potential for this has been broached
with a CU representative; however, no formal discussions have occurred.
Analysis of Evaluation Criteria
Water Rights
• A change of use analysis would need to be performed on a share of the Anderson
Ditch Company and associated water right that the City Water Utility currently
has and would be willing to sell or lease to the Parks and Recreation Department.
The portion of the water associated with the share from the Anderson Ditch that
had historically been fully consumed could be released into Bear Canyon Creek at
the end of the Anderson Ditch at Table Mesa and Broadway. The water could
then be diverted out of Bcar Canyon Creek and into an extension of the drain the
line. This use of Anderson Ditch water diverted out of Bear Canyon Creek would
involve a change of use proceeding through the Water Court to allow the water
right to be used in a location other than the historic place of use and to store the
water in the lake where it would be used for aesthetic, wildlife, recreation,
piscatorial (relating to fish) and related uses other than just the currently decreed
irrigation use. Therefore, it would require an analysis of the historic use of the
water to identify the historic return flow pattern from that use in order to continue
that pattern so that downstream water rights that had depended on the return flows
would not be injured. Once the historic return flow pattern is quantified, on-going
releases would need to be made to replicate any return flows that were not offset
by the new use of the water in the take. Winter return flow obligations from the
historic use, if any, would be to Boulder Creek or Bear Creek based upon the
location of the historically-irrigated Anderson land.
During the irrigation season, a portion of the divertible Anderson water can either
be left at the headgate at Boulder Creek or released down Bcar Creek to cover the
return flows that were generated by the historic use of the Anderson water. When
Anderson is not running, the water to replace historic return flows will have to
come from a reservoir. Following a water court change proceeding, non-
irrigation season return flow obligations, if any, could be made up by storing a
small portion of the Anderson share yield in Barker Reservoir during the
irrigation season for later release in the winter. If the Anderson water were stored
beginning in late August, it is likely that it could most often be stored in space
that had been already emptied of its municipal water for the year. Costs would be
approximately a few hundred dollars annually to cover administration, accounting
and release of the water.
It should be noted that this option is a direct use of Anderson water for the lake
AGENDA ITEi~1 # V-A PAGE 24
Attachment A
Evaluation of Management Options for Thunderbird Lake
and no water will be available for delivery into the lake when Anderson Ditch is
not running from about mid-October until mid-April. 1f the Department were to
acquire 1/2 share of Anderson water from the Water Utility or from another seller,
the cost would be about $40,000 - $45,000.
Sustainability
• Direct diversion of Anderson Ditch water through Bear Canyon Creek is based on
a water right that has historically been decreed for agricultural use; therefore, it
would only be available roughly mid- April through mid-October (six months).
The Anderson Ditch Company right is very senior (1860) and would yield water
during the irrigation season in almost every year.
Feasibility/Implementation
• Feasibility is dependent upon obtaining an easement over CU property and
installing infrastructure among existing systems such as the storm sewer. No
augmentation plan is necessary, but on-going coverage of any historic rctum
flows may be required. Monitoring and tracking would slightly less than for an
augmentation plan for a well.
Environmental
• Depending upon the amount of water added, the existing habitat may be
minimally to mostly altered from emergendwctland and upland/riparian habitat to
a small amount of emcrgentJwetland vegetation and more aquatic habitat. This
would be a less diverse habitat overall.
Neighbors' Desires
• Should meet the neighbors' desires especially if some of the Adaptive
Management items were performed in conjunction.
Wetland Permitting
• Required
Policy Implications
• Nonc
Total Estimated Timeframe to Implement
• 30 to 48 months
Total Estimated Cost: $455,500 - $760,500 for the first year
• Initial set-up: $353,500 - $553,000
• Legal: $25,000 - $100,000
• Ongoing: $77,000 - $107,500
AGEVUA I"I'E~1 # ~'-A PA(:F, 2~
Comparison of Management Options Attachment B
Environmental Meets Wetland
Water Rights Feasilbility! (Wetland Neighbor's Permit Policy Timeframe to
Criteria Implications Sustainability Implementation Habitat) Desires Needed Implications Implement Costs
Initial Setup 1
Options Capital Legal Fees Ongoing
No Su lemental Water
No Action No + + + No No Immediate $18,500 - $22,000 $0 $2,000 - $4,000
Adaptive Mana ement No + + + 0 No No Immediate $96,500' - $115,000 $0 $'L8,720 - $42,160
Add Su lemental Water
Potable Water -One time per year No 0 + 0 Yes YeslPrecedent 3.8 months $38,500 - $72,000 $D $36,430 - $59,604
Potable Water -Multiple times per year No 0 + + Yes Yes/Precedent 3.8 months $43,500 - $82,000 $0 $39,870 - $68,604
Groundwater Well Yes 0 0 - + Yes No 30.48 months $178,500-$345,000$25,000-$100,000 $77,000-$142,500
RetrofittedlLoweredT~le Drain Yes - - Yes No 30.48 months $288,500 - $480,000 $25,000- $100,000 $77,000 - $142,500
Stormwater Yes - - Yes No 30.48 months $258,000-$353,000$25,000-$100,000 $77,000-$142,500
piversion from Bear Canyon Creek
(Anderson Ditch water) Yes 0 - + Yes No 30 - 48 months $353,500 - $553,000 $25,000 - $100,000 $77,000 - $107,500
Notes:
+ Positive
0 Neutral
- Negative
" Includes costs for poientiai new park amenities but would be approved through CIP process
AGENDA ?TEM #_V-A_____PAGE
Cost Estimates for Thunderbird Lake Management Options Attachment C
ITEM DESCRIPTION COST ESTIMATES
Low Hi h
No Action
Costs associated with initial set-u Ica ital investment
Communit education & outreach first ear -includes si n boards 58,500 510,000
Lowerin of the outlet $10,000 $12,000
Subtotal 518,500 522,000
Le aUAttorne fees
N/A
$0 50
Subtotal SO $0
Annual or on oin costs
Maintenance of the file drain Note- other maintenance is alread accounted for) $2,000 $4,500
Subtotal $2,000 $4,500
Total Initial Costs for No Action o tion $20,500 $26,500
Adaptive Management
Costs associated with initial set-u Ica Ital investment
Boardwalk
Re-assessment of other amenities $65,000 575,000
Re-desi nin the configuration of the lake ~ ~
Aeration unit or fountain one time but annual maintenance costs not included) 513.000 S18,000
Lowerin of the outlet $10.000 $12,000
Communit education 8 outreach first ear -includes si n boards 58,500 $10,000
Subtotal SS6,500 5115,000
Le aUAttorne fees
N/A 50 50
~ Subtotal SO SO
Annual or on oin costs
Contract to add microbes $4,000 55,000
Solar Bee ®solar anel re lacements $1,000 $1,500
Water uali sam lin sta $720 52,160
Duckweed removal 51.000 55,000
Tree thinnin staff 5500 51,000
Re-a lication for sim le wetland rmit for view corridors eve 3 ears 51.500 53,000
Maintenance of the file drain 52,000 54,500
Staff Oversi htlMaintenance O/M Estimate 518.000 $20.000
Subtotal 528.720 542,160
Total Initial Costs for Ada five Maria ement o tion if all actions taken x125,220 $157,160
AGENDA ITEM# V-A PAGE /
Cost Estimates for Thunderbird Lake Management Options Attachment C
ITEM DESCRIPTION COST ESTIMATES
Low Hi h
Potable Water -one time per year (Note the Adaptive Managemetrt items are not included)
Costs associated with initial set-u /ca ital investment
H Brant $0 $0
Lowerin of the outlet $10,000 $12,000
Communi education 8 outreach first ear - includes s n boards $8.500 $10,000
Wetland miff ation for addition of water to 2 acres in surface area $20,000 $50,000
Subtotal $38,500 $72,000
Le al/Attorne fees
N/A
$0 $0
Subtotal $0 $0
Annual or on oin costs
Standard wetland permit (or addition of water (3 years) $5,000 $8,000
MINDIldischar a ermit re uired monitorin not included) $630 $630
Potable wafer 2008 otable water rate -ran es from 2 to 2.4 acres in surface area - ma be less in future ears $6,080 $15,314
De-chlonnation $2,000 $4,000
Water uali sam lin sta $720 $2,160
Maintenance of the file drain $2,000 $4,500
Staff O/M Estimate $20,000 $25,000
Subtotal $36,430 $59,604
Total Initial Costs for Potable Water option -one time per year $74,930 5131,604
Potable Water -multiple times per year (Note the Adaptive Management items are not included)
Costs associated with initial set-u /ca ital investment
H Brant $0 $0
Lowerin of the outlet $10,000 $12,000
Communit education ~ outreach first ear -includes si ~ boards $8,500 $10,000
Wetland miff ation for addition of water to 2 acres in surface area $20,000 $50,000
Retro-fit irri ation $5,000 $10,000
Subtotal $43,500 $82,000
Le al/Attorne fees
WA $0 $0
Subtotal SO SO
Annual or on oin costs
Standard wetland permit for addition of water (3 years) $5.000 $8,000
MINDI/dischar a ermit re uired monitorin not included $630 $630
Potable water 2008 potable water rate -ran es from 2 to 2.4 acres in surface area - ma be less in future ears $2,520 $15,314
De-chlorination $4,000 $8,000
Water ualit sam lin (staff) $720 $2,160
Maintenance of the file drain $2,000 $4,500
Staff O/M Estimate $25,000 $30,000
Subtotal $39,870 $68,604
Total Initial Costs for Potable Water option -multiple times per year $83,370 $150,604
AGENDA fTEM # V-A PAGE
Cost Estimates for Thunderbird Lake Management Options Attachment C
ITEM DESCRIPTION COST ESTIMATES
Low Hi h
Groundwater Wel! at 8.5 or 3 gpm (Note the Adaptive Management items are not included)
Costs associated with initial set-u fca ita! investment
Lowerin of the outlet $10.000 $12,000
Communit education & outreach first ear- includes si n boards $8,500 $10,000
Wetland mitigation for addition of water to 2 acres in surface area $20,000 $50,OOU
Groundwater moniforin wells '3 to 9 $10,000 $27.000
Hobo data Iv .n units for the monitorin wells 3-9 $2,000 $5,000
MOOFLOW anal siside letions stud
$10,000 $15,000
Substitute water su I Ian/permit for tempura use re wires au mentation methods to be in lace such as stora a facllit $1,500 $3,000
A lication fees such as suppl ermits, court a ication, ublication fees, etc $1,500 $3,000
Au mentation lan/En ineerin $10,000 $35,000
Pum in station 10 acre feet $55,000 $65,000
Stora a facilif for au mentation water 10 acre feet - necessa rior to tem ora um in $50,000 $120.000
Subtotal $178,500 $345,000
Le al/Attorne fees
As art of the water ri hts process $25,000 S100,000
Subtotal 525,000 5100,000
Annual or on oin costs
Standard wetland perrnit for addition of water (3 years) 55.000 S8,000
Water or water ri hts for au mentation $40.000 $80,000
Maintenance of the the drain $2,000 $4,500
Stafif O/M Estimate $30,000 $50,000
Subtotal $77,000 $142,500
Total Initial Costs for Groundwater Well o tion $280,500 $587,500
c
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE
Cost Estimates for Thunderbird lake Management Options Attachment C
ITEM DESCRIPTION COST ESTIMATES
Low Hi h
Retrofitted/Lowered Tile Drain (Note the Adaptive Management items are not included)
Costs associated with initial set-up/capital investment
Lowerin of the outlet $10,000 $12,000
Communit education & outreach (first ear -includes si n boards $8,500 $10,000
Wetland miti anon for addition of water to 2 acres in surface area $20,000 $50,000
Groundwater monitorin wells (3 to 9) $10,000 $27,000
Hobo data to in units for the monitorin wells 3-9 $2,000 $5,000
MODFLOW anal sis/depletions stud $10.000 $15,000
Substitute water su I lan/ ermit for tem ora use (requires au mentation methods to be in place such as stora a facilit $1.500 $3,000
A lication fees such as su I ermits, court a lication, ublication fees, etc $1,500 $3,000
Au mentation plan/En ineerin $10,000 $35,000
Tile drain construction $165,000 $200,000
Stora e facilit for au mentation water 1U acre feet - necessa rior to tem ora um in $50,000 5120,000
Subtotal $288,500 $480,000
Le al/Attorne fees
As art of the water ri hts rocess $25,000 $100,000
Subtotal $25,000 $100,000
Annual or on- oin costs
Standard wetland permit for addition of water (3 years) $5,000 $8,000
Water or water ri hts for au mentation
$40,000 $80,000
Maintenance of the tiie drain $2,000 $4,500
Staff O/M Estimate $30,000 $50.000
Subtotal $77,000 $142,500
Total Initial Costs for Retrofitted/Lowered Tile Drain o lion $390,500 $722,500
j L~
AGENDA I rEN # V•A PAGE
Cost Estimates for Thunderbird lake Management Options Attachment C
ITEM DESCRIPTION COST ESTIMATES
Low Hi h
Stormwater -assumes that water rights are pursued (Note the Adaptive Management items are not included)
Costs associated with initial set-u /ca itat investment
Lowerin of the outlet $ 10,000 $12,000
Community education & outreactl first ear -includes si n boards $8,500 $10,000
Treatment wetland/mitigation for addition of water to 2 acres in surface area $150,000 $160,000
Groundwater monitorin wells 3 $1C,000 $12,000
Hobo data Io in units for the monitorin wells 3) $2,000 $3,000
Anal sis $20.000 $50,000
Substitute water su I Ian! ermit for tem ora use re uires au mentation methods to be in place such as stora a facilit $1,500 $3.000
A lication fees such as su pl ermits, court a lication, ublication fees, etc $1,500 $3.000
Augmentation lan/En ineerin $10.000 $35,000
Stormwater s stem $45,000 $65,000
Subtotal $258,500 $353,000
Le allAttorne fees
As art of the water ri hts process $25,000 $100,000
Subtotal $25,000 $100,000
Annual or on- oin costs
Standard wetland permit for addition of water 3 years $5,000 $8,000
Water or water ri hts for au mentation $40,000 $80,000
Maintenance of the file drain
$2,000 $4,500
Staff O/M Estimate $30,000 S50,000
Subtotal 577,000 5142,500
Total Initial Costs for Stormwater option $360,500 $595,500
AGENDA ITEM ~ V-A PAGE
Cost Estimates for Thunderbird Lake Management Options Attachment C
ITEM QESCRIPTlON COST ESTIMATES
Low Hi h
Diversion from Bear Canyon Creek (Note the Adaptive Management items are not included)
COSts associated with initial set-u Ica ital investment
Lowerin of the outlet $10,000 $12,000
Communit education & outreach (first ear -includes si n boards $8,500 $10,000
Wetland mitt ation for addition of water to 2 acres in surface area) $20,000 $50,000
Groundwater monitorin tia~elts 3) $10,000 $12,000
Hobo data log in units for the monitorin wells 3 $2,00(1 $3,000
Historical use/cnan e of use anal sis $20.000 $50,000
Substitute water su 1 Ian/permit for tem ora use re wires au mentation methods to be in lace such as stora a facilit $1,500 $3,000
A Iication fees (such as suppl ermits, court a lication, ubfication fees, etc) $1,500 $3.000
Diversion infrastructure and Easements $280,000 $410.000
Subtotal $353,500 $553,000
Le allAttorne fees
As art of the water ri hts rocess
$25,000 $100,000
Subtotal $25,000 3100,000
Annuat or on oin costs
Standard wetland permit for addition of water (3 ears) $5,000 $8,000
Water or water ri hts
$40,000 $45,000
Maintenance of the file drain $2.000 $4,500
Staff O/M Estimate $30,000 $50,000
Subtotal 577,000 $107,500
Total Initial Costs for Diversion from Bear Can on Creek o lion $455,500 $760,500
Notes: Construction costs do not include city costs to hire and manage contractor.
Costs are for the P&R Department only and do not include staff time or other cods to other departments.
Cost estimates are based upon costs for similar projects but are preliminary at this time for this project.
~j - ~
AGENDA ITEM # V-A PAGE
Attachment D
1'
~ . ~3iohabitats
. r,,,.v ....,....,,.E
MEMORANDUM
To: Joy Master, City of Boulder
From: Claudia Browne, Mike Lighthiser, Biohabitats Inc.
Date: September 17, 2008
Re: Thunderbird Lake - Re-evaluation of management concepts
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize our re-evaluation of potential long-term
management options for Thunderbird Lake. When we completed our initial reportt in February
2008, critical data such as inflow measurements for the lake, surface water elevations, and
groundwater elevations were not available. Data collected in recent months by Biohabitats and
Crty staff have helped shed additional light on site conditions, enabling this re-evaluation. In
addition, the initial report evaluated water management options mostly in terms of water volume,
water quality, habitat, and cost, without as much focus on water rights issues. However, recent
clarification of water rights impacts led to the consideration of another option using Anderson
Ditch water from Bear Canyon Creek which was not included in the earlier report. Therefore,
this memorandum evaluates the Bear Canyon Creek option along with the others and includes
additional water rights information from City staff. '
The re-evaluation did not cover the numerous variations for each option, such as changing
precipitation inputs, combining options, or creating multiple scenarios for water inflows such as
reduced pumping periods.
1. WATER BUDGET REVISIONS ,
For our initial report, Biohabitats developed a preliminary water budget using average
precipitation to help assess potential management options. For this re-evaluation, we completed
two exercises to revise the water budget in order to better track monthly changes in lake size
(volume) and lake levels (surface water elevation).
The first exercise was to check our initial assumptions by "calibrating" the water budget against
historical conditions. We ran the water budget using actual precipitation data from January 1993
through May 2008 to check how the modeled lake elevations compared to measured lake
elevations during that period.2 We used the same hydrologic inputs and outputs as described in
the February report, except that we used actual historical precipitation measurements from a
local weather monitoring station (www.edc.noaa.gov/Boulders instead of monthly averages.
This exercise showed us that the water budget was reasonable, especially for estimates of
evaporation and evapotranspiration. However, refinements needed to be made to account for
variable inflows from the the drain. Since this inflow is a combination of surface water
1 Biohabitats, Inc. February 2008. Potential Futtue Management Options for Thunderbird Lake, City of Boulder,
CO. Available at
httr://~ ww.bouldercolorado.~ov/index.Php°option=corn content&task=viewc~id=8221 &Itemid=3171
2 The historic lake elevations are based on aerial photographs from 1993, 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2006. New
information from the City allowed the surface area to be correlated to elevations and lake volumes.
r,
~GENDA ITEM # ~ ,PAGE
infiltration and groundwater, it is difficult to predict over a scvcral-year period given
uncertainties such as longer-term groundwater levels and impacts of drought conditions.
Therefore, this part of the water budget was the most inaccurate. Fortunately, with the inflow and
water level measurements taken by City staff since February of this year, we were able to
develop a rough relationship to better estimate the inflow based on precipitation and adjust the
water budget accordingly.
For the second exercise, the "calibrated water budget" above was used to predict future
conditions for the revised water management options. We also added the capability for the water
budget to estimate total phosphorous (TP) concentration in the lake as an indicator of excess
nutrients.3 As part of this exercise, we also replaced the NOAA precipitation data with a new
data source for average monthly precipitation for Boulder -from the Western Regional Climate
Center (WRCC), which includes the years1971 to 20004. Average annual precipitation from
WRCC is 19.94 inches. From 1993 to 2007 (15-year period used in the water budget), NOAA's
data show nine years with precipitation equal to or greater than the average, with six of those
years occurring before 2000.
2. REVIEW CRITERIA
The City of Boulder has chosen seven management options to consider in this study. All of the
options, except no action and adaptive management, involve adding more water to keep a higher
lake level with a key objective being to provide enough flow-through to keep nutrient levels (TP)
low enough to avoid hypereutrophieation (i.e., associated with algal blooms). The supplemental
water options include refilling the lake with potable water, using groundwater from a well,
retrofitting the the drain, adding stormwater, and diverting Anderson Ditch water from Bear
Canyon Creek.
The main criteria for evaluating each option were water volume and monthly outflow, estimated
phosphorous concentration, water rights, wildlife habitat, and costs. The physical and chemical
factors heavily influence the character of the lake. Nearby residents have expressed a desire for a
lake with a surface area similar to its pre-2000 size (about 2.4 acres), with less aquatic
vegetation, in particular algae and duckweed, than currently is present, and that supports fish.
Residents have also mentioned the value of wildlife habitat, notably birds, and wildlife habitat is
important within the City of Boulder.
Water Volume
Each option was evaluated for an average precipitation year to determine if there would be
sufficient water to keep the lake filled to the existing outlet at 5316.8 ft and the number of
months when there would be no outflow. The starting point for the calculations for each option
assumed that the lake was full. The evaluation assumes that the more water and outflow the
3 This was done using the equation derived by Vollenweider (1968 and 1974) as described in Biohabitats' February
2008 report.
4 In our initial water budget calculations (2/08) we used average NOAA data from 1897-1994; however, for this re-
evaluation we used WRCC data (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/c1iMAIN.p1?co0848) to be responsive to
comments provided by residents. Note, monthly averages calculated by WRCC do not include years after 2000.
n la
40E1~®R. l~'cfl~ # PAGE ~ 1
better to improve water quality and help control aquatic vegetation. In addition to the overall
volume of water, another consideration is management flexibility, specifically the ability to
control the inflows if more or less water is needed at any time.
As part of this re-evaluation, Biohabitats also looked into the implications of lowering the lake
level for each option. A slightly lower level could allow outflow while providing nearly the
historic lake size (approximately 2 acres compared to 2.4 acres at its maximum size) and
preserving a highly functional wetland fringe along portions of the shoreline. This could be
achieved by the modification of the existing outlet to incorporate control at a lower elevation (of
about 5,315 ft). The City is currently pursuing the lowering of the outlet to allow far more
flexibility.
Water Quality
Water quality is the mast important consideration for this re-evaluation of management options.
A full lake does not guarantee a clear lake. If there is not enough water flowing through and out
of the lake, nutrients and other pollutants will accumulate and cause hypereutrophication. Brief
discussions of a few key parameters are provided below, and further discussion (of these and
other parameters such as nitrogen and chlorophyll a) are presented in our February 2008 report.
Phosphorous. TP measurements in the take over the past year have ranged from 0.121 to
0.282 mg/l, and these elevated levels are indicative of hypereutrophic conditions. A
certain amount of outflow is needed to keep total phosphorous {TP) concentrations in the
lake at a low enough level to minimize algae blooms. In our initial report, we identified
an acceptable concentration of 0.045 mg/1 based on a total maximum daily load (TMDL)
calculated for lakes in Kansas. After further evaluation, we found other studies in KS,
NE, and CO with target lake conditions ranging from 0.027 to O.lU mg/l. Based on these
results, we continued to use the target concentration of 0.045 mg/1.
Bacteria. The bacteria counts from Thunderbird Lake collected in October 2007 and
April 2008 indicate that small amounts of E. coli bacteria are entering the lake. The
source is uncertain, but could be directly from waterfowl, pet waste, other wildlife, or
inflow water. The values of 7.4/1 OOmI and 3.1/100m1, for October and April,
respectively, are well below the threshold of 126/100mi for contact recreation and do not
appear to indicate a health threat.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) is another important parameter to assess the ability of the lake to
sustain fish and other aquatic organisms. While the water budget focuses on total
phosphorus, our re-evaluation qualitatively considers dissolved oxygen where relevant.
Water Rights
The City of Boulder is located within the South Platte River basin which is over appropriated, in
other words, there are times when there is insufficient water to supply the existing water rights.
Colorado uses a priority system to distribute the available water supply based on seniority.
Groundwater is included in the priority system, because it is interconnected t.o surface water (and
therefore, a decline in groundwater can cause a decline in creek base flows). Out-of-priority uses
can occur if augmentation water is made available to ensure priority water rights are not
AGENDA ~TEI~ PACE
impacted in accordance with acourt-approved augmentation plan. Regardless of when the out-
of-priority water is used, an augmentation plan covers year-round replacement of water in the
system (to mimic delayed return flows from irrigation) which is calculated based on an historical
use analysis.
Depending on the management alternative that is selected, a new court-approved water right
and/or an augmentation plan may be required for the supplemental water. Although the existing
the drain has a water right for 1.2 cubic feet per second (cfs) to fill Thunderbird Lake, the ability
to change its use is limited because it is a nontributary water right that is not administered within
the priority system. As a result, City staff have indicated that any change in the location of the
groundwater that is collected will represent a change in the water right. Therefore, relocation of
the file drain (even in the same location at a different depth}, a groundwater well, stormwater
interception, and diversion of surface water from Bear Canyon Creek would all require court
approval of a change in the water right and an augmentation plan. The legal costs of overseeing
the application process are reportedly ~25,U00-100,000, and the timeframe can take
approximately 1.5-3 years to complete. In the interim, the State Engineer's office can approve a
substitute water supply plan to operate out of priority, at one year intervals, while the application
is pending in water court.
Cost
Another evaluation criterion is cost. For the purposes of this re-evaluation, we included rough
estimates for design and engineering only and did not consider tong-term maintenance or the cost
of water rights administration.
Wildlife and Other Issues
The re-evaluation also takes into consideration the extent to which wetland fringe vegetation
would be impacted by the management options. The Lower water levels in the lake in recent
years have created optimum conditions for the establishment of ecologically valuable wetland
habitat composed of a mosaic of trees, shrubs, and emergent aquatic vegetation adjacent to open
water. Higher water levels would replace this vegetation with more open water. However,
maintaining well established wetland and fringe vegetation around the lake would provide
numerous water quality and habitat benefits for the lake and surrounding area. Theref'ore,.all of
the options to add water to the lake will likely require wetland permitting and possibly
mitigation.
The existing shrub wetland vegetation around the fringe of the lake acts as a buffer by filtering
nutrients and pollutants (e.g. fertilizers, pet waste and waterfowl waste) from rainwater and snow
melt before they enter the Iake. Higher edge vegetation such as trees and shrubs will provide
shading benefits for added aquatic habitat and potentially cool water temperatures. Cooler water
will contain more dissolved oxygen compared to warmer water, which in turn, will help support
aquatic species such as fish. Birds and small mammals utilize the vegetation as a refuge and for a
safe foraging area. Most of the aquatic species will also benefit from the emergent wetland
vegetation for some part of their life cycle. As the woody vegetation grows, branches and large
limbs fall into the water providing important habitat for aquatic species. Edge and aquatic
vegetation is particularly important habitat for aquatic insects and mollusks, which are important
food sources for young fish.
~G~NBA 1T'EM # _ , PAGE l~~
A well-developed wetland and terrestria] buffer around the lake also helps deter nuisance
waterfowl such as Canada geese. These birds prefer clear lines of site, easy shoreline access to
the water and well maintained lawns for grazing. Clearing the wetland edge vegetation will
provide more grazing habitat for these species, less filtration, and therefore will allow the
nutrients and bacteria from their feces to flow more freely into the lake during rain events,
causing higher bacteria counts and further eutrophication.
Lastly, an underlying issue considered throughout this evaluation has been the timeframe of the
solution, because residents have expressed an interest in a solution that can be implemented
relatively quickly.
3. RE-EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
The management options considered in this report are:
• No action
• Adaptive management,
• Potable water fill
• Groundwater well
• Retrofitted/lowered drain file
• Stormwater> and
• Anderson Ditch water from Bear Canyon Creek
A summary of each option is presented below and in Table 1. For most options, there is a "high
out]et" and "low outlet" alternative, corresponding to a lake level at the existing high outlet
elevation of 5,316.7 feet or a lower level at 5,315.0 feet.5 In all of the scenarios, except Adaptive
Management, we assume the lake will be filled first (using potable or well water), and the
existing fringe wetland habitat would be lost for the "high outlet" alternative and replaced by
open water. As previously noted, all of the options were evaluated for average precipitation
years.
No Action
The no action baseline scenario would allow the lake levels to rise and fall with groundwater and
precipitation. With time, the lake would likely shrink further in size and become surrounded by
emergent and shrub wetlands. Note that the no action alternative differs from status quo,
because current conditions reflect several years of adaptive management by the city while
evaluating long-teen solutions. Instead of trying to maintain an open body of water and control
duckweed, staff would return to managing the natural area around the lake and the lake itself as
historically managed by performing the following: weed control (part of staff work plans so no
additional cost}; mosquito mitigation (part of existing contract); other health and safety
management actions, and; routine maintenance.
5 The lower elevation of 5,315 ft was selected for this study because adding supplemental water to that height will
create a lake surface area of 2 acres which is similar to historic size. If supplemental water is not added or a smaller
lake size is planned, then the modified outlet elevation could be lower, i.e., down to the storm sewer outlet which is
set at about 5312.8 ft.
~GFI~DA `s~'FBU{ ~ PAVE
Water Availability. Based on the water budget and average precipitation, "no action" would
initially result in no outflow of water and a water level of about 5,312 ft (about 1.43 acre surface
area). A shallow lake receives increased sun penetration, which in turn would lead to cumulative
effects of warming water and increased vegetation. Without active management to remove
vegetation, further decline in lake levels (less than 5,312 ft) would be likely.
Water Quality Under the no action alternative, nutrients would continue to accumulate and the
system would remain hypereuUrophic. Excessive growth of algae and other aquatic plants would
occur in the summer. Duckweed would cover most of the lake. Plant decomposition would
cause oxygen to be depleted. The lake could become anoxic and produce odor at various times.
Water Rights. No water rights administration is needed for this option.
Design and Construction Costs. There is no design or construction cost for this option. Costs
could include staff time to respond to questions and concerns of residents.
Issues. This option would benefit birds and terrestrial wildlife by providing more wetland
vegetation. However, the aesthetics would vary significantly from the open water lake desired by
many local residents: open water may be difficult to see, if at all, from the shoreline.
Adaptive management, with flow from the existing the drain only (no addition of water)
Water Availability. Based on the inflow measurements from February to May, 2008, the lake
will likely stay near the level it was in June 2008 before the addition of potable water. Minor
fluctuations within a year will occur with the level rising slightly during winter months and
lowering slightly during summer months. Both the water budget and general observations
suggest that the lake has a lower limit of approximately 5312.2 feet which we suspect is
associated with groundwater.
Water Oualitx In this option, wetland vegetation will likely continue to replace the open water,
which will in turn result in warmer temperatures, lower DO, and less stratification.
Water Rights. No water rights administration is needed for this option.
Desi n~Constnrction Costs. There is no design or construction cost for this option. Costs
include staff time and operation and maintenance associated with water treatments and
vegetation management.
Issues. This optivn would likely require the City to continue to actively manage the vegetation in
response to precipitation uncertainties and residential concerns. Continued use of the circulation
unit, lake treatments and maintenance such as physical removal of plant material would be
necessary to keep the lake free of aquatic vegetation as desired by neighbors.
If aesthetic concerns become less of an issue, the natural progression of a pond to a wetland
could be allowed to continue under this option, and would offer ecological benefits such for
increased wildlife habitat.
ac~l=~l~a l~~'f~ , ~~CE
Table 1
Summary of Management Options for Thunderbird Lake
(Limitations highlighted in red)
Design and
Numb Constructi Time for
Lake Number Phosphorous er of on Design and
outlet of Average` month Cost' Constructi
elevation Average Range months monthly snot (w/out on only (no
(high = monthly of With Conc. in lake meeti water right water Possible
Management existing outflow outflows no (target=0.045 ng TP and O&M rights Benefits or Limitations Next steps
Options elev.) cfs efs outflow mg/I) Goal costs) _ time)
1. No Action Wetland will continue to evolve, lake will Community education and outreach.
both high none nOt shrink. Benefits from diverse wetland habitat
_ and low 0 0 12 0.1,'> or higher t 2 applicable and sustainability.
2. Adaptive If wafer doesn't increase natural{y, wetland Community education and outreach.
management depends on not vegetation will increase. Vegetation
both high actions applicable management needed to maintain open water
_ and low 0 0 12 0.15 12 & views
3. One-trme First year costs include water and meter and Confirm future cost and availability of
refill (per 0.0 _ tap installation. Yearly costs for refilling lake potable water in luture years.
year) with high 0.003 0.011 7 O.U15 0 $8,500 to Less than 4 after the first year depends on volume
potable $10,000 months needed. Water not available during drought
water 0.0 - years.
low 0.002 0.008 7 0.019 0
4a. Provides the most flexibility in managing Conduct historical hydrology analysis
Well water, 0.015 - inflows. Ongoing well and pump and begin water rights process.
8.5 gpm high 0.021 0.028 0 0.025 0 $55,000 to management required. Ability and cost to Develop a pumping plan to cover Clow
$65,000 obtain acourt-approved water rights change rates, monitoring, and action triggers.
0.013 - 4 to 6 and an augmentation plan is uncertain, and
low 0.020 0.027 0 0.029 0 months the process could take Significant time.
4b.
We11 water, 0.003 -
3.0 gpm high 0.009 0.018 0 0.019 0 $55,000 to
0 001 - $65,000
_ low 0.008 0.015 0 0.023 0
5. Lower Feasibddy and costs are uncertain and would Conduct historical hydrology analysis
drain file This option assumes that the drain tie can be lowered to an require bidders to evaluate subsurface and begin evater rights process.
Greater
using high elevaton relative to the water table similar to in the past; Since greater than access issues. The ability and cost to obtain Determine feasibility of
drilling with
than 6
horizontal the source is basically the same, flow from this lower file $165,000 acourt-approved water rights change fora contractor or drop option.
directional would result in lake conditions similar to those before 2000. months modified drain line is uncertain, and the
drilling low process could take siyndicant time.
6• Dependent on precipitation, so water will Explore potential to redirect sump pump
Stormwater 0.003 - S195,000 to likely not be available during drier years. water from storm drains back into tie
input high 0.009 0.022 0 0.050 9 S225,000 Greater Water rights issues depend on storage. drain. Clarify and begin evater rights
(~v/treatmen than 6 process. Begin design of treatment
0.001 - t wetland) months wetland to confirm costs or drop option.
low 0.007 0.419 0 0.061 72
7.Diversion pump Greater Both alternatives -pump and gravity feed - Refine design and select gravity or
from Bear $280,000 require ongoing operation and maintenance. pump. Begin water rights process.
Canyon 0.002 - gravity than 6 Court approved augmentation plan could
Creek high 0.065 0.138 0 0.014 0 5410,000 months take significant lime.
For low outlet options, an additional $10,000-$12,000 would need to be added to each option. Added water options are based on starting with a full lake level, but cost of additon
of
water to reach that level is not included.
Potable water fill
Water Availability. If the lake is filled with potable water to the level of the existing outlet, the
precipitation and inflow from the file drain may be sufficient to keep it at or near that elevation
during an average year of precipitation. However, there would be no outflow during June
through December. During an average year, the maximum drop in the water level would be
around 3 inches. During years drier than average, the lake would not be expected to stay at or
near the outlet elevation, but would cumulatively lose water each month and require additional
input again to refill it to the level of the outlet.
Water Quality Under this option, estimated total phosphorous (TP) in the lake is generally good
ranging from 0.015 to 0.019 mg/I which are on the low end of all options.6 Note, however, these
estimates do not include nutrient loading from other environmental inputs which could
accumulate during the 7-month period of no outflow under this scenario.
Water Rights. According to City staff, "no water right application would be needed for this
option because the potable water will come from City water rights that are already legally
available for this use."
Water Costs. First year costs range from $6,200-14,000 (depending on the volume of water)
including the bulk water rate, and meter and tap installation. hn subsequent years, based on 8.2
acre feet and the previous rate of $108/acre foot, potable water may be the least expensive option
for the City with an estimate of less than $887.00. To better assess the costs of this option in
future years, however, additional details are needed. City of Boulder staff will cover this in more
detail in information provided in the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) packet.
Issues. The high number of months with no outflow means that aquatic vegetation will continue
to need to be managed to address residents' aesthetic concerns. Additional fills could be used to
assist with flushing, and multiple-time per year filling could potentially provide the desired lake
size and water quality depending on the timing and water availability. Higher water levels
during the growing season would be expected to reduce the need for vegetation management. In
the larger context, however, use of treated drinking water for an amenity lake may not be in
keeping with the City's desires for water conservation and sustainability.
Groundwater well
Water Availability. The pump test data from May 2008 estimated a pumping rate of 8.5 to 10
gallons per minute (gpm). However, as discussed below in the Water Quality subsection, it is
uncertain if the pumping may have been affected by recharge of water from another source.
Therefore, the water budget used conservative scenarios that would add well water at a rate of
3.0 to 8.5 gpm to produce a regular outflow during all months of an average precipitation year.
The Lower flow rate was selected because it was the minimum water needed to sustain an outflow
6 For the high-outlet alternative, the average estimated T'Y concentrations (of 0.015 mg/l) is slightly tower than the
low outlet alternative. The nominal difference is because a higher lake level captures rriore direct precipitation and
has less F,T (from wetland vegetation) during April and May.
~GE€~DA !i Ei~ # , SAGE
in average precipitation years. In Table 1, the two scenarios are referred to as Option 2a (8.5
gpm) and Option 2b (3gpm). Both of the options show outflow occurring for 12 months during
average precipitation years, although outflow is minimal during summer months (i.e., and
therefore may not occur in low precipitation years); although, adjusting pumping rates provides
flexibility that could be increased slightly during those periods.
Water Oualit~ The well option results in estimated TP levels ranging from 0.019 to 0.029 mg/1,
depending on the outlet height and flow rates. TP concentrations for the 8.5 gpm alternative are
on the higher end of this range because of the higher P contribution from groundwater. An initial
water quality sample from Well 6 indicated potential concerns about the groundwater quality.
The TP concentration of 0.21 mg/1 and E. colt at 18.7 per 100 milliliters seemed high for
groundwater and potentially indicative of contamination.? Additional samples were collected to
confirm the concentration in We11 6 and evaluate P levels elsewhere in the aquifer. TP levels
were much lower in all of the wells - We[12 (0.007 mg/I), We114(0.052 mg/1), WeI16 (0.009
mg/1), and Well 9 (0.004 mg/1). Therefore, we used the highest value from the resampling (0.52
mg/1) for the re-evaluation of the options. We suspect that the one-time occurrence of maximum
level of 0.21 mg/l in Well 6 was due to the effects of the pump test that was conducted the
previous week.
Water Rights. A well will not he within the definition of the existing decree and will therefore
require a well permit and an augmentation plan. Specific water rights considerations will depend
on the source of the augmentation water. This aspect is more thoroughly evaluated by the City
of Boulder staff and other consultants in information that will also be provided in the PRAB
packet.
llesign and Construction Costs. This option has a cost of $55,000-$65,000, not including water
rights and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs. Costs include the pump, electric
connection; and piping within the existing file drain. The option assumes that the groundwater
well will discharge directly into the existing file drain.
Issues. This option appears to provide the most benefits in terms of outflow rates, management
flexibility, water quality, and moderate cost. Based on recent clarification of water rights,
however, it now appears that augmentation and potentially purchase of water rights will be
needed. The first step in that process is preparation of a historical hydrologic analysis which may
require additional monitoring well installations. These efforts would negatively impact the
timing and costs for this option.
If this option is pursued, a pumping plan should also be developed to address the effects of
pumping on water quality, to establish a monitoring schedule, and to identify targets for action
that take into account lake levels, water quality, and aquifer response. For example, it may be
7 Although the E. coii value is much lower than the contact recreation limit, it indicates that fecal bacteria are
somehow entering the groundwater. Fecal bacteria can enter the groundwater from any number of sources that
percolate through the subsurface to the water table. This is an important finduig, bc;c;ause it means the pump test
results could have been high because of recharge from anon-natural water supply. Therefore, additional water
quality monitoring will be needed if the well option is selected.
~~1=~~A iT~~I ~1 I
useful to start the well at 8.5 gpm to get some flushing effect through the lake, then to use a
lower pumping rate to reduce stress on the aquifer.
Retrofitted lowered drain the using directional drilling
Water Availability. Information from the monitoring wells was used to better understand soil
conditions and depth to groundwater in the vicinity of the the drain. The observations indicate
that there is sufficient saturated thickness and homogeneous subsurface conditions, such that a
lower drain depth could function similar to the current line. If the lowered water table is the
primary reason for the lowered lake level, we could assume a lower drain file (i.e., at
approximately 2 feet deeper) would result in the flows necessary to support a full lake based on
the lake's history (before 2000). This option is complex, however, due in part to the uncertainties
in long-term Local groundwater Ievels, the Localized impacts of sump pumps, and the resulting
response of the drain tile. If the water table continues to decline, it is unknown how much lower
the the would need to go to more fully tap into the groundwater.
Water Ouaiity, The resulting water quality from a lowered drain ti[e should be comparable to the
lake's past condition {before 2000), which according to accounts by others, was able to support
fish. Due to the high level of uncertainty with this option, we are not able to use the water budget
to estimate TP Ievels.
Water Rights. According to City staff, "state law will allow the existing the drain to be repaired
or realigned within 20U ft of its current location without water court approval. However,
realignment at the lowered depth may result in diversion of water from a different source or in
amounts greater than available from the original depth and, if so, water court approval of a
change of water right for the existing the drain water right would be required. Filing an
application with the water court for a change of this water right will likely put the current
decree's nontributary finding concerning the water right at issue, with the risk that the
noniributary finding will be modified by the court." Given that the source of water for the the
drain water right will likely be considered tributary groundwater, the water right will thereafter
be administered within the priority system.
Design and Construction Costs. This option is likely to cost more than $165,000. The feasibility
and expense associated with long boreholes in urban settings can be complicated by the number
of subsurface obstructions. Directional drilling offers a method that can lay a line through these
obstructions; however, the cost of directional (i.e., horizontal) drilling is highly site specific and
depends on subsurface material, slope, and accuracy of information on other lines.
Issues. There is significant uncertainty about the feasibility of this option since it is very site-
specific and depends on a number of factors such as the local soil and geology, utilities, access,
water rights constraints, and impacts from off-site dewatering. If the City is interested in
pursuing ihis option, we recommend that a feasibility assessment be done by a directional
drilling contractor.
Modified stornnwater input with flow from the existing the drain
Note, this option has been modified since the February report to divert water from existing lines
and catch basins rather than installation of new pipes.
Water Availability. The addition of stormwater to the lake through the cormection of curb gutters
on Caddo Parkway to the existing file drain seems feasible based on a field visit, discussion with
the City's stormwater master planning consultant (HDR), and their review of the City's
stormwater information (Rich Thornton, personal communication, June 2008). The resulting
increase in flow appears to be less than that from a well, but enough to keep the lake full with a
slight outflow during an average precipitation year. Since any pvllutants on the ground can end
up in stormwater, water quality is a critical consideration (see the Water Quality section, below.)
Water Ouality, For the "high outlet" alternative, we estimate that TP concentrations will not meet
the goal of 0.045 mg/l nine months of the year, and for the "low outlet" alternative, TP
concentrations will never meet the TP goal. We expect that other pvllutants may also be a
concern due to the nature of urban stormwater runoff and would require the appropriate best
management practices (BMP) such as a treatment wetland.
Water Rights. According to City staff "storm water can be stored in Thunderbird Lake during
free river periods, i.e., when there are no downstream "calls" for water by decreed water rights.
At other times, nv decreed water right is required tv run storm water through Thunderbird Lake
provided no storage occurs. If storage occurs during periods of "call," a decreed water right and
an augmentation plan would be required unless any storm water stored out of priority is released
from, or pumped out of, the lake within a short time after the storage occurs, generally within 24-
72 hours of the storage. These requirements would apply whether the storm water is directed
into the file drain before being delivered into the Iakc, or delivered directly into the lake."
Design and Construction Costs. Increasing runoff into the lake by modifying the stormwater
system is estimated to cost from $45,000 to $65,000, about the same as Option 2 for well water.
However, to reduce the high TP levels and other contaminants typical in stormwater runoff, the
cost of an appropriate Best Management Practice (BMP) should be considered. A treatment
wetland would add approximately another $150,000, resulting in a total cost of $195,OOU to
$215,000.
Issue. While this option appears viable and able tv meet the evaluation criteria, it would
continue to make take levels dependent on precipitation and does not offer flexibility for
controlling water inputs. Furthermore, water budget values may change depending on the size of
the treatment wetland. A variation of this option might be to explore the potential to redirect
sump pump water from storm drains back into file drain.
Diversion of Anderson Ditch water from Bear Canyon Creek
This option would entail the purchase ar Lease of Anderson Ditch water, which would be piped to
the lake from Bear Canyon Creek (see September 2008 memorandum by HDR for more detail).
It would require installing a diversion structure on Bear Canyon Creek, just west of the Colorado
University property (CL President's residence) and pipelines to bring the water to the lake.
Basically, the concept includes three separate pipeline segments 1}beneath the CU property, 2)
beneath Caddo Dr tv MH211, and 3) through the existing drain file from MH211 to the lake. On
the CtJ property, a ditch or shallow pipeline could carry the water east tv Caddo Parkway. At
,
Caddo, a new pipeline would have to be constructed to carry the water. At MH21 1 (east of the
intersection of Caddo and Inca Parkway), the water would enter the existing clay the drain via an
inserted liner pipe that would extend all the way to the lake.
Water Availability. Based on information from City staff, we assumed that 56 gpm of diversion
water would be available from mid-April to mid-October. To be consistent with the analyses of
other alternatives, the water budget for this option assumed the lake would start from a full level.
This option results in a fu[I lake during an entire average precipitation year. Since the diversion
water is available during the dry summer months, it prevents the lake from dropping during any
month. During an average precipitation year, most of the diverted water ends up flowing out of
the lake.
Water Quality. Water quality data collected by the City on July 30, 2008 showed relatively low
TP levels (0.03 mg/l). Based on this reading, we estimate that TP levels will range from 0.014
mg/1 for the high-outlet alternative to 0.016 mg/1 for the low-outlet alternative. These
concentrations are the lowest for all options; however, this evaluation does not take into account
variation in surface water quality. Additional information (e.g., through more sampling or
modelling) would be needed to refine this estimate.
Water Rights. The City has available one-half share of Anderson Ditch water (56 gpm) for
augmentation. Use of this water right would require acourt-approved change in the existing the
drain water right and an augmentation plan. It is a very reliable source with an 1860 priority
date. One important consideration for this water right is that a portion of the water right would
need to be left in the system to account for return flow. This option is further complicated by the
requirement that during the non-irrigation season return flows would need to be provided by an
additional water source to cover the delay effect (of lost recharge}. The volume of this amount of
water would need to be determined based on a historical water analysis which has not yet been
conducted.
Design and Construction Costs. The engineering costs of the option will be the most expensive,
costing approximately $280,000 if pumped and $410,000 if gravity fed. This cost also includes
the approximate land acquuisition cost for the easement over the CU property and the estimated
cost to line the existing the drain to carry the diverted water all the way to the lake.
Issues. As described in the recent memorandum by HDR, there are several issues and
uncertainties for this option. Both a pumped and gravity-fed system will require on-going
operation and maintenance (O&M), with the pumped alternative likely having higher O&M costs
relative to the gravity-fed alternative. The location of private utilities is not known at this time.
Lining the existing clay the may be difficult; and as such, a 3-inch pressure line would be more
feasible than the 6-inch pipe required for the gravity-fed alternative. An easement agreement has
yet to be discussed with CU.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The seven main options were evaluated for an average precipitation year to assess impacts on
potential water volume, water quality, water rights, cost, and other considerations such as habitat.
~G1=N®A, ITEM # , P~~E l~
A summary of the findings of this analysis follows.
• No action would not improve lake levels, water quality, or aesthetics for residents
who desire an open lake. Since a primary purpose of this re-evaluation was to
identify along-term solution to address these concerns, this option does not meet
the expressed goals of the community at this time. There are no water rights
implications.
• Adaptive management has been occurring for the past several years and has not
been considered along-term solution to date. A management plan could help
improve planning; however, significant staff time would Likely be needed to
continue to implement this approach. There are no water rights implications.
• Potable water fill is the least expensive source of supplemental water, and it
allows for flexible management of the water supply, i.e., it offers the ability to
control inflows if more or less water is needed in a given year. The one-time per
year option does not achieve the filled lake level or outflow for 7 months of the
year, and ongoing O&M will be needed to address aquatic vegetation from
growth which will occw• in the absence of outflow. Additional fills could be used
to assist with flushing, and multiple-time per year filling could potentially provide
the desired Iake size and water quality depending on the timing and water
availability. There are no water rights implications. In the larger context,
however, use of treated drinking water for an amenity Iake may not be in keeping
with the City's desires for water conservation and sustainability.
• Groundwater well water is able to provide outflow for 12 months of the year and
maintain total phosphorous concentrations below the goal of 0.045 mg/l. The
well also offers the ability to control inflows if more or less water is needed in a
given year. The design and construction cost of the well option is also fairly low
as compared to the other supplemental water sources. However, the ability and
cost to obtain acourt-approved water rights change and an augmentation plan for
a well is uncertain, and the process could take significant time.
• Retrofitted/lowered the drain feasibility remains uncertain both from a technical
and legal issue. The number of months with outflow is unknown. Although the
estimated design and construction cost is less than the Anderson Ditch. and
storrnwater options, engineering issues could arise that increase this estimate as
the design becomes better defined. The ability and cost to obtain acourt-
approved water rights change for a modified drain line is uncertain, and the
process cvuId take significant time.
• Stormwater can provide outflow for 12 months in an average year, but is very
dependent on fluctuations in rainwater to supply the lake. This option would also
require a treatment wetland to address water quality issues. It is the second most
expensive option after the Anderson Ditch option. 'T'here are potential water
rights implications if the storage of water occurs.
• Anderson llitch water from Bear Canyon Creek is able to provide outflow for
12 months of the year and maintain total phosphorous concentrations below the
goal of 0.045 mg/1. This is the most expensive option and it would require a
change in water use and augmentation plan for which the ability and cost to obtain
are highly variable.
',1r / it -
The well and the Anderson Ditch options appear best suited to maintain a lake close to its
historic size and water quality capable of supporting fish. Multiple fills with potable water could
potentially also achieve the historic lake size and improved water quality depending on the
availability and timing of the fills. From an engineering, cost, and water management
standpoint, the well option provides the most water and the most flexibility. The only
supplemental water source that would be easy to implement from a water rights perspective is
potable water. O&M will be needed to manage engineering controls (such as pumps and outlet
valves) for any of the options that would maintain Thunderbird Lake with an open-water
footprint to maximize aquatic habitat. From a sustainability standpoint, the No Action and
Adaptive Management alternatives would minimize capital and O&M costs and maximize
wildlife habitat, although neither option would achieve the objectives of a clear lake at its
historic size expressed by surrounding residents.
If refilled to the current outlet level, the mosaic of high value fringe wetland would be lost. To
offset the loss, we recommend that the City consider accepting a slightly smaller lake footprint
and encouraging the formation of a wetland buffer that will help support a variety of both aquatic
and terrestrial species, filter pollutants, and likely reduce maintenance in the long run. Lowering
the outlet reduces the amount of water needed to fill the lake and enables the protection of fringe
habitat, and differences in water quality are expected to be negligible.
It should be noted that although we used average precipitation to facilitate this analysis, averages
are only one tool for long-term planning and do not address the range of conditions that may
occur. For example, 2008 has proved to be drier than average (about 77°Io), and the lake dropped
over 9 inches from February to August. During a drought, it is unknown if any of the added
water options which require augmentation would be available because water rights are based on
a priority system. Therefore, the City should develop an adaptive management plan to guide
monitoring and response actions during years of low precipitation.
AGENDA ITEM # , ~A~f~~
Attachment E
(Formerly)
IIYDItOSPHEI2E
Resource Consultants
MEMORANDUM
To: Joy Master, Parks & Recreation
From: Lee Rozaklis, AMEC Earth & Environmental
Subject: Stream Depletions from Proposed Thunderbird Lake Well
and Augmentation Options
Date: September 10, 2008
Introduction
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize our initial evaluation of the location,
timing and amount of stream depletions that would be associated with a potential water
supply well for Thunderbird Lake. For the purpose of this analysis, we assumed that the
well would be located at or near the intersection of Caddo Drive and (nca Parkway. This
memorandum also presents our initial thoughts on options for providing augmentation
water that would be required under an augmentation plan far the well.
Background
We reviewed available groundwater data and hydrogeology for the area, including
previously published documents and data covering all of Boulder County, and
groundwater data in the immediate vicinity of Thunderbird Lake that was recently
collected by city staff and consultants. In the vicinity of the proposed well, groundwater
occurs in unconsolidated floodplain and terrace deposits consisting of stream-deposited
boulders, gravel, sand, clay and silt. These deposits are approximately 20 to 35 feet
thick and overlie the massive Pierre shale formation, which contains little or no water.
The Denver Basin aquifers are not present in the area; their furthest northwest margin
ends about 1.5 miles to the east of Thunderbird Lake, on the other side of South Boulder
Creek.
Water from the proposed well would come from relatively shallow unconsolidated flood-
p(ain and terrace deposits, which are tributary to surtace streams. Well logs collected in
the late 1950s from 12 domestic wells located within one mile of the proposed well
location confirm that the local aquifer is 25-30 feet deep, composed of heterogeneous
layers of sand, gravel, boulders, silt and clay. Groundwater tends to occur in layers of
more permeable materials. Well yields ranged from 6 to 20 gpm with drawdowns of 12
to 20 feet, although one well reported a yield of 60 gpm with a drawdown of 5 feet.
Given reported well yields and drawdowns, the aquifer's transmissivity is in the range of
1,000-2,000 gallons per day/foot. The water table depth ranged from 3 to 14 feet and
averaged 7.4 feet; these depths are slightly shallower than recent observations, probably
due to the cessation of extensive agricultural irrigation in the area as urbanization
occurred.
AMEC Earth & Environmental
1002 Walnut Street, Suite 200
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Tei: 303.443.7839
Fax: 303.442.0616
www.ameacom AGENDA ITEM .PAGE
September 90, 2008
Page 2
The local unconsolidated aquifer extends north to Boulder Creek and east to South
Boulder Creek. Water table elevation data and ground surface topography suggest that
water from this local aquifer accrues regularly to Boulder Creek. The elevation of the
closest portion of Boulder Creek (about 1.2 miles to the north of the proposed well) is
approximately 70 feet lower than the ground surface at the proposed well. A focal water
table map (attached) indicates that Boulder Creek receives wa#er from this aquifer as
evidenced by the directions of flow and the upstream V-shape of the water table
contours as they cross Boulder Creek.
The interaction between the local aquifer and South Boulder Creek is less clear. The
elevation of the closest portion of South Boulder Creek (about 1.3 miles to the southeast
of the proposed well) is approximately the same as the ground surface at the proposed
well location. The water table contour map shows that, while South Boulder Creek gains
water from the aquifer at upstream locations (south and west of Highway 36),
groundwater contributions north and east of Highway 36 (other than local irrigation return
flows) may not be significant. In the reach north and east of Highway 36, groundwater
flow contributions to South Boulder Creek may consist solely of local irrigation return
flows and seepage intercepted by the Wellman Canal. Extensive portions of the lands
on the west side of South Boulder Creek are irrigated by the Dry Creek No. 2 Ditch and
Howard Ditch. It is possible that the combination of shallow water table conditions
caused by irrigation along the west side of South Boulder Creek, combined with the
elevation gradient between the Thunderbird well and Boulder Creek, would effectively
isolate South Boulder Creek from depletive effects of pumping by the Thunderbird well.
The Need for an Augmentation Plan and Determination of Depletions
Because a Thunderbird well would pump water from a tributary aquifer, an augmentation
plan would be required for the well. In order to get an augmentation plan, Boulder would
have to prepare a depletion study that would quantify the timing, location and amounts of
stream depletions from the Thunderbird well, including apportioning those depletions
between Boulder Creek and South Boulder Creek (to the degree that any depletions
affected South Boulder Creek). The question of whether the well would cause
depletions to South Boulder Creek cannot be answered at this time without additional
groundwater analysis.
In the development of augmentation plans for alluvial wells, the simplified Glover method
can often be used to quantify the timing, location and amounts of stream depletions.
The Glover method requires that several simplifying assumptions are reasonably met,
including a homogeneous and isotrophic aquifer, horizontal flow in the aquifer, and a
single linear stream that fully penetrates the aquifer acting as a boundary condition. In
the case of the Thunderbird well, none of these assumptions is reasonably met.
Therefore, an analysis of the location and timing of stream depletions from the
Thunderbird well would require a more extensive MODFLOW-type analysis, and
possibly more field data collection to better characterize existing local groundwater
conditions between the Thunderbird well and South Boulder Creek. (It may be desirable
to install 5 to 6 additional monitoring wells at relatively equal distances between
Thunderbird Lake and South Boulder Creek). This modeling effort would be particularly
important given that it may be relatively more difficult to augment depletions to South
AMEC Earth & Environmental ,
~~i=~oa oT~r~ pti~~
September 10, 2008
Page 3
Boulder Creek as opposed to Boulder Creek. The cost of such a MODFLOW-type
analysis would be in the range of $10,000 to $15,000, or more if additional field data
collection is needed.
Even without a detailed groundwater analysis, we are reasonably certain about some
aspects of depletions from the Thunderbird well at this point.
? Water pumped from the Thunderbird well would be tributary water and would
result in depletions to surface streams. Both a well permit and an augmentation
plan would be required. The development of the engineering aspects of an
augmentation plan could cost between $20,000 and $50,000 and could take from
1 to 3 years, partly as a function of the number of objectors that may get involved
in the case and the issues they may raise.
? Given the distances from the Thunderbird well to Boulder Creek and South
Boulder Creek and the transmissivity of the aquifer, the timing of stream
depletions from the Thunderbird well would be relatively uniform, regardless of
whether the well is pumping at a steady rate or according to a seasonally varying
pattern. Thus, ayear-round source of augmentation water would be required.
Providing augmentation water during the non-irrigation season (typically October
through April} typically requires releasing augmentation water from a reservoir.
? Most (if not all) depletions would be to Boulder Creek rather than South Boulder
Creek. The general location of depletions to Boulder Creek would be along the
reach between the headgates of the Wellman Canal and the Butte Mill Ditch.
Offsetting these depletions would require that augmentation water be provided at
or above this stream reach. The best way to do that would be to acquire
augmentation supplies that could be stored and released from an upstream
reservoir, as discussed below.
? The general location of depletions (if any) to South Boulder Creek would be
along the reach between the Howard Ditch headgate and the Wellman Canal
outlet. Offsetting these depletions {if any) would require that augmentation water
be provided at or above this stream reach. The best way to do that would be to
acquire irrigation rights with upstream points of diversion and to develop a
storage pond that could be used to regulate that water to provide non-irrigation
season releases, as discussed below.
? In order to get an augmentation plan, the locations, amounts and timing of
depletions would have to be definitively determined, and augmentation water
would have to be provided to offset depletions in amount, location and timing.
? The amount of augmentation water required would be equal to the volume of
water pumped from the well. Some augmentation credit may be available from
water pumped from the well that flows through Thunderbird Lake and returns to
the stream, provided that water reaches the stream upstream of the location of
depletions. (It is our understanding that spills or releases from the Lake go back
to Boulder Creek or South Boulder Creek via an existing storm sewer, although
we have not researched this topic.) If it is determined that the Lake is unlined
AMEC Earth & Environmental ';.(~~y~~, i~~M ~ ^j J~~ P~~~
September 10, 2008
Page 4
and exposes groundwater, augmentation requirements would likely be the full
amount of evaporative loss from the Lake.
The following items would have to be addressed in order to resolve remaining questions
regarding depletions from the Thunderbird well:
? Determine if Thunderbird Lake is intercepting groundwater. This would be done
by comparing the Lake surface and depth to local groundwater levels. Additional
monitoring wells may be needed to make this determination because existing
monitoring wells do not provide a sufficient picture of water table elevations to the
east, south and north of the lake.
? Quantify locations, amounts and timing of depletions from Thunderbird Well via a
MODFLOW-type analysis, as discussed above. If needed, collect additional
monitoring well data to better characterize existing local groundwater conditions
between the Thunderbird well and South Boulder Creek.
Augmentation Options
As previously discussed, Thunderbird well would cause depletions to Boulder Creek
along the reach between the headgates of the Wellman Canal and the Butte Mill Ditch,
and possibly to South Boulder Creek along the reach between the Howard Ditch
headgate and the Wellman Canal outlet. General augmentation options were described
in Veronica Sperling's summary document. Our additional thoughts regarding
augmentation options are described according to each Creek segment.
Boulder Creek
The most feasible augmentation strategy would probably be to acquire augmentation
water from the city's Utilities Division. Boulder owns significant amounts of Windy Gap
water as welt as other water rights that are decreed for augmentation use. These water
rights can be stored in the city's Barker Reservoir and could be released as needed to
provide augmentation water. Because depletions from Thunderbird well would affect
Boulder Creek between the Wellman Canal and the Butte Mill Ditch, reusable effluent
from the city's wastewater discharge could not be relied upon as an adequate
augmentation supply except during times when Boulder Creek was flowing at greater
than 15 cfs through this reach.
The use of the city's'/2 Anderson Ditch share was described in the summary provided by
Veronica Sperling. We reiterate that some of the Anderson water would have to be
stored in order to provide non-irrigation season augmentation water and to make up non-
irrigation season return flows. While there are several potential storage options for the
Anderson water, each option has uncertainties and unknown costs. The Anderson water
may be storable in Barker Reservoir by exchange, but such storage for augmentation
purposes would adversely affect the reliability of the city's municipal supply (you can't
use the same storage space for two purposes). It may be possib{e to store the
Anderson water in ponds on the University of Colorado's research park under an
agreement with CU, but it is uncertain whether there is available capacity in those ponds
AMEC Earth & Environmental ~ AA t-y~ 1~,r ,u.-r/*' p / O
~afji=~tliJlt 11 ~!VI ff._-~/--~_, ~l-i17~
September 10, 2008
Page 5
or whether CU would agree to such an arrangement and at what price. Anew pond
could be built, provided that a suitable site is available (i.e. located upstream of the
affected stream reach, easily supplied with Anderson water, easy to discharge to the
stream above the affected reach).
Other options would consist of acquiring and changing other suitable water rights from a
willing seller. The availability and costs are unknown at this time.
South Boulder Creek:
One potential augmentation option would be to utilize excess water that may soon be
available to the city as part of another agreement. If this agreement is made, there may
be up to three shares of Dry Creek #2 rights available to the city. The Parks and
Recreation Department has a need for one of the shares for the future development of
the East Boulder Community Center (EBCC) site. The other two shares may be
available within the next year. The adequacy of this supply would depend upon the
. historical use of those shares, the city's already-contemplated uses of those shares and
the amount (if any) of depletions to South Boulder Creek from the Thunderbird well.
Again, storage of some of the Dry Creek #2 water would be needed to provide non-
irrigation season augmentation water and to make up non-irrigation season return flows.
it may be possible to use the existing ponds at the East Boulder Community Center
(provided they were lined) or to develop additional lined storage ponds at the EBCC site.
Other options would consist of acquiring and changing other suitable water rights from a
willing seller. There may be other owners of Howard or Dry Creek No. 2 rights willing to
sell their rights. The availability and costs for purchase are unknown at this time.
The general steps involved in changing irrigation rights to augmentation purposes would
be similar to changing Anderson Ditch rights and were described in the summary
provided by Veronica Sperling.
AMEC Earth & Environmental ,i~
g~~~~ 6T'~fv~ ~ ~ I
September 10, 2008
Page 6
References:
Jenkins, Edward D., 1961. Colorado Groundwater Basic Data Report No. 5: Records
and Logs of Selected Wells and Test Holes, and Chemical and Radiometric Analysis of
Groundwater in the Boulder Area, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey.
Hall, Dennis C. et.al., 1980. Bulletin 42: Water Resources of Boulder County. Colorado
Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources, State of Colorado.
AMEC Earth 8 Environmental
P . - _3 5~
i
i
e 5100
• r
~0
~ e e
~ o ~
o
° • i 00 a I
• Y • , 52 • °
e ~ i
°
. y
u. e • I
e o
•
t/' °
1 • °
e i
~ O • y,. •
t~ • i
a i
s - , e • j
'i • i . • i
•
I
Z 4' • o ® e • o • ~
's _ • 0
y z O • •
U vwi y20 a
° • •
~ ~ e e
• ee °
e •
° s. e •
e . e o
i • °ee •
s ~ e i
0
° o ° • s 5~y0 ° a
I _ ~SSOO ~ • • o e ~
e ~ •
5300 ~ ° s
s, e s
4~ u o o e
~ • a • ~
•
"sr,
~ a
~ c e
•
• %-x5600
e ~ (i
.sue ~
O~
SS~O ~ • i
Base from U.S. Geological Survey
1:100 D00 Boulder Co., 1976 0 .2 4 6 MILES ,
i i i
i i ~
0 2 6 KILOMETERS
Figure 6.--Water cable of shallow aquifers in eastern Boulder County.
a~~l~r~~ . P~~~ S3
Attachment F
BUCAANAN AND SPERLING, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Please send correspondence to:
TIMOTHY R. BUCHANnN 7'7O3 RALSTON ROAD HEATHER A. WARREN
trb(a~tbvs.net ARVADA, CO 80002 hawna,tbvs.net
VERONICA A. SPERLiNG KAREN H. SIIIRLEY
vsperling(atbvs.net telephone: (303) 431-9141 ks(riltbvs.net
FACSIMILE: (800} 803-6648 ERIC R. POTYONDY
EMAIL: tbVS(r,~tbVS.net erp~atbvs.net
$ODLDER OFFICE WEBSITb: www.tbvs.net
1113 SPRUCE STI2EE'I', SUITE $03
BOULDER, CO 80302
MEMORANDUM
To: Joy Master
l~rom: Ronni Sperling
Subject: Thunderbird Lake Water Rights Issues
Date: September 10, 2008
Introduction
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize certain water rights information related to a
potential increased water supply for Thunderbird Lake.
New Tributary WeIULake Evaporation Loss from Intercepted Groundwater
A well is broadly defined by statute as any structure or device used for the purpose, or with the
effect, of obtaining groundwater for beneficial use from an aquifer. This statutory definition has
been judicially and legislatively determined to include reservoirs, ponds, gravel pits and other
impoundment structures that are constructed into the water table and expose groundwater to the
atmosphere, resulting in evaporation of groundwater. Thus, virtually any structure that diverts
groundwater for beneficial use or exposes groundwater to the atmosphere is a "well" under current
Colorado law.
A well permit issued by the Colorado Division of Water Resources, Office of the State Engineer, is
required to construct a new well and, under certain circumstances, to repair or replace an existing
well. Without a well permit, well construction contractors licensed under Colorado law will not
construct a new well and, in some cases, may not be willing to repair or replace an existing well.
Unless a well is statutorily exempt from administration, aplan for augmentation is also required in
river systems that are over-appropriated before a well permit for a well to withdraw tributary
groundwater or expose tributary groundwater to the atmosphere can be (or will be) issued by the
State Engineer's office. The South Platte River basin is over-appropriated, meaning that at times
of the year there is not enough physical water supply available to satisfy the demands of all water
.~.GENDA, ITEM . E~~E 5~
B>'uCHANAN A_\D SPERLL~IG, P.C.
Joy Master
September 10, 2008
Page 2
users who already have decreed water rights. Tributary groundwater is groundwater that is
connected to surface water in a nearby stream, through small openings between grains of sand and
gravel that allow water to move through the ground to and from the stream. Groundwater is
presumed to be tributary in Colorado absent proof to the contrary. Anew shallow well to provide
a water supply to Thunderbird Lakc would withdraw tributary groundwater and would not be exempt
from administration under Colorado law.
A plan for augmentation is a water court-approved plan to replace depletions from out-of-priority
water uses so as to allow those out-of-priority water uses to occur without inj using other water rights.
An approved plan for augmentation allows a junior water use to continue when more senior water
users are calling for water, by providing the senior water users with water from another source
("augmentation" or "replacement" water) provided by the junior water user. The requirement to
obtain a plan for augmentation in order to obtain a well permit and subsequently to construct a well
applies to tributary groundwater use in over-appropriated river systems because withdrawal of
tributary groundwater causes some reduction in stream flow in nearby streams after the pumping
itself has stopped. This reduction is referred to as a "delayed or lagged" depletion, as compared to
the instantaneous depletion that occurs from diversions through surface water diversion structures.
In other words, groundwater pumping, even if it is in priority at the time of the pumping, will result
in depletions at a later time after the pumping has stopped and when senior water rights may be
cal ling for water. Acourt-approved augmentation plan ensures that augmentation/replacement water
is available prior to the occurrence of groundwater pumping so that these delayed or lagged
depletions will be replaced even if the well is not actually pumping when those depletions occur.
Based on the analyses to date of the City's consultant, Lee Rozaklis, the pumping of a new shallow
well to provide water supply to Thunderbird Lake would deplete stream flows in Boulder Creek and
perhaps in South Boulder Creek. The amount of these depletions would be 100% of the amount
pumped from the well or some lesser amount if some of the water pumped from the well is flowing
through the lake rather than being stored. 1f the lake intercepts groundwater, the depletions would
likcIy be the full amount of evaporation loss from the surface of the lake. The timing of these
depletions (the "delay" or "lag") can be determined using commonly-accepted engineering
methodologies.
Augmentation or replacement water for awater-court approved plan for augmentation can be any
fully consumable water that is either decreed for such use or legally available for such use, and that
can be delivered to the affected stream system at the time and in the location and amount of the
depletions from the junior water use. Examples are senior agricultural water rights whose historical
consumptive use has been quantified by the water court, making this water fully consumable and
BUCHANAN AND SPERLING, P.C.
Joy Master
September 10, 2008
Page 3
available for augmentation and replacement use, junior water rights originally decreed for
augmentation or replacement use, nontributary and not-nontributary Denver Basin groundwater, and
transmountain water such as Windy Gap Project water. In order to obtain acourt-approved plan for
augmentation for water uses at Thunderbird Lake, the City Parks and Recreation Department would
have to reallocate existing water rights of the Department or acquire water or water rights to be used
as augmentation/replacementtyater.
The process for obtaining a water court-approved augmentation plan is to file an application for
approval of the augmentation plan with the Water Division 1 water court in Greeley. The application
must identify the structure or structures to be augmented (a well and/or Thunderbird Lake itself if
it intercepts groundwater), the water and/or water rights to be used as the augmentation/replacement
supply, the historical use of any water rights that need to be changed to augmentation or replacement
use as part of the augmentation plan, the amount, timing and location of the depletions associated
with the use of the well and/or other structures to be augmented, and the amount, timing and location
of the proposed sources of augmentation/replacement water.
Change of Water Rights Represented by One-Half Share of Anderson Ditch Stock
The one-half share of Anderson Ditch stock represents a pro rata interest in the 25 cfs water right
decreed to the Anderson Ditch. 't'here are 100 shares of stock in the Anderson Ditch Company, so
the one-half share represents 0. I25 cfs or approximately 56 gpm. The Anderson Ditch water right
has an 1860 priority and is a very reliable water right because it is almost always in priority.
The 0.125 cfs of the Anderson Ditch water right represented by the one-half share is currently
decreed for irrigation use and is used by the City for that purpose. 1n order to use this 0.125 cfs to
fill or provide a freshening flow for Thunderbird Lake, or to use it for augmentation of a well to fill
or provide a freshening flow for 'T'hunderbird bake, the water right must be changed to those new
uses. This requires approval from the water court, the process for which is initiated by filing an
application with the water court for approval of a change of the water right, either to substitute the
new uses for the existing decreed irrigation use or to add the new uses to the existing decreed
irrigation use.
In order to be approved, the proposed change of water right must not cause injury to other water
rights. In general terms, this means that (1 }the diversions for the new uses must not be greater than
or at a different time of the year than the historical lawful diversions for the decreed irrigation uses
and (2) the amount of water that became return flows after the lawful historical use for irrigation
must continue to be available in the stream to water users downstream of the location of the
BUCHAi~1AN AND SPERLING, P.C.
Joy Master
September 10, 2008
Page 4
historical use. The analysis that provides the basis for the quantification of these amounts, as well
as the information about the location and timing of the historical return flows, is generically referred
to as an historical use analysis. There are commonly-accepted engineering methodologies for
performing an historical use analysis
In almost all cases involving changes of irrigation waterrights to new uses, the applicant's obligation
to maintain the historical return Mow regime that occurred from the historical irrigation use requires
that water beavailable on ayear-round basis for deliveryto the stream to maintain these return flows.
During the irrigation season, this obligation can generally be satisfied by leaving a portion of the
historical diversion that became return flow in the stream for use by downstream water users. This
is often accomplished by bypassing the flows at the ditch headgate. However, since almost all
irrigation rights divert only during the irrigation season, this usual ly means that either an independent
source of water must be provided to make up the non-irrigation season return flows, or some of the
water from the water right being changed must be stored during the irrigation season for later release
during the non-irrigation season. The need for the non-irrigation season replacement water is
sometimes one of the most difficult requirements to meet in order to obtain a change of an irrigation
water right.
In order to obtain court approval of a change of the 0.125 cfs of the Anderson Ditch water right
represented by the one-half Anderson Ditch share, the City Parks and Recreation Department would
have to acquire a source of water to meet the non-irrigation season return flow obligation or develop
a storage facility into which some of the available Anderson Ditch water could be delivered for Later
release to the stream at the appropriate location during the non-irrigation season. If an independent
source of water is to be used, examples of the types of water and water rights that would be
potentially available for that use are the same as described above for use for'~,augmentation or
replacement. In the case of the 0.125 cfs of the Anderson Ditch water right, the return flows from
the historical irrigation use were likely to a location on Boulder Creek or possibly Bear Creek.
An application for a change of water right must identify the water right to be changed (the 0.125 cfs
of the Anderson Ditch water right) and the decree information for that water right which wi 11 include
the decreed diversion rate, the location of the decreed point of diversion, the decreed use and the
priority date, records of historical diversions, a general description of the historical use of the water
right including the location of historical use and the location of historical return flows, a description
of the proposed new uses of the water right, and the identity of and decree inforn~ation for the water
and/or water rights to be used to maintain the historical. return flow regime. An application for
change of water right can be combined with an application for approval of a plan for augmentation.
BUCHANAN AND SPERLING, P.C.
Joy Master
September 10, 2008
Page 5
Water Court Process
An application for approval of a plan for augmentation and/or for approval of a change of use of
water rights in connection with Thunderbird Lake must be published in the water court resume and
in a local newspaper. Other water users have two months from the end. of the month in which the
application is filed with the watercourt to file statements of opposition to the application. The issues
with the proposed augnmentation plan and/or change of water rights that are raised by ob
j ecting water
users must be resolved either by negotiated settlements or by the water judge after a trial, and then
a decree will be entered describing in detail the operation of the augmentation plan and/or change
of water rights, the terms and conditions which must be complied with to prevent injury to other
water rights, and the accounting required to demonstrate compliance with the terms and conditions
of the decree and to allow administration of the decree by State water administration officials, The
time from filing of an application to entry of a final decree generally takes from 1 '/2 years to 3 years
ifpursued diligently. After the decree is entered, the State Engineer's office is required to issue any
needed well permits.
The legal fees for obtaining approval of aplan for augmentation and/or approval of a change of water
right vary greatly depending on the complexity of the proposed plan or proposed change of water
right, the number of other water users who object to the application, and whether there is a
negotiated settlement or a trial. A reasonable range of estimated legal fees is from $25,000 to
100,000. This does not include engineering fees and other costs, such as filing fees and publication
costs. There are some cost savings if applications are combined.
During the time an application for approval of a plan for augmentation and/or change of water rights
is pending in the water court, the applicant can request approval of a substitute water supply plan by
the State Engineer's office which, if approved, allows the temporary use of the well or other structure
to be augmented and/or the temporary use of the unchanged water rights for the proposed new uses.
Notice of the request for substitute water supply plan approval must be given to other water users
who then have 30 days to submit comments to the State Engineer's o#~ce. The State Engineer's
office can approve a substitute water supply plan for one year at a time, so multiple
requests/approvals may be required during the time an application is pending in the water court. Any
needed well permits will be issued by the State Engineer's office if a substitute water supply plan
is approved, subj ect to the condition that the well operate only under the substitute water supply plan
or, ultimately, the water court-decreed plan for augmentation
~ 8
Fri ~:t t° ith ~ _l J~~ , F'i~~.
Attachment G
I Ma yCO uP
nnY" Technical Memorandum
To: Joy Master; Douglas Sullivan, PE -Boulder
From: Rich Thornton, PE -HDR Project: Boulder Stormwater Management Plan
CC: Claudia Brovrne, Mike Lighthiser - BioHabitats
Date: September 9~", 2008 Job No: 34640
RE: Thunderbird Lake -Bear Creek Diversion
~.o Introduction
Boulder has requested assistance to prepare a concept level engineering analysis of a proposed
diversion system to d'+rect flow from Bear Creek to an existing 10" the drain line in Caddo Parkway,
east of Inca Parkway, which ultimately discharges to Thunderbird Lake. City staff has determined
that water rights may be available and could be diverted at a rate of 56 gpm (0.125 cfs). The flow
rate of 56 gpm was identified by the City/Project Team as the amount of/z share of Anderson
Ditch water.
The conceptual analysis included the following activities:
• Prepare plan view mapping of the proposed diversion pipeline alternatives showing general
pipeline alignment and manhole locations based on the city's GIS data.
• Develop a concept level proposed pipeline profile to address sewer laterals, water services and
assumed depth of private utilities (communication and gas). Present the resulting vertical
profile data information in plan view with rim and invert elevation call-outs on proposed
manholes.
• Identify potential utility conflicts or other °unknowns" that may impact feasibility of the proposal
diversion pipeline.
• Provide a written description and schematic detail of the diversion structure and flow metering
system options. This would include 1) gravity diversion and a flume flow metering device and
2) a pump fed system. Provide a hand sketch of both system options.
• Develop an order-of-magnitude level estimate of capital construction cost. The American
Association of Cost Engineers defines the anticipated level of accuracy as +50% to -30%. Unit
costs will be based on those developed for the Boulder Stormwater Master Plan; escalated to
account for inflation 2008 dollars.
• Provide an estimate of engineering fees based on a percentage of capital construction costs.
• Prepare brief TM summarizing findings of the analysis
2.a Alternatives
Two alternative methods of diverting and conveying flow from Bear Creek to the existing 10" drain
the located in Caddo Parkway were developed based on correspondence with City and consultant
project team members. The following tables summarize those alternatives.
HDR ENGINEERING, INC. 303 c. 17"Avenue Phcre (303) 784^52U
T•bird Bear Crk Oiversion.doc Suite 7UU Fax (303) 850.71'x9 I
Denver, CO 80203 www.hdrinc.can C~
.~.t?f=3~9t~P. iTFM # ~>4 PA.G~ ~
/
Alternative 1 -Gravity Diversion System
Alternative A system that diverts, measures, and conveys flow by gravity.
Description
Alignment Figure 1 shows the alignment and Sketch #1 shows a conceptual layout of the
Description diversion structure/system.
The diversion structure {ocation was chosen based on the creek elevation that
would provide adequate slope of the proposed pipeline resulting in a minimum
velocity of 2 fps. The 2 fps velocity is generally considered a minimum to move
sediment within a gravity pipeline thus reducing maintenance issues.
The diversion system consists of concrete headwall in the creek bank with a
manual headgate to regulate the rate of flow. Flow rate is measured via a Parshall
flume located in a 48" manhole. Debris from the creek (sediment, oil and
floatables) are trapped in an additional 48" manhole with "Snout" or similar debris
trap (see the appendix for product information).
The resulting 6" diameter pipeline alignment has two distinct segments in term of
construction: 1) across CU property and 2) along Caddo Parkway.
The CU property alignment is open ground, cut and cover, with re-seeding for
surface restoration. Average depth is approximately 8'.
The Caddo alignment follows the south side of the street as the north side contains
water, sewer, and storm drain pipelines. At the downstream tie in with the 10" tile,
the proposed pipeline is approximately 6' deep and above the sanitary sewer
system depth. The proposed pipeline continues to the west above the depth of the
sanitary sewer, thus alleviating conflicts with the sewer main or service laterals.
The proposed pipeline depth does conflict with the water main and services.
These water conflicts can be resolved by lowering the waterline at the crossing
locations. Water and sewer services are minimal a{ong Caddo as the lots are
generally served off the north/south streets such as Hopi Drive. Construction is
assumed to be moderately complex given the potential for private underground
utilities, asphalt surface restoration, and traffic control.
Benefits and Gravity system would require minimal maintenance and low long-term operational
Opportunities costs (e.g. no power costs)
The existing storm inlets along the south side of Caddo could be connected to the
proposed pipeline to provide additional flow to Thunderbird Lake.
Issues and Flow control may not be a "set it and leave it" system as the creek level will affect
Unknowns the rate of flow diverted from the creek to the system. The headgate would require
adjustment with a visual observation of the flow rate measured by the flume
(typical with agricultural irrigation systems).
Location and number of private utilities along the south side of Caddo is unknown.
Asphalt condition is unknown. Construction equipment may result in a larger
asphalt replacement width than the assumed 4'--5' width.
Lining the existing 10" clay the with a "fold and form" type liner may be difficult to
install given the lack of intermediate access points.
Capital Cost $369,000
Alternative 2 -Pressured Diversion System
Alternative A system that diverts flow by gravity from the creek and uses a small irrigation
Description pump to convey flow through a small diameter pipeline.
Alignment Figure 2 shows the alignment and Sketch #2 shows a conceptual layout of the
Description diversion structure/system.
The diversion structure/system location was chosen based on an alignment that
provides the shortest distance across CU property while minimizing construction
impacts.
The diversion system consists of concrete headwall in the creek bank with a
manual headgate to act as an isolation valve for maintenance or winter operation
needs. During summer operation the headgate would be normally open. A trash
rack on the headwall is to prevent large debris from entering the system. Flow is
diverted from the creek to a cistern. The cistern provides storage volume to
manage pump cycle and run times. In addition, the cistern would allow for minor
amount sediment to settle out. The irrigation pump is estimated to be a 1 hp
centrifugal irrigation pump installed in a pump house. The pump suction line would
extend into the cistern with a foot valve for self priming of the pump. The pump
on/off controls would be managed through two float switches connected to a small
control panel. Power supply would need to be brought to the site via an
underground electric line and connected to the control panel. An alternate electric
source such as solar with battery backup could be considered as the design
moves forward. The pump house was envisioned to be a small, above grade, pre-
fabricated fiberglass unit. The above grade approach was considered appropriate
due to high groundwater.
The proposed 3" diameter pipeline is envisioned to be at an average depth of 3'
and constructed with a chain trencher. ~As a result, the horizontal and vertical
alignment can be modified based on utility and alignment corridor constraints, The
depth of the proposed pipeline allows for it to be located above the existing water
and sewer systems.
The pressure pipeline would discharge to a 48" manhole constructed over the
existing 10" drain line. As this location provides the transition from pressure flow to
gravity flow, audible splashing sounds are anticipated.
Benefits and The pump provides a constant flow rate and a `'set it and leave it" system
Opportunities operation.
Relatively easy construction with excavation equipment anticipated to be a chain
trencher for pipeline construction. Result asphalt impact would be relatively minor.
Ability to change pipeline grade and alignment to avoid utilities and other potential
construction obstacles.
No waterline relocation needs.
lssues and System would need to be blown out like a typical irrigation system to prevent
Unknowns freezing issues in the winter.
Power costs create a higher life cycle cost as compared to a gravity system.
A mechanical system typically requires more maintenance than a gravity system.
HDR ENGINEERING, INC. 303 c. 17" Aveme ~rc^.e (303; 104-15'10
Suite 7C0 pax (303) 850.7139
T-bird Bear Crk Oiversion.doc Denver, CO 80203 www.^dnnccom
:.i• lu IT~iYI TT_11~ _ I F~', V~]`~
The need for intermediate access points or blow-off requirement is unknown.
Location of electrical service and power availability is unknown. Solar with battery
backup may provide to be a better power option but it was not investigated at this
level of analysis.
Location and number of private utilities along the south side of Caddo is unknown.
Lining the existing 10" clay the with a "fold and form" type liner may be difficult to
install given the lack of intermediate access points.
The 3" HDPE pressure line maybe able to be pulled thorough the existing 10"drain
instead of lining the 10" drain, thus extending the length of the pressure system.
However, this was not investigated at this level of analysis.
Capital Cost X256,000
s.o Capital Cost Estimates
Estimates of capital construction cost were prepared based on the concept design level analysis
for each alternative. Given the relatively minor level of detail included in a conceptual analysis, it is
anticipated that there are cost items and/or unit costs data that may not reflect actual construction
costs. As a result, a design contingency of 30% was applied to the subtotal of construction costs.
In addition, unit costs were generally developed as conservative numbers. Unit costs were based
on those developed for the Boulder Stormwater Master Plan where applicable and also from RS
Means. The order-of-magnitude level estimates of capital construction cost are summarized in the
following tables.
. ~
Alternative 1 -Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate
Descri lion Units Quanti Unit Cost Item Cost
General _
Insurance and Bonding (10%) _ _ $ 17,100
Mobilization (6%) $ 10,300
Traffic Control (5%) $ 8,500
Misc. Utility Relocation (5%) $ 8,500
_ Subtotal $ 44,_400_
Pipe Improvements
Dewatering (5% of Pipe Cost) $ 7,382
Connect to Existing Each 1 $ 1,020 $ 1,020
Pipe
6"PVC SDR 35 LF 2,700 $ 30.36 $ 81,972_
_ 12" PVC_SDR 35 LF 20_ $ 50.50 $ 1,01_0_
Surface Restoration _
-1 Asphalt Patch, 6" HBP SY_ I 733 $ 24.50_ 17,967
Re-seeding _ SY _ j _ 333 $ 5.00 $ 1,667_
Manholes _ _ _ i ~ _
. 60" Dia and Smaller _ ~ _Each ~ 11 $ 4,000 $ 44,000
Subtotal ~ $ 155,017
- - ~ - -
Diversion Improvements _
- -
Concrete H_ ead_wall Each ~ 1 $ 5,000 _ $ 5,000
-__`Headgate (24_" manual) Each 1 $ 1,000 1__,_000
Tash Rack j Each 1 ~ 500 500
Flume Each 1 $ 750 $ 750
Oil Debris Screen Each 1 $ 500 $ 500
_ Subtotal $ 7_._75.0
Utility Relocation
-Water Line Relocation LF ~ 200 $ 41.12 $ 8,224
Subtotal j $ 8,224
Subtotal Construction Costs $ 215,391
_ Design Contingency (30%) I $ 64,617
Engineering and Administration (20%) _ ~ $ 43,078
Land Ac uisition ~ SF ~ 3,000 $ 15.00 $ 45,000
Total Estimated Improvement Cost (Rounded) $ 3. 69,000
Cost Range Nigh +50% $ 554,000
Low -30% $ 284,000
HDR ENGlNEERIN6, INC. 1303 E. 17^ Avenue I Phone (303) 76a-1520
T-bird Bear Crk Diversion.doc Suite 700 Fax (303) 860.7139
Denver, CO 80203 www.hdrinc.com
-~`:r?1;.ss~ Cell ~.~-4L-~----
Alternative 2 -Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate
Descri tfon Units Quanti Unit Cost Item Cost
General _
Insurance and Bon_ding_(_10%) $ 11,100
_ Mobilization (6%) _ _ $ 6,700
_ Traffic Control (5%) $ 5,600
Misc. Utility Relocation (5%) $ 5,600
Subtotal $ _ 29.000_
Pipe Improvements
Dewatering (5% of Pipe Cost) $ 3,637
Connect to Existing _ Each 1 $ 1,020 $ 1,020
Pipe (material, trench, backfill & compaction)
3" HD_PE DR 15.5 LF 2,400 $ 20.35 , $ 48,840
_ 12"PVC SDR 35 LF _ _ 20 $ 50.50 I $ 1,010
Surface Restoration ~
j Asphalt Patch, 6" HBP ~ SY 367 ~ 24.50 ~ $ 8,983
_ Re-seeding SY i 1,778. $ 5.00_ $ 8.889
_Manholes _ ~
60" Dia and Smaller Each 1 ~ $ 4,000 $ 4,000
~ 96" Dia Box Base Each ~ 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000
_ Subtotalf _ $ 91,379_
Diversion Improvements _
_ Concrete Headwall _ ~ Each ~ 1 $ 5,000 $ __5,000
_ Headgate (24" manual) Each 1 $ _ _1_,000 $ _1,000
Tash Rack Each 1 $ 500 ~ 500
Pump, float switches and controls _ Each ~ 1 $ _ 500 _ _ 500
Pump Control House (fiberglass, prefab) Each_I_ 1 $ _1_,000_ $ 1,000
Electric Service LF 800 $ 15.00 $ 12,000
Subtotal! _ _ _ $ 20,000_
Utility Relocation _ _ _ _ _
Water Line Relocation ~ LF - ~ $ 41.12 $ -
_ subtotal I _ $ -
Subtotal Construction Costs $ 140,379
Design Contingency (30%) ~ $ 42,114
iEngineering and_Ad_mini_stration (20%) l ~ ~ $ 28,076
(Land Ac uisition SF 1 3,000 $ 15.00 $ 45,000
Total Estimated Improvement Cost (Rounded) $ 256,000
Cost Range High +50% $ 384,000
Low -30% $ 197,000
~1G~l~~A E~E~~~ ~.,-~-.rT 9 P~,GE~
Figures and Sketches
• Figure 1 -Gravity Diversion System
• Sketch #1 -Gravity Diversion Structure
• Figure 2 -Pressured Diversion Structure
• Sketch #2 -Pressured Diversion Structure
HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ~ 363 E. 17" Aven~E rhea job)!6a 1520
T-bird Bear Crk Diversion.doc Suite 700 Fax (303) BfiC-7139
( Denver, CO 80203 (www.hdrinc.com
AGENDA ITE~1 # _ ,PAGE ~S-
• ,rte
` t~ .i F. 4, .r ,l~ Y ~ • ~'1 ' ~ ~ e~ ~ ~
's, ~ ~ Mt~,li ~ 27D0 LF of 6 PVC SDR 35 @ S 0.6/0 's .Rim =5324.34 ~ . , •
~ ' ~ Qdesign = 56 gpm (0.125 cfs) V=2.0 fps A. ' , xi ; r
- ,Ml~.,.' - - - ~ , I IE =5319.01 ,
~
r>w,,I"" ,r'"~~ ~ '
f ~ ~ ~ , . :'fir
r ,r. f , ,
_ • . • _ 6,;
_
~ Rim 5335.05 r Rim 533317 Pom5330.63 . ~ ~ f~ni53255•• 532A•76
IE 5329.52 ~ ~ -
IE 5328.38 E 5326.04 _ IE 53228729 E 532022 ~~j~'S'•" F •
- _ ~S, i
I Bear Creek ~ - , , n• Rim 5325.2
j Top of Bank =5340.0 - - - t ut IE 5319.5 ~
Fbwline = 5336.1 : ' ~ " r Lower Existing Waterline. r'rd " ~ '~R ~ '
Typical at Crossings (4)
a ~ ` , Exist. l0"Clay Tile
Rim 59401 , f~m5339J4 ~ R1m5339.28. _ „ I:.~ ~ '.V~. f
IE 5036.08 E 5333.42 G" IE 5331.32 ( tG` ~ ~ F~ << , ' 4-•`'~' ~ C~c~
e ; ~ ;per. /
f 20' utll4y easement across CU property. ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ `l ~ ` 6 a ~f.•• t~; ~
~~`P~ •
,
t~(
I L=1050'A=3000 SF A~G"~~.... ~ I r;! ~ 1,
~ '~6
Proposed Diversion with debris screen, '~r ~ ~ r' rr ~ ~ f
~ 1 sediment trap and parshall flume. ~ ~ E~~~ o~ a ~ ~r -:a' ~ a
° y, ~ See Sketch #1 ~ ( + ~ ;~~1?' . , n~ti ~
' gyn. '1' - - - - _ S ~ , 7jp . . '
~ ~ ~ ~ .b7
Legend Bear Creek to I~t
Thunderbird Lake Diversion
( Prop. Manhole ® Exist. Sewer Manholes • Exist. Storm MH Exist. Water Main Figure 1
Prop. Diversion Structure Exist. Sewer Main ~ Exist. Storm Inlet - - Exist. Water Service ~
Prop. Diversion Pipeline - - Exist. Sewer Service Exist. Storm Drain 0 100 200 400 Alternative 1
Feet Gravity Diversion and Conveyance System
AGENDA ITEM # ,PAGE ~ ~
i t; IG N 24 tE 7^ k iJ k is"r r"
F';dC:. j
t+-,.C.nl:.d ~'S i~i,~ F?`*r~G COrnC~tEd Ddte: d/.~C~~
S~~:e;c ~ ~ ,f Cnec+.etl: Date:
O\ECOV['.4VY l~~r`•~~t~tC Jc-.C ~ Chi
r4lanr $a hrtians" ~ - - - - - - -
cask: Page: of
.IQ." F NC.
~hW.~`
7
r
1 .l ~
sv~oc~t-T
"I
+~'i"
~~i r~
e~~EtJt~A STEM , p~~E lU~
/ ~~~;Y, ~ .~~"•;'w+~ ,1 ~ I~ tit ^ W ~ Ma ",-;~R~~~~~1~~ ~ ~
I ~ 1. ~ L a .ryl i~ ~ Y ~ it'
1 ~1 C ~ R it~. ,~M t n •u.~ 4 ' M ~
Proposed Diversion with debris screen, ~ ; " a, ~ ~ . ~ ~ Mh
cistern, and 1 HP pump. ~ ~,bii' -a, ~ ~
fiw_....- - ~ ~,r~ 1
. See Sketch #2 4~ „ • • h ~ ;
~ ;
~ ~ q, ~1. ; Ai, ~
j _Y:~ ' 1 ~~ir/ . ~ I I {lw~.a.~ g. i ~ h, ` F ~ ~-1 _ i / ' Al. ~I
J ~ ,M, ~ a ' I W i .~a.
Proposed Underground Electric Line to Pump. Y`~` ~ ~ " _ ' . r`R"M . - ~ ~
' - ~ ~
Connection Pant in Caddo Assumed. ~ 1;M r^ r: - - - - ,rr;,r
i, 2400 LF of 3" HDPE DR 15.5 (110 psi)
, ~ ~ - ,~1; Qdesign = 56 gpm (0.125 cfs , V=2.6 s P f ~ Rim = 5324.34 ' ~ ` . A
~ ,M,, ~ ~ .'s,~,,~, i ~ IE =5319.01
~ - ~ ~ ~ , r 1. ~ ~
.:.I Bep r Creek • . - ~ ~ - o -----~._A : ;w~`,' /
To of Bank = 5334 ~ t o- ~ .:ri.. T_-__-_ o~._r, ~ .o f , ~ a.
Flowline = 5330 ' - ~I ~ - - ~
. ~
~ ~ ~ "
I ~~yy1,,t ~ ~ , 1 ~ _,a.,. ~ , , ~
a ~ _ 1'0 y ~ Exist. l0" Cla Tile i
{ 20 ublBy easement across CU property. ~ . ~ i ! ~ ~ ; r ~ 'y' ~ ,
I L=800', A=2400 SF . : ~ .tk~ l.r~~. ; ry ~ } /
t
' c.
• ~ ~ 1, o ~ • e
Legend Bear Creek to I~
Thunderbird Lake Diversion
" Proposed Diversion Structure a Exist. Sewer Manholes " Exist. Storm MH Exist. Water Main
Figure 2
( Proposed Manhole Exist. Sewer Main ~ Exist. Storm Inlet - -Exist. Water Service
Proposed Diversion Pipeline Exist. Sewer Service Exist. Storm Drain 0 100 200 Alternative 2 -
~ Feet Pressured Diversion System I~""
AGENDA ITEM # HAGS Vr
J
i~~'<
~t %
f{ ~ 2 - l~~ S SC~c,r1 c=.~ ~ i ?a 2 5 c~rJ C -r; l.~.(«Lt-l
~~-~J _ - -
J i,
- -
- % ^ / ~
:1 A ~ _ , / _ ~ ~ 'ova ~I l~C
i
~
F'f'~C~os~~`"
~ ~ f
' ~ -j.
1 /
f,
[ST~l~
= 533-1
c - ~3Z~
J \
1
H ~
~ .1 ~ c ...t-
f/~v4~~
- ~ /
..;L ~~~C.ii rn}~'
Product Information
• Snout/Hood Specification Sheet for Water Quality Structures
• Manhole Flume Specification Sheet
• Goulds Pumps GT -Specification Sheet
~GENt~A ITEM ~,~--~.;~.9 P~G~
TYPICAL INSTALLATION
CONFIGURATION DETAIL ~ - -
__r r-~'
1' PVC ANTI-SIPHON - '
PIPE ADAPTER
REMOVABLE WATERTIOHi
ACCESS PORT, 8'-70' OPENIN ANTISIPHON DEVICE._
SNOUT
~ OIL-DEBRIS
` HOOD
i ~ OIL AND DEBRIS
0 I
I
I i ourLET
~
~ PIPE
i
° ~
OUNTING FLANGE
3EE NOTE•
' OUTLET PIPE (HIDDEN)
SOLIDS SETTLE ON
FRONT VIEW BOTTOM
SIDE VIEW °
SNOUT OIL-WATER-DEBRIS SEPARATOR
•NOTF- SUMP DEPTH OF 30' MIN. FOR < OR= 1Y DU1M.
OUTLET. FOR OUTLETS >OR= 15', DEPTH = 2.S3X DU1M.
INSTALLATION DETAIL
NOTES:
1. ALL HOODS AND TRAPS FOR CATCH BASINS AND WATER QUALITY STRUCTURES SHALL BE
AS MANUFACTURED BY:
BEST MANAGEMENT PRODUCTS, INC.
53 MT. ARCHER RD. DETAIL B
LYME, CT 06371
(BBD) 434-0277, (860) 434-3195 FAX FOAM GASKET W/
TOLL FREE: (800) 504008 OR (888) 354-7585 PSA BACKINCI---
(TRIM TO LENGTH)
WEB SITE: www.tlsatrnp.com
OR PRE-APPROVED EQUAL ANCHOR W/ BOLT MOUNTI
FLANGE
2. ALL HOODS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF A GLASS REINFORCED RESIN COMPOSITE WITH (BEE DETaL A)
ISO GEL COAT EXTERIOR FINISH WITH A MINIMUM 0.125' LAMINATE THICKNESS. INiTALLA710N MOTE:
D
3. ALL HOODS SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A WATERTIGHT ACCESS PORT, A MOUNTING FLANGE, POSITON HOOD SUCH THAT
AND AN ANTISIPHON VENT AS DRAWN. (SEE CONFIGURATION DETAIL) T BOTTOM FLANGE 13 A
DISTANCE OF 1R OUTLET
4. THE SIZE AND POSITION OF THE HOOD SHALL BE DETERMINED BY OUTLET PIPE SIZE AS ty PIPE DIAMETER (MIN.)
PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION. BELOW THE PIPE INVERT,
GASKET MINUMUM DISTANCE FOR
5. THE BOTTOM OF THE HOOD SHALL EXTEND DOWNWARD A DISTANCE EOUAL TO 1/2 THE COMPRESSED PIPES < tY I.D. IS 6'.
OUTLET PIPE DIAMETER WITH A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 8' FOR PIPES <12' l.D. BETWEEN HOOD
AND STRUCTURE DETaI A
6. THE ANTISIPHON VENT SHALL EXTEND ABOVE HOOD BY MINIMUM OF 3' ANO A MAXIMUM OF (SEE DETAIL B)
24' ACCORDING TO STRUCTURE CONFIGURATION.
7. THE SURFACE OF THE STRUCTURE WHERE THE HOOD 13 MOUNTED SHALL BE FINISHED DRILLED ANCHOR
SMOOTH AND FREE OF LOOSE MATERULL. Hp~ SHIELD AIMLESS
BOLT
8. THE HOOD SHALL BE SECURELY ATTACHED TO STRUCTURE WALL WITH 3/8' STAINLESS EXPANSION CONE
STEEL BOLTS AND OIL-RESISTANT GASKET AS SUPPLIED BY MANUFACTURER. (SEE (NARROW ENO our)
INSTALLATION DETAIL)
9 INSTALLATION KSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE FURNISHED WITH MANUFACTURER SUPPLIED HOOD SPECIFICATION FOR
INSTALLATION KIT SHALL INCLUDE: CATCH BASINS AND
A INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS
B. PVC ANTI.SIPHON VENT PIPE AND ADAPTER WATER QUALITY STRUCTURES
C. OIL-RESISTANT CRUSHED CELL FOAM GASKET WITH PSA BACKING
D. 3/B' STAINLESS STEEL BOLTS
E. ANCHOR SHIELDS DESCRIPTION DATE SCALE
OIL- DEBRIS HOOD 09~08/~~ NONE
US Patent # 6126817 AGENDA ITEM PAGE 7I SPECIFICATION AND
INSTALLATION DRAWING NUMBER
(TYPICAL) S P-S N
i
• ®te•
2 1,~~ P M ~e ~1~ ~ iM
~ ~
General
The Manhole Flume` is a unique variation of
the Parshail concept designed for easy installa-
- tion in standard manholes. Its fiberglass
~ ~ reinforced polyester resin construction, for
• long life and corrosion resistance, incorporates
I r~' a low head trapezoidal design in conjunction
-
~ 1~ J with a hooded outlet collector and pipe spud.
-
- ~ The hooded section, following the throat,
- lp~` ' ' preverits bypass leakage under normal flows,
~,r:,,,_~.: ~ :u
- yet allows nearly unrestricted flows during
emergency conditions. This minimizes the
~ roblems associated with other t es of weirs
~ P YP
or flumes during excessive flooding,
Features
Description
Easy Installation / The Manhole Flume is a low head loss, self-
Excellent Rangeability / cleaning flow measurement device especially
designed to easily fit into standard manholes.
Adapts to Standard Wastewater 1 No enlargement of the manhole riser or lid
Conveyance Pipe is necessary. The flume adapts to any standard
wastewater conveyance pipe. The Eastech
Accurate t Badger flume allows accurate measurement
over an unsurpassed flow range when com-
Sized to Fit 4"to 12"Pipe 1 pared to other inserts. The upstream approach
and throat velocities significantly reduce
solids deposition.
Que to the proportional head rise/flow rate
characteristics for all Manhole Flumes, the unit
can be used in conjunction with the Eastech
Badger Vantage 2200 ultrasonic flow meter to
compute the flow rate.
Sizing
Selection of a Manhole Flume is dependent
upon manhole pipe size. Flumes are available
for pipe sizes 4;'6'; 8';10"and 12"to accommo-
date alarge percentage of metering applica-
tions.The flume's design allows accurate
monitoring of extremely low flow white
having excellent rangeability -much greater
than other insert flumes.
~ FLOW
'U.S. Patent No.3934472
AGENDA ITEf~ PAGE
Manhole Flume Capacities Ordering Guide and Dimensional Data
20 ~ '
10' FLUME-? ~ ' ' ' ~ ~
1 8' FLUME-~ 4" MF4 17.59" 7.55" 4 lbs. 90 gpm 5.84"
N
g 6' FLUME
;1 ~ 8 12' FLUME 6" MF6 19.37" 9.68" 81bs. 250 gpm 8.65"
$ 4'FLUME~
~ 8" MF8 24.12" 12.82" 12 lbs. 550 gpm 12.17"
m
= z Q = K x H''95 10" MF10 28.69" 15.59" 17 lbs. 1000 gpm 15.54"
12" MF12 33.49" 18.78" 24 lbs. 1500 gpm 18.00"
,o so loo soo 200o Measuring point is one pipe diameter upstream from throat
Flow Rale (GPM)
Calibrations Sample Specifications -
The Manhole Flume exhibits reproducible head An Eastech Badger Manhole Flume'M, Model ,shall
rise/flow characteristics throughout its size range. be installed in the inch diameter pipe as shown in
The flumes are characterized by the common the plans and in accordance with the manufacturer's recom-
equation: Q = K x H1.ss mendations. The Manhole Flume shall be a single unit
Flume K rector construction of fiberglass reinforced polyester consisting of
a" 2 88 a measuring throat, hooded outlet section and a pipe spud
Q = Ftow (GPM) for insertion into the discharging pipe. The flume shall have
6" 3.72 K = K rector a common head versus flow relationship for all sizes.
8" 4.21 H =Head Rise (inches)
10" 4.75
12" 5.34
flume Dimensions
FLUME DIMENSIONS (inches)
Nom.
Pi D E H 1 L M N
4" 7.55 6.00 10.94 17.59 1.69 0.3H o
6" 9.68 9.00 9.03 1937 9.98 0.36
8" 12.82 12.00 10.33 24.12 13.10 0.48
10" 15.59 15.00 11.49 26.69 15.84 0.59
H J
12" 18.78 18.00 12.80 33.49 18.79 0.72
L
E
T ~o~
~
N EYE BOLT
Alt rights reserved. All data subject to change without notice.
4250 S. 76th E. Avenue • Tulsa, OK • 74145
FLOW TECHNOLOGY GROUP f 918-664-1212 800-226-3569 Fax: 918-664-8494 email: eastechbadger.com
r P~~E 73
BGT
Residential Water Systems
Goulds Pum s
p
IRRI-GATORT"' Self-Priming
GT Centrifugal Pumps - 60 Hz
FEATURES
CO ¦Self-Priming Design: Once pump is primed,
filled with water, it never needs priming
again even if water level drops below the
end of the suction pipe. Pumping resumes
once the water level rises above the end of
the suction pipe.
¦ Serviceable:
~ Back pullout design allows disassembly of
pump for service without disturbing piping.
. ~ • Two compartment motor for easy access to
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ motor wiring and replaceable components.
~ - ¦ Diffuser (Guidevane): Bolt down diffuser
provides positive alignment with impeller.
~ ~~W'
~ Diffuser has stainless wear ring for extended
performance in abrasive conditions. F.D.A.
compliant, injection molded, food grade,
New base on i v, - 3 HP moao~s. glass filled Lexan®for durability and abra-
sion resistance.
¦ Impeller: F.D.A. compliant, glass filled
Noryl''. Corrosion and abrasion resistant.
¦ Corrosion Resistant: Electro-coat paint
process is applied inside and out, then
baked on.
¦ Casing: Cast iron construction. Four (4) bolt,
GOU LDS PUMPS back pull-out design. Tapped openings pro-
' vided for vacuum gauge and casing drain.
¦ Powered for Continuous Operation: Pump
ratings are within the motor manufacturer's
Goulds Pun,ps s ~3 brand of iT- corporat or recommended working limits. Can be oper-
ated continuously without damage.
www.gou~ds.co~n ¦ Mechanical Seal: Carbon/ceramic faces,
BUNA elastomers. 300 series stainless steel
metal parts. Pump design prevents the seal
Engineered for IZfe from running dry.
~GFt~~A ITE;~~ # ,PAGE
GOULDS PUMPS
Residential Water Systems
APPLICATIONS • Maximum working pressure: AGENCY LISTINGS
Specifically designed for the 125 PSfG.
following uses: • Maximum water temperature: ~ ~ Canadian Standards
140° F (60° C). Association
• Lawn sprinkling • Rotation: Clockwise when
• Irrigation viewed from motor end.
• Air conditioning systems Motor: U Underwriters
• Heat pumps • NEMA standard open drip ~ L laboratories
• Water transfer proof.
• DeWatering • 60 Hz, 3500 RPM. Goulds Pumps is 150 9001 Registered.
• Stainless steel shaft.
SPECIFICATIONS • Single phase: 3/o-1Yz HP, STANDARD ODP MODELS
Pump: 115/230 V; 2 and 3 HP, Model HP Phase
• Pipe connections: 230 V only. Built-in overload Gro7 3i,
1'/z"NPT suction with automatic reset. oT;o i 1
1'h" NPT discharge • Three phase: 230/460 V. GT15 t ~i~ t
• Capacities: to 110 GPM at Overload protection must GT2a z
5 foot suction lift. be provided in starter unit. GT3o 3
• Heads: to 128 feet. Starter and heaters (3) must be GTO73 I 3i<
ordered separately. GT103 1
• Reprime capabilities: to 25 • Options! TEFL motors are avail- cT1s3 1v: 3
feet suction lift. able. See price book for order GTZo3 2
numbers. GT303 3
DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHTS
Model GT07 ~ GT10 GTiS GT20 GT30 G1073 ~ G7103 GT153 GT203 I GT303
HP Y< 1 1'/a 2 3 3/a 1 1'/t 2 3
Length"~' 19/15 19'/• 213/16 2O9/f6 21"/37 19 193/4 zO'/I6 203/;6 2i3llfi
Width _ 8Y.
Height 9'/.
Weight (Ibs.) 48 52 60 65 76 49 52 SS 69 71
Phase Single Three
(All dimensions are in inches and weights in lbs. Do not use for construction purposes.)
1'/i' NPT DISCHARGE 3~/1 ~ "L"
1'/:"SUCTION
3
- - -r--
3vd
49/5 I_
~ L I I
7
8
8'/.
2
GOULDS PUMPS
Residential Water Systems
PERFORMANCE CURVE
METERS FEET I
40
120 ~
Y 100
30 i i
V 80
~ 20' I
Q i _ _ I
~ 20 25' - - - - - 15 -
p 2 S'
60 _ t 5'
C 0'_- - ~ - -
~ 15'
4D 10'
10 p-.. t 0'
10' _ I_
20 G o I
5' s' S'
G 1 GT 0 G. 30_
0 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 U.S. GPM
0 5 10 1 S 20 25 m3/hr.
GALLONS PER MINUTE (Q)
Single and three phase have same performance.
PERFORMANCE RATINGS SELF-PRIMING (AFTER INITIAL PRIME)'
Psi Suction Lift in feet
Model Discharge
Pressure 5 10 15 20 25 °I~ _ I h
20 44 41 36 31 24 ~ i
GT07/ ° °
GT073 30 34 31 26 22 14 0, o °23'0° y
40 10 ~ 0 0 0 °
20 53 51 49 46 41
GT10/ 30 43 dt 38 36 32
GT103 - Water recirur4ites, ~ Arrors shoe: lcw of
40 29 22 16 8 0 but during re~purmng waver after alp a'• has
20 63 59 54 49 39 operation only. been exhausted from
Air ~s exhausted from suet oa iinc.
GT15/ 30 60 55 51 46 37 suction Mme through
GT153 ~ discharye pipe.
40 4S 38 33 20 14
20 86 77 70 59 46
GT20/ 30 80 72 67 S7 44
GT203
40 65 60 S7 SO 43
20 105 100 88 76 60
GT30/ 30 92 90 84 7S 57
GT303
40 73 67 62 55 50
Performance ratings are in GPA~.
Residential Water Systems
COMPONENTS
Item No. Descri tion
Plug -'/a" NPT
2 Casing
3 Seal ring -diffuser
4 Diaphragm
5 Machine screw
6 Diffuser
7 Impeller
8 Mechanical seal
9 Foot
10 Bolt - foot to adapter
11 Motor adapter
12 Bolt-casing to adapter
i3 Bolt-adapter to motor
14 Deflector
o
o -
14
13
~ G ~ 9
3
~ ~ 2
G OU LDS PUMPS
Goulds Pumps, GT Irri-gator and the ITT Fngir.eered Blocks Symbol
are registered :rademarks and tradenames of ITT Corporation.
~1oryl and Lexan are registered trademarks of GE Plastic.
SPECIFICATIONS ARE SUBJECt 70 CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE.
BGT June, 2008
c~ ?008 ITT Coroo~ation
Engineered for life
Attachment H
• ~ ' STATE OF COLORADO
- ~ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
']~~r'
I
~ GUIDE TO COLORADO WELL PERMITS,
WATER RIGHTS, AND WATER ADMINISTRATION
January 2008
Also known as the State Engineer's Office, the
Colorado Division of Water Resources issues water well
pernrits; administers water rights, monitors stream flow and
What Type of Well Permit 2 water use, inspects dams for safety, maintains databases of • _
Can I Get? Colorado water information, and represents Colorado in
interstate water compact proceedings. The Division of fem.-:
Obtain a Well Permit 5 Water Resources strives to be a leader in the water commu-
Within a Designated Basin - -
pity of Colorado and the western United States. This is
Are Your Well Permits Still B accomplished by focusing on the following areas: people,
Valid? water and stewardship. People, because we recognize that
the business of water involves our employees and the
Residential Wells and g public. Water, because the administration, safety and use of
Subdivisions Colorado's water resources is something to which we are I
Purchasing Property With B committed and about which we care deeply. Siewar~lship,
a Well or Water Rights because we understand and accept our obligation to the _ _ _
taxpayers and ourselves, in using and protecting the Lake I~opo in the San
Well is Within 660 Feet of I I resources in the most effective manner possible. I Mignol River Basin I
an Existing Well
What is an Augmentation 12 ? ? ? ? ? ?
Plan?
What does the Division of Water Resources do?
What Can I Do With That 13
Spring on My Property? For over 12S years, Colorado Obviously, the State Lngi- ing water use and/or diversion
has used a system of water neer does not carry out the data, and enforcing the
Can I Bnild a Fishpond? 19 allocation known as the prior day-to-day administration decrees and water laws of the
appropriation doctrine. of all of these water rights. State of Colorado.
Water Rights in Colorado 15 Under this doctrine, the first Most of that work is
appropriator of water has a accomplished through the While water administration
How Do I Obtain a Water senior right to that water, and field offices, known as and enforcement is a major
~ 15 that right must be satisfied the Division Engineer's duty of the State Engineer, a
Right' before any subsequent rights Offices. The seven division host of other duties are under
Glossary of Terms 16 junior to that right can offices are located through- his responsibility. Ground
receive water. The Division out the state in each major water well permitting is one
of Water Resources is river basin. The division of those duties.
Contaet Information 19 empowered to adrtunister all offices, in turn, employ
surface and ground water water commissioners who By law, every new well in the
rights throughout the state are actually out in the field state that diverts ground water
and ensure that this doctrine allocating water, issuing must have a well permit. In
is enforced. shut-down orders, collect- order to obtain a permit, a
_
COLORADO DIUlSION OF Dick Wolfe, Director ,State Engineer
`WATER RESOURCES Harris D. Sherman, Executive Director, DNR
Bill Ritter Jr., Governor
Page 2
What does the Division of Water Resources do? (cont.)
person must file an application for records streamflows on a real-time submitted to the Commission for
approval of a permit with the State basis is also maintained by this office, approval. Further, the State Engineer
Engineer. Over 10,000 applications are and has become crucial in the state's provides staff assistance for the Board
submitted for review annually, and the flood monitoring efforts. Additionally, of Examiners of Water Well Construc-
staff deternlines the amount of water the staff acts in an advisory capacity to lion and Pump Installation Contractors.
available and analyzes the potential for county commissioners, provides advice This Board oversees the safe and
injury to other existing water rights to other state agencies, and plans for proper insta[Iation of well pump equip-
under strict statutory guidelines. fixture use and development of the rnent and regulates the proper, safe
waters of the state in conjunction with construction of wells throughout the
In addition to well permitting, the State other agencies. state.
Engineer's Office employs professional
engineers and geologists who collect "I'hc State Engineer also provides staff The Division of Water Resources, in
and analyze data on water supply to to assist in technical support to the cooperation with various local ground
forecast streamflows, determine diver- Colorado Ground Water Commission water management districts, operates a
sion requirements, investigate stream in the exercise of its duties in the statewide network for monitoring
transit losses, determine evaporation Designated Basins generally located on ground water levels. Over 1,500 wells
losses, and calculate historic use and the eastern plains of Colorado. Well are measured to assist in projecting
current conditions. A statewide satel- permits for wells (ocated in these ground water levels and to aid in the
lite-linked monitoring system that basins are evaluated by the staff and administration of ground water.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
What Type of Well Permit Can I Get?
The following discussion applies to more than fifteen gallons per minute. -
those areas of the state outside the Generally, wastewater disposal system, _ • -
designated ground water basins. Please are required to be of the non- - = - „ '
refer to the section of this guide titled, evaporative type, such as standard
"Now Do 1 OGtain a Wuter Well septic tank and leach field systems, ' _ -
Permit Within a Designated Barrn? where the return flow from the use of - ~ ~ '"~4~,."-._
for a discussion or. obtaining well the well is returned to the same stream ~ ~ • ~ • _
ermits within the desi Hated round drama ~e system in which the well is ' ~ y` •
water basins, and for information as to located.
where the designated basins are - - -
located. Except in linuted cases, an exempt well - ~ • _ a,,
permit will not be issued where either a ~ : ~ '
There are two different classes of municipality or a water district can
wells: those that are exempt from provide water to the property. In -Host g~d~ domeatia ~vatsr wall
water rights administration and are not cases, no more than one exempt well is Weld Qonnty
administered under the priority system, permit will be issued for a single lot.
and those that are non-exempt and are Dorncstrc and Lavestuck !~t%c:ils 'These
governed by the priority system. This Household U.re Only Wells -These types of well permits are issued on
section will explore the different types of well permits are issued for tracts of land of 35 acres or more where
ground water well permits that are ordinary household uses in one single- the proposed well will be the only well
available. family dwelling and do not allow for on the tract, or on tracts of land of less
outside water or livestock watering. than 35 acres in limited areas of the
E,xemnt Wells Generally, individuals may obtain this state where the surface drainage system
There are several types of exempt well type of permit if they own a lot in a is not over-appropriated (see glossary
permits whose uses vary depending subdivision that was created prior to term, over-appropriated), or where the
upon the situation. Uses are limited June 1, 1972, or the parcel was created well will produce from a deeper source,
specifically by the conditions of by an exemption to the subdivision thus having minimal impact on surface
approval stated on the permit when it is taws by the local county planning water rights. Depending on under what
issued. In most cases, exempt well authority. Use Form GWS-44 in apply- provisions the well permit is issued, the
permits limit the pumping rate to no ing for this type of permit. well may be able to serve up to three
What Type of Well Permit Can I Get? (cont.)
single-family dwellings, irrigate one routinely conducted by the local water well pemvts are for the purpose: of
acre or less of lawn and garden, and commissioners who work under the replacing or deepening an existing well.
provide water for the individual's direction of the division engineer of the The uses allowed under the original well
domestic animals and livestock. Use water division in which the well is transfer over to the new well. In some
Form GWS-44 in applying for this type located. Currently, there is no fee areas of the state, replacing the new well
of permit. charged for the investigation. Owners or deepening the existing well to a differ-
may also register wells used for ent water source (or aquifer), could affect
Neither of the two types of wells commercial purposes if the well was the uses allowed on the new well, or the
described above can provide water for put to beneficial use prior to May 8, ability to get a new permit for production
commercial uses. 1972, and the amount of ground water from a different water source. Use
diverted does not exceed one acre-foot Forms GWS-44 or 45, depending on the
Commercial Exempt We!!s - These per year (325,850 gallons) for drinking use of the original well, in applying for
types of well permits are available for and sanitary purposes inside the home this type of permit.
small businesses Located on lots that only.
were created prior to Jane 1, 1972, or Geoexchan~5ystems -These types of
by an exemption to the subdivision A question frequently asked is, "Does permits are for the constnrction and
laws. The use of the well is limited to a the state require landowners to register installation of loop fields in geoexchange
commercial business, like a conven- wells that were put to beneficial use systems. A geoexchange system is
fence store, and is limited tv the prior to May 8, 1>72 .for exempt defined as a heat pump or heat exchange
pumping of one-third acre-foul purposes?" The state cannot require system having a horizontal or vertical
(108,600 gallons) of water per year. people to register these wells until the closed-loop portion consisting of pipe
The uses of water are restricted to well needs to be redrilled. However, buried in trenches, boreholes, or wells
drinking and sanitation facilities inside there are benefits to registering these (ground-source), or submerged in a body
a single business. Outside water uses wells. The benefits include making it of water (water-source), in which a heat
are not allowed. Weil metering devices faster to obtain approval if the well exchange medium (fluid or vapor) is
are required. Examples of commercial needed to be redrilled, or the owner circulated and fully contained within the
uses that would not qualify under this intended to sell the land. Most poten- pipe or tubing. The purpose of the closed
provision are motels, commercial tial buyers and lending institutions loop is to provide for the transfer of heat
kennels, horse-boarding operations, and want assurance that the well on the between the circulating fluid or vapor
any commercial business with outside property is usable and registered with and the ground or water. Although these
uses. These uses are nun-exempt and a the state. Use Fonn GWS-12 in apply- systems do not appropriate subsurface
well permit would not be available in ing to register an existing well. fluids, they do utilise the earth's geother-
over-appropriated areas of the state mal properties, therefore, requiring a
without augmentation. Use both Forms Monitoring and Observation Wells - permit. Prior to issuance of a permit, the
GWS-45 and GWS-57 in applying for These types of well permits are for the applicant must become certified, For
this type of permit. construction of a well to be used for the more information regarding the certifica-
purpose of locating water, pump or lion and permitting process, refer to the
Unregistered Existing; Wells - The aquifer testing, monitoring ground Geothermal Rules. A copy of the rules
above types of well permits are avail- water, or collection of water quality can be obtained for a nominal fee from
able for any existing unregistered well samples. A monitoring and observa- the Division of Water Resources, or
that was put to beneficial use prior to lion well may be converted from an accessed through the website http://
May 8, 1972, serving up to three existing monitoring and observation water.state.ca.us, click on Rules and
homes, irrigating home gardens and hole and permitted for the uses as Regulations. Use Form GTC in applying
lawns, and watering the user's own stated above, or as a recovery well or a fur certification and Forn GWS-72 for a
domestic animals and livestock. The dewateriug system (see discussion on pernit to construct geoexchange system
well can be registered for the historic Monitoring and Observation Hole, loop fields.
uses if those uses are no greater than Recovery Well, and Dewater•ing
those allowed for a domestic and System). A well constructed under a Non-Exempt Wells
livestock well permit. Personnel of the monitoring and observation well permit Any type of use other than those
Division of Water Resources will may be converted by permit to other described above are usually for non-
conduct afield investigation to verify uses. Use Form GWS-46 in applying exempt purposes. In over-appropriated
the well's existence, and the historic for this type of permit. areas of the state, new non-exempt wells
uses being claimed on the permit must replace any out-of-priority stream
application. The investigations are Replacement Wellc -These types of depletions in time, place, amount, and
!`-~GE1V0~, ITEM ,PAGE ~
Pale 4
What Type of Well Permit Can I Get? (cont.)
quality by having augmentation water would have to be added to the existing depletions from evaporation (refer to
available. A plan for augmentation plan, if possible, through a water court Sections 37-90-137(1 l)(a), 37-90-
must be approved by the water court to process, or alternatively, anew plan 107, 37-80-120(5), and 37-92-305
prevent injury to senior water right approved by the court. Use Form GWS- (12)(a), CRS, for specific requirements
holders by replacing the amount of 44 in applying for this type of permit, regarding gravel pit wells). Colorado
water consumed by the non-exempt _ ~ state statutes can be accessed from the
uses. Development of plans for ~ _ ~ state of Colorado website http://
augmentation usually require the _ colorado.gov. Use Fvrm GWS-27 in
services of a water resource consult- "'t' ' - applying for this type of permit.
ing engineer and water attorney (see ~
section of this guide titled, "What is Pnnd Wells -These types of permits
an ~Iugmentation Plan? Non- _ _ are for the constnuction of new ponds,
exem t well ennits icall llow ` r?''• ' _ or the ennittin of existin onds that
P P tYP Y P g 8 P >
pumping rates and atutua[ withdra~~ ~f ~ , r -expose ground water. For new pro-
als of ground water in excess of those ~ r~• • _ _ •_J_^'~'~ nosed pvnds that will expose ground
allowed by exempt well petmit~. ~ ~.~~fi~ •,vater, anon-exempt well permit must
New non-exempt wells must b : obtained from the State Engineer
located more than 600 feet from any - ~ ~ :prior to construction since the pond
other production well not owned by would be considered a well by statutory
the applicant unless the State F,ngi- Center PiFOt Irrigation in Paradox I definition. All of the laws governing
Weer, after a hearing, finds that cir- the construction and use of wells apply.
cumstances in a particular instance Ir. veer-appropriated areas of the state,
warrant issuing the permit, or after Ilep/acerr:ent {1'elLs - T}:ese types of~well a plan for augmentation would have to
proper notice has been given to other permits are for the purpose of replacing be obtained to replace any out-of=
well owners as outlined in the Colvrado or deepening an existing well. The uses priority depletions caused by the pond,
State Statutes (see section of this guide allowed under the original well transfer or the pond must be lined to prevent the
titled, "If My Propr~sed Non-Exempt over to the new well. In some areas of interception of ground water (see
Gruzn~cl Water Well it Within 600 Feet the state, replacing the original well with section of• this guide titled, "Can 1
of an Existing Well, Whar Happens? anew well or deepening the existing Build a Fishpond? " for further discus-
well to a different water source (or sion). LJse Form GWS-45 in applying
Irrigation, Commercial, Alunicipal, & aquifer) than the original well, could for this type of permit.
Industrial -Although nut intended to affect the uses allowed on the new well,
be a complete listing, these types of or the ability to get a new permit for Recover;
iy
dells -These types of well
well permits include the more common production from a difference water permits are issued for wells to be used
non-exempt type uses. Typical exam- source. Use Fonns GWS-45 and 44, for the purpose of removing contami-
pies of these four use categories include depending on the use of the original Hants from, or otherwise remediating,
center-pivot crop irrigation systems, well, in applying for this type of permit. ground water. In over-appropriated
commercial business operations with areas of the state, a plan for augmen-
inside and outside uses, central water Gravel Pit Wells -These types of well tation would be req=aired if the con-
distribution systems providing drinking permits are issued for gravel pit sumptive use of ground water for the
water to residential subdivisions and operations where ground water is entire recovery project exceeds 1/30 of
municipalities, and water used in the exposed. The passage of Senate Bill an acre-foot (10,862 gallons) per year
manufacturing of a product. Use Fonn 89-120 by the Colorado Legislature (see Policy Memorandum 94-5 fvr
GWS-45 in applying for this type of provided that any gravel pit in operation more detailed inforniation). Use Fonn
permit. after December 31, 1980, that exposed GWS-45 in applyine for this type of
ground water to the atmosphere, must permit.
Subdivision Wtalr with tlu~tinentution replace all out-of-priority depletions of
Plans - If a lot was part of a subdivi- ground water. It also required that a well Geotl?er_n~ul Wells -These types of
Sion created after June 1, 1972, for pernit be obtained from the State well permits are issued for wells to be
most areas of the state, the well uses Engineer for use of the ground water. used for the purpose of exploring for,
will be governed by a plan fvr augmen- Existing gravel pits that exposed ground monitoring of, or using geothermal
tation and whatever uses the plan water to the atmosphere, but ceased resources, or re-injecting geothermal
specifies. Any uses beyond those activity prior to January 1, 1981 are not fluids. For more infornation regarding
allowed by the plan for augmentation required to be permitted or replace the permitting and use of this type of
~GEt~DR i c EIS # , , ~ ~ .
What Type of Well Permit Can I Get? (cont.)
well, refer to the Geothermal Kules. A on the notice. with the rules. An Abandonment
copy of the rules can be obtained fora Keport (Form GWS-9) must be submit-
nominal fee from the Division of Water Monita•inQ and Observation Holes - ted within sixty days after abandoning
Resources, or accessed through the These are temporary holes constructed any test hole that penetrates through a
website http://www.water.state.co.us, after proper notice and in accordance confining layer. Use Form GWS-51
click on Rules and Kegulations. Use with the Water Well Construction Rules. when providing Notice of Intent to
Form GWS-45 in applying for this type A Well Construction and Test Report Construct this type of structure.
of permit and include supplemental (Form GWS-31), referencing the
documentation as required by the rules. acknowledged notice number, must be Dewatering YVells -These wells are
submitted within sixty days after con- any excavation or other ground pene-
Dewatering S
stv
ems -These types of strutting the hole. A monitoring and tration for temporary dewatering pur-
well permits are for a permanent well, observation hole must either be poses exclusively related to construc-
drain, sump or other excavation abandoned in accordance with the niles tion projects. A dewatering well may
constnucted for the purpose of keeping within one year of construction or be constructed only after proper Notice,
the water table below a desired level. converted by pernmit to a monitoring and and must be plugged and abandoned
A dewatering system may be converted observation welt, recovery welt, or within one year of being constructed.
by permit from a monitoring and dewatering system. If abandoned, a Upon written request for variance, and
observation hole, dewatering well, or Well Abandonment Report (Form as warranted by project considerations,
recovery well. Use Form GWS-45 in GWS-9) must be submitted within sixty the one-year abandonment requirement
applying for this type of permit. days after abandoning the hole. A moni- may be extended. For non-construction
toying and observation hole cannot be projects or when long-term dewatering
Other Structures converted to a production well other than is required, application can be made for
The types of borehole structures a recovery well or a dewatering system. a dewatering system using Form GWS-
discussed below can be constructed Use Form GWS-51 when providing 45. Use Form GWS-62 when provid-
upon tiling of a proper Notice of Intent Notice of Intent to Construct this type of ing Notice of Intent to Construct this
to Construct with the State Engineer's stnteture. type of structure.
Office. Notices must be submitted at
least three days prior to construction. Test Ihles _jthat penetrate through a For more detailed information regard-
Faxed notices are acceptable. The con ming laver) -These holes are any ing any of the above well uses, contact
boreliote structures must be constructed excavation or other ground penetration the Denver office, Ground Water
within ninety days of the date of notice. for the purpose of geotechnical, Information at 303-866-3587, or one of
A separate notice must be provided for geophysical or geologic investigation, or the seven Water Division offices (see
each 40-acre quarter/quarter section in collecting soil or rock samples. A test Contact Information on the back of this
which a borehole structure will be hole that penetrates through a confining guide). Permit application forms are
constnrcted. More thar. one borehole layer must submit proper notice before available from the Denver office and
structure can be constructed on the cormstnrction. A test hole shall not Division offices, or from the Division
same quarterlquarter section, provided remain open longer than twenty days, of Water Resources' website at
the number of boreholes are indicated and must be abandoned in accordance http://www.water.state.co.us.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
How do I Obtain a Water Well Permit Within a Designated Basin?
You might be wondering what desig- within the Designated Basins is referred years preceding the date of the first
nated basins are and where they are to as designated ground water. Desig- hearing on the proposed designation of
located. The Designated Ground Water nated ground water is ground water the basin, and which is within the
Basins (or Designated Basins) are those which, in its natural course, is not avail- geographic boundaries of a designated
areas of the state established by the able to or required for the fulfillment of ground water basin.
Colorado Ground Water Commission decreed surface rights, or ground water
in accordance with Section 37-90-106, in areas not adjacent to a continuously Backe>rvunrl
CRS. The Designated Basins are lo- flowing natural stream; wherein ground The Colorado Ground Water Commis-
cated in the Front Range and in Eastern water withdrawals have constituted the sion (Commission) is a regulatory and
Colorado (see Figure 1). Ground water principal water usage for at least 15 an adjudicatory body authorized by the
Page 8
How do I Obtain a Water Well Permit Within a Designated Basin? (cont.)
General Assembly to manage and We[1 Permitting N'itiain the 1. Determinations of ground water in
control designated ground water Designated Basins the Denver Basin bedrock aquifers,
resources within the state of Colorado. In the administration of designated Section 37-90-107(7), CRS.
1'he General Assembly has granted the ground water; the Commission has the 2. New well permits, Section 37-90-
Comrnission this authority under Title sole authority to grant any new water 107, CRS.
37, Article 90 of the Colorado Revised rights or changes in water rights 3. Replacement well permits, Section
Statutes (Ground Water Management involving designated ground water. 37-90-1 l l(I)(c), CRS.
Act). This Act further describes the The water courts do not have any 4. Final permits, Section 37-90-108,
Commission's formation, organization, approval authority concerning desig- CRS.
and duties. Hated ground water. Furthermore, 5. Changes to water rights, Section
designated ground water management 37-90-! t I { I)(g), CRS.
The Commission consists of twelve districts do not have any permitting 6. Replacement plans, Section 37-90-
members, nine of whom are appointed authority within Designated Basins. 107.5, CRS.
by the governor and three others who The districts can only provide recorn-
consist of the Executive Director of the mendations to the Commission on any For each of the aforementioned activi-
Department of Natural Resources given application. For the small ties, the applicant must make applica-
(DNR), the Director of the Colorado capacity wells, the districts may adopt tion to the Commission on a form
Water Conservation Board (CWCB), rules, in accordance with Section prescribed by the Commission. A
and the State Engineer, Director of the 37-90-105(7), CRS, that may affect the filing fee, as listed on the fee schedule
Division of Water Resources (DWR). issuance of permits for such wells. on our web page, must accompany each
The Commission meets on a quarterly Additionally, after the issuance of well water right sought. For example, each
basis every year, in February, May, permits, the districts have their own determination of water right application
August and November. The State authority to administer ground water or each well permit within a change of
Engineer is the Executive Director of within their boundaries. water right application must have the
the Commission who carries out and appropriate filing fee.
enforces all decisions, orders and Grvund Water Commission
policies of the Commission. Currently, The perrnit.ting activity of the Commis- With new appropriations, the Comnus-
the Commission has established eight sior. can be broken down into six Sion must first determine if the applica-
designated basins and 13 ground water categories. Each of the following tion can be given favorable considera-
management districts within such activities is performed by the State tion. This means that water is available
basins. A listing of these basins and Engineer through authority granted him for appropriation, the withdrawal will
districts are contained in Table 1 and by the Commission: not cause unreasonable impairn~ert to
diagrammed in Figure 1. other vested water rights, and the with-
drawal is not unreasonably wasteful,
The Commission also considers
Table 1 whether the application would be
Designated Ground Water Basins and speculative. Once favorable considera-
Ground Water Mana ement Districts tion is established, the Commission
Desi mated Ground Water Basin Ground Water :Mana ement Districts will publish the application in the
county where the water right is being
Kiowa-Bijou North Kiowa-Bijou sought. Any objections to applications
Southern High Plains Southern High Plains for new water rights are processed in
Upper Black Squirrel Creek Upper Black Squirrel Creek accordance with Section 37-90-113,
Lost Creek Lost Creek CRS, and the "Rules of Hearings fur
Camp Creek
Upper Big Sandy Upper Big Sandy All Adjudicatory Hearings Before the
Upper Crow Creek C,round Water Commission," 2 CCR
Northern High Plains Plains 402-3. For new water rights that are
Sand Hills approved by the Commission or have
Arikaree successfully completed the hearing
Frcnchrnan process, the Commission prepares a
Central Yuma County Commission Findings and Order. The
~'i'-Y l-findings and Order would include,
East Cheyenne
Marks Butte among other items, the average annual
amount of water that can be appropri-
How do I Obtain a Water Weli Permit Within a Designated Basin? (cont.)
Before the Uround Water struct small capacity wells within the
Commission," 2 CCR designated basins (Section 37-90-105,
""~'i~ y 402-3. Once the Com- CRS). The ground water management
tU~ ~{=t~~-••• mission approves the districts have some authority to direct
~ _ ~ change, or the applicant the State Engineer as to how to issue
, ~t _ successfully completes small capacity wells within their
i ,L the hearing process, the respective district through properly
' Commission will again adopted rules (Section 37-90-105(7),
~ ~ ` I issue a Findings and CRS).
NOIUkVIi {~.i(K
a,~„ Order authorizing said
~ change. The Findings Sma11 capacity well permits are issued
Qen'" and Order would include, pursuant to statute. These wells are
" among other items, the intended to be small use wells for
average annual amount residences (maximum three single-
N of'water that can be with- family), livestock and small commer-
drawn, the location of cial operations. These wells are limited
P use, the proposed benefi- to no more than one acre of lawn and
cial uses, and any other garden irrigation.
conditions the Commis-
• Sion deems necessary to Application is made to the State
assure that no material Engineer with the appropriate filing
injury will occur to other fce. The State Engineer reviews the
water rights. application according to statute and
Fgure 1, properly adopted district rules. If the
Designated Ground Water Basins and As aforementioned, the application satisfies the statutory
Ground Water Management Districts Commission has the requirements and district rules, a permit
authority to conduct is issued to construct a well. This type
adjudicatory hearings and of application does not require a
these decisions are sub- publication or a final permit.
ated, the location of use, the proposed jest to judicial review. These hearings
beneficial uses and any other condi- by the Commission and judicial review If an applicant or other party is
lions the Cormission deems necessary of such decisions are controlled by the aggrieved by a decision of the State
to assure no unreasonable impairment provisions in Sections 37-90-113 Engineer (including the issuance or
to vested water rights. through 37-90-1 I5, CRS. Currently, denial of a well permit application), a
the Commission has delegated to its hearing is conducted before the State
With changes in water rights, the hearing officer the review of facts, con- Engineer pursuant to the Administra-
Commission can publish the appIica- elusions of law, and initial decisions of five Procedures Act (Section 24-4-t06,
lion without review. However, the the Commission concerning designated CRS).
Commission cannot grant any change ground water. This delegation
. .
that would materially injure another relieves the Commission from initial . , . - _ ~L:
vested water right. As a result, the hearing procedures and decisions. ~ • ~ -
Commission reviews change of water The Commission may hear or a'-= - ,ws_~ -
right applications before publication, review protests to the hearing offi- ~
and either continues with publication cer's decisions and acts as final ~ ~ ~ E r:.~
because no material in'u is evident administrative authori If a con- ' - t " - -
J rl' h'• .,.4:-µs.; -
or denies the application. If the testing party is still unsatisfied, this r--~ _ ?••K~ ~ -
Cornmission continues with the publi- party may appeal the Commission's ii~
cation, the publication is in the county decision to district court in the - .,~t ~I
where the change is being sought, county where the water right is ~
Again, any objections to applications located. f
for changes in water rights are proc- fit.
essed in accordance with Section State Lnrineer poinsettia farm in the Upper 131ack
37-90-113, CRS, and the "Rules of Only the State Engineer has the
Hearings for All Adjudicatory hearings authority to grant perrnits to con- Squirrel Designated Basin
Pag• 8
Are Your Well Permits Still Valid?
The expiration dale of a permit depends Beneficial lase filed within three T:7e well must be drilled prior to the
on the statute under which the pemtit years from the date of issuance of expiration date of the permit.
was issued and on the status of the the permit. For information on filing • The pump can be installed and the
well. Generally, on recently issued late Statements of Beneficial Use, well used at any time if the well was
well permits, the applicable statute is contact Ground Water Information or timely constructed.
cited in the permit conditions in the one of the seven Water Division After the above-zeferenced criteria have
well permit. The pemtit expiration date offices (see Contact Information on been met, the pemtit will not expire.
appears in the lower right hand comer the back of this guide). (Note: For permits issued under
of the welt permit. The timelines and • For perntits issued under Section 37- Sections 37-92-602 and 37-90-105,
specific requirements for different 90-107(7}, CRS, the pump can be CRS, the permit expiration date can be
types of wells are: installed and the well used at any extended for• additional one-year
time after well completion. The well periods upon receipt of a written
Sections 37-90-137, 37-9U-107, and owner must file a Notice of Com- request and showing gfgood cause.)
37-9U-107(7}, CRS, Permits - .~'on- mencement oi' Beneficial Use within
Exempt Wells and Large Capacity 30 days of use of the well Extensions
Wells (permits issued for one year): After the above-referenced criteria have Requests for extensions must be
• For permits issued under the sections been met, the permit will not expire. received in our office prior to the
referenced above, the well must be
drilled prior to the expiration date of [Note: For permits issued under Ser- expiration date of the permit. Requests
tionr 37-90-137, 37-90-107, and 37-90- may be faxed, with the original and any
the permit. 107(7), CRS, the permit expiration date required fees to follow within a few
• For perntits issued under Section 37- can be extended one time .ror ore year days. If the expiration date has passed,
90-137, CRS, the State F.nginecr's maximum, upon receipt of a written we cannot grant an extension. Ilow-
Office must receive evidence that the request, a showing of good cause, and ever, if the well owner has complied
well was constructed and pump the appropriate frling fee. with the provision of the law, except
installed prior to the expiration date that they failed to file the necessary
of the permit. For permits issued Sections 37-92-602 and 37-90-105, forms in a timely manrtcr, they should
under Section 37-90-107, CRS, the CRS, Permits -Exempt Wells and file a request for acceptance of the
pump must be installed, water put to Small Capacity Wells (permits issued forms in accordance with the above
beneficial use, and a Statement of for two years): referenced sections.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Residential Wells and Subdivisions
On May 5, 1972, legislation was applications which are located in subdi- for water supply reports, while Section
enacted which mandated that counties visions approved on or after June 1, 30-28-136 describes the review proc-
adopt subdivision regulations requiring 1972, far which the water supply plan ess. These statutes may be viewed at
developers to provide data, studies, and has aot been approved by the State the state of Colorado website under the
analyses for their proposed subdivision Engineer, the cumulative effect of all government Links. For new subdivi-
of land. The studies were to include, such wells in the subdivision shall be sions in over-appropriated areas, a plan
among other items, adequate evidence considered in determining material for augmentation, approved by the
that a water supply was available and injury. The teen subdivision is defined water court, or a replacement plan
that the quality, quantity, and depend- in Section 30-28-101, CRS, and does approved by the Colorado Ground
ability was sufficient. in turn, the State not apply to any division.of land, which Water Commission for areas within the
Engineer was required to review the creates parcels equal to or greater than Designated Basins, is required before
water supply information and issue an 35 acres. he Division of Water residential well permits can be granted.
opinion regarding injury to other vested Resources reviews water supply reports
water rights and the adequacy of the for new subdivisions upon referral from Wher. applying for a permit to con-
water supply. the county as required by Section struct a residential well on a parcel of
30-28-13ti(h), CRS. A water supply less than 35 acres, the application may
Under Sections 37-92-602(3)(b)(III) report is required for all subdivision need to he supplemented with addi-
and 37-90-105(3)(c), CRS, in evaluat- proposals. Section 30-28-133(3)(d), tional information concerning the tract
ing residential household well permit CRS, describes the basic requirements of land on which the well will be
~~~~%A ~T~1~ , PACE g~
Residential Wells and Subdivisions (cont.)
located. "Phis informatior, is necessary block, filing number, and subdivi- quarter corner so the parcel can be
for the evaluation of the application. if sion name. While our records located on a USGS quadrangle map
the proposed location of the well will be reflect when many recorded subdivi- (scale of 1" - 2000'), or other Divi-
in an over-appropriated stream system, sions were platted, if this office has sion of Water Resources mapping
or in a Designated Ground Water Basin, no information on the subdivision, or tools. If the legal description is too
additional information detailing the incomplete. information, then infor- lengthy to fit on the application form,
legal description of the tract, and when mation verifying the creation date of then the description should be sub-
or how that tract was created, is the subdivision must be submitted miffed on a separate sheet and refer-
typically required. A current deed for before the application can be enced in the application. The parcel
the subject property on which a well evaluated. size indicated on the application
pem~it is being sought must accompany 2. If the parcel was created prior to should agree with the area identified
the applicador. to provide proof of June 1, 1972, but is not in a subdivi- by the legal description.
ownership. The following inforn~ation sion, then a copy of a recorded deed, 3. If the parcel was created by an
' is intended to aid in preparing and a county approved plat map, or other exemption from the definition of a
canpleting a well permit application of document with a legible date show- subdivision, then a copy of one or
this type. ing that such action occarred prior to more of the following must be sub-
June I, 1972, must be submitted. milted: (a) the signed and dated
Application made pursuant to Sections The documentation must contain a County Commissioner's Resolution
' 37-92-602 or 37-90-105, CRS, for metes and bounds legal description concerning the exempted tract; or
residential use: that specifically identifies the subject (b) a copy of the county survey plat,
1. If the parcel is in a platted subdivi- parcel. The legal description must referencing approval of the recorded
sion, make sure to specify the lot, include a tie to a section corner or exemption.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Purchasing Property with a Well or Surface Water Rights: What to
Ask and Where to Get Additional Information
Purchasing property usually involves a all well pemmit files. files usually con- Contact Ground Water Information of
substantial financial investment and twin useful information about the well. the Denver office at 303-866-3587,
long-term commitment. Prior to To find the appropriate file, try to Monday through Friday, from 9:00
making a purchase, the more obtain the well permit number, or at a a.m. to 4:00 p.m., to inquire as to well
information you can obtain about any minimum, the section, township, and use restrictions.
water resources connected with the range location of the well and the name
property, the better aff you wilt be in of the party that may have obtained the !t/ell ~~umuin~ rates -Ask the seller or
the long nrn. well permit. Next, to obtain copies of realtor what the current pumping rate
files, contact the Records Section of of the well is. Well pumping rates are
Indi:~idual on-lot wells - If there is a this office at 303-866-3447, Monday measured in gallons per minute. Prior
residence on the property, find out if it through Friday, between the hours of to purchasing the property, consider
is served by an individual on-lot. well or 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., or visit the having a well pump test done by a
central water supply system. If served Denver office. (Note: The Records qualified party, such as a Colorado
by a well, ask questions about the well. Section is closed the last Friday of each licensed pump installer or water well
How old is it'? Is it registered with the month.) Find out what the water use driller. A current listing of pump
Division of Water Resources'? if it was restrictions are. Water uses are installers and drillers, arranged alpha-
put to use prior to May 8, 1972, it may restricted by Colorado state statutes, betically by city, is available on our
or may not be registered (refer to the well permit conditions of approval, website at http://www.tivater.stale.co.us.
discussion on Unregi.cter~ed F.xistin~ county regulations, and subdivision Low-yield wells may be able to supply
Wells under the section titled, "lhhat covenants. Don't fall into the trap, as a sufficient quantity of water for the
Type of Well Permit Can 1 Get? many have when purchasing property, intended purpose if used in conjunction
Any production well used for residen- of envisioning your own little paradise, with properly sized storage tanks and
tial and/or livestock watering purposes, complete with borne, lawns, gardens controlled pumping systems. There
that was constructed after May 8, 1972, and horses, only to find out that the will be some water storage in the well
should have a pem~it file on it. The well use restrictions limit the use of itself. For every foot of water in a
Division of Water Resources maintains ground water to in-house uses only. typical residential well with afour-inch
Pages 10
Purchasing Property with a Well or Surface Water Rights (cont.)
diameter casing, there are 0.66 of a tally to the nearest source of contami- is to promulgate rules and regulations
gallon of water in storage. You can do pants or 50 feet from a septic tank, under which contractors must. operate.
a quick assessment of daily water needs sewer line or other vessel containing The latest revision to the Water Well
for in-house uses only. A rule of contaminants, unless a variance to this Construction Rules became a#fective
thumb is to allow 75 gallons per person nrle is granted by the Roard of F.xarnin- on January 1, 2005. A copy of these
per day. Therefore, a family of four ers of Water Well Construction and rules is available from this office for a
will require approximately 300 gallons Pump Installation Contractors. State, nominal fee, or can be accessed from
per day for in-house uses. Again, a county, municipal or Local government our website. In general, the well
qualified well tester could be helpful in regulations must be complied with if should be constructed with watertight
properly assessing the well's capabifi- more stringent than the Board of Exam- steel surface casing and joints installed
ties and providing recommendations iners' Water Well Construction Rules. from a minimum of one foot above, to
regarding aloes-yield well situation. Are there any existing abandoned wells a minimum of nineteen feet below
on the property that are open and not ground level. The space between the
Well ~.vater quality, public Izealth and plugged? 'try talking to neighboring borehole wall and the surface casing
su c<t -Ask about the current water property owners who are on well water should be grouted in accordance with
quality. Prior to purchasing the prop- and get their continents on water qual- the Water Well Construction Rules to
erty, consider having the well water ity. Ask if they know the depths of prevent contaminants from entering
tested by astate-certified laboratory. their wells and compare it with that of the borehole. If you have questions or
The Water Quality Control Division of the well you are assessing. 'their concerns regarding well corrstntction,
the Colorado Department of Public comments and experiences can be a you should contact staff of the Board
Health and Environment can be con- helpful source of information. by telephone at 303-866-3581, or in
tacted at 303-692-3500, and can writing addressed to: Board of Exam-
provide a listing of state-certified ~ ~ iners of Water Well Construction and
laboratories in Colorado. Information Pump Installation Contractors, Colo-
may also be accessed from their web- 1~ ~ ~ rado Division of Water Resources,
site at http://www.cdphe..rtate.co.us/H y,' ~ y 1313 Shemlan Street, Room 818,
wghvm.asp. You can also contact the Denver, CO 80203. An additional
County Health Department of the f source of general information about
county that the well is located in. water well construction is a pamphlet
. -
Some counties can perform a bacterio- ~yt:"'~ , by the American Ground Water Trust
logicat/coliform test for water potabil- r~'a~ in cooperation with the Colorado
.
ity. The Division of Water Resources ~ _ ~ _ Water Wcll Contractors Association
b,~; _
does not do any water quality testing. , ;",T ` • titled, "What Cvloradoarzs Need to
Do an on-site visual inspection of the ~ ~ : " ' Know About Water Well Construc-
well and property you are thinking of t lion." Contact the Colorado Water
purchasing. Is the well physically ~ _ ~ _ , y,: Well Contractors Association to obtain
Located on the property? Does the loca- ~ ~ ~ - a copy of this pamphlet. Their website
lion of the well allow for easy access address is: http://www.cwwca.org.
for repair and maintenance? Does the
well appear to be in a sanitary condi- I Fell eonetruotion near Northglenn I Well ownership trans/er - Each time
lion? Is the ground surface around the the ownership or mailing address of a
well head sloped such that there would 6YEr1! construcrion - l hip office cur- permitted well changes, a "Change in
be positive surface drainage away from rently has an inspection program in Ownership/Address" form (GWS-11)
it? Is the well casing visibly sticking place for well construction. While must be submitted to this office. No
up above the ground surface, and is inspections are not done for every well fee is required. The form can be
there aweather-tight sea[ on top of the constructed, random inspections are downloaded from our website at
casing? Does the visible well casing done throughout the state to ensure hnp://www.watcr.state.co.us, or may
appear to be made of steel? How far compliance with the Water Well Con- be obtained free of charge from the
away is the wellhead from any known sttuction Rules. Water well drilling Denver office or any one of our seven
contamination sources, such as septic contractors must be licensed and division offices (see Contact hzforma-
tank and leach field disposal systems? bonded. "j he contractor is licensed by tiozz, on the back of this guide).
The cun-eut Water Well Construction the Hoard of Examiners of Water Welt
Rules require that a well shall not be Constriction and Pump Installation Cezth•al Water Supply Systems - If
located closer than 100 feet horizon- Contractors. One function of the Board purchasing property that is served by a
AGEf~~~ I ~ ~M # 1 ; . ~~~E O 7
Purchasing Property with a Well or Surface Water Rights (cont.)
central water supply system, find out water rights could be lrom rivers and wafer rights. Ask to see any contrac-
what you can about the system and the streams, reservoirs, transmountain htal agreement with a ditch company or
supplier. Is the water supply from waters, or other wells. The water could supplier, or stock certificates of owner-
centrai wells or treated surface water be conveyed to the property by direct ship of shares of water. Sometimes
supplies, such as a reservoir? Who is pumping from the river or stream, but there is information on the property
responsible for operation and mainte- more typically, conveyance is by way deed regarding water rights, or on a
nance of the system? Consider contact- of a ditch or lateral, canal or possibly special water rights deed. If there is a
ing the water supplier and asking about through a pipeline. A commonly court decree involved, obtain a copy of
the reliability of the system, and the fee decreed use of this water is for irriga- the decree. This office maintains a
structure. Ask what water uses are lion purposes. Issues sometimes arise database of water rights that are
allowed. You may be able to obtain over a shareholder's inability to receive decreed through the water courts.
water quality information as well. A water due to the actions of other share- Copies can be acquired for a nominal
good source of contact infonnatiou for holders further up the ditch or lateral. fee. 'T'his database can be searched by
water suppliers is the Colorado Water Often, this office will receive calls location (quarter/quarter and quarter
Congress. Their telephone number and from such water users seeking resole- section, section number, township and
website are 303-837-0812 and http:// lion to these problems. range) to see if any water right exists at
tvww.cowatercongres,c.org. Addition- a specified location. Additionally, an
ally, there is an alphabetical listing of While the Division of Water Resources online water rights database can be
water districts for the Denvec Metro- is charged with the responsibility of accessed from our website at htlp://
politan area under the Special Districts administering water rights and for the wwrv.water•.state.co.us. Due to the
section of the city government white distribution of surface water within the potential complexity of water rights
pages phonebook. Lastly, the Depart- state, that distribution authority stops at acquisition, when contemplating the
meat of Local Affairs (DOLA) has the headgate of the main ditch where it purchase of property with water rights
online information regarding Data, diverts from the river or stream. We do associated with it, it may be advisable
Infor,-nation and Publications at http:// not administer surface water beyond to seek legal assistance from an attor-
wrvHadola.state.co. us/DataEtc.htm. the headgate. That becomes the hey knowledgeable in water rights.
responsibility of the individual ditch For additional information regarding
Other water riffs - In addition to an companies or private shareholders. the subject of water rights, refer to
individual on-lot residential use well or IIowever, this office will assist where other sections of this guide titled,
central water supply system, the possible in a resolution by providing "Water Rights in Colorado, " "Hntiv Uo
property you have purchased or may information or offering suggestions. ! Obtain a Wuter Right?, " "What is an
purchase might have water rights also- As a potential property purchaser, you Augmentation Plan?, " and '`Carr I
dated with it. The source of these can verify a seller's claims to having Build A Fishpond? "
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
If My Proposed Non-Exempt Ground Water Well is Within 600 Feet
of an Existing Well, What Happens?
If the 600-foot spacing rule applies to adversely impact their own existing llivisior. office personnel :nay verify
this well, the application is returned to well, and that they are waiving any this listing. The well pern~it evaluation
the applicant and they are given the objection to the issuance of a permit for staff will notify all owners of existing
option to obtain a consent forth or the subject well. wells by certified mail of the pending
request a hearing. Consent must be application, and request a response from
obtained from all owners of existing If consent forms cannot be obtained them. If no response is received within
wells within 60U feet of the proposed from all owners of existing wells, or if a the time set forth in the notice, a hearing
well location. An example of an hearing is requested, the request should is not required. If any response is re-
acceptable consent form is available be anade in writing to the Division of ceived in a timely matu~er, ti`re well per-
from the Division of Water Resources, Water Resources. T'he request should mit evaluation staff will request that the
but other forms may also be accepted. include a listing of the names, mailing hearing officer assigned by the State
The well owner signing such a consent addresses, and permit numbers (if Engineer proceed to set a hearing schcd-
forrn should understand that the use of known) of all owners of existing wells ule. AI[ owners with wells within 60U
the proposed well could injure or within 600 feet of the subject well. feet who have responded to the notice
Pa~(e 12
If My Proposed Non-Exempt Ground Water Well is Within 600 Feet of an
Existing Well, What Happens? (cont.)
will be notified of the hearing date ar.d court that the applicant has given notice
can attend and be a party to the action. ,~hqy'~ ~ v£ the water court application at least
The applicant must come to the hear- 'y' ` I ten days before making the application
_
ing prepared to present testimony that ~ - .t~~-;~, .~!•1~,' : • _ , by registered or certified mail, return
' their well will not cause material injury - ~ S' N' ~ ~ ~ ~ receipt requested, to the owners of
to existing wells within 600 fi'eet - 1v,4~ _ r~~, record of all wells within 600 feet of the
Legal counsel may represent the appli- _ proposed well.
cant if they so choose. If the proposed
well is part of a water court proceeding _ " . ' The hearing requirement shall not apply
r-'
granting a water right for the well a to wells located less than 600 feet from
plan for augmentation, or a change o1 ~ existing wells if the proposed well will
water right, no hearing by the St~itc ~ serve an individual residential site and
Irrigation well in the Arkt?nsas
Engineer shall be required. However, thz proposed pumping rate will not
evidence must be provided to the water Iirver I3asrn exceed fifteen gallons per minute.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? o ? ? ?
What is an Augmentation Plan?
If you arc considering using wells to "senior" (or earlier in time) to your stream and the remainder of the stream
provide water for lawn and garden water right. When a shortage occurs; system.
uses, domestic animals, a subdivision, senior water rights may place a "call"
or another project, you should be for water, which may result in junior F~'or an example of an augmentation
aware that in some areas of Colorado water rights being ordered to stop plan, assume that you want wells in a
you tnay be unable to get a well permit some or all water use so the seniors proposed subdivision where there are
without an augmentation plan. An can receive their water. Simply put, senior water rights on a nearby stream.
augmentation plan is acourt-approved augmentation is a method to allow you An augmentation plan must be
plan, which is designed to protect to use your well, the junior water right, designed to put water in the stream to
existing water rights by replacing when a call has been placed, without prevent reductions in streamflow,
water used in a new project. Augmen- reducing water available to senior caused by pumping your wells, from
ration plans are usually required in water rights. affecting senior water rights. 'f his
areas where there is a shortage of water allows the junior water right to keep
during part or all of the year. To You may be wondering how it is possi- pumping water when a "call" is placed.
determine whether or not you need an ble for wells to affect other water 'I'o obtain approval of an augmentation
augmentation plan, you should consult rights. T'o answer this question, we plan, you must make an application to
with the Division of Water Resources need to look at how ground water and the water court, which is often
office responsible for adtninistering surface water interact. Water experts prepared by an attorney. The applica-
water in the area in which your project have known for some time that ground tion must explain exactly where the
will be located. water and surface water are usually water will be obtained, where water is
connected. The connection is through to Ue used, what it will be used for,
Some basics of water administration small openings between grains of sand, how much will be used, what the
will help in explaining what an aug- gravel, and even in some rocks, that source of augmentation water is, when
mentation plan is and what it is allows water to move through the and where augmentation water will be
intended to accomplish. As someone ground fo and from streams. This is required, how much augmentation
contemplating providing water fora most evident in springs where water water is required, and 'now the
new project, you are considered a new can be seen seeping yr flowing from augmentation plan will be operated.
waver user. Your water right will be the sides of hills or road cuts. The The application should be supported by
`junior" (or later in time) to certain result of this connection is that an engineering analysis, usually pre-
other water rights, which have priority pumping a well will eventually cause pared by a water resources engineer,
over your rue by virtue of past use of some reduction in the amount of water which shows how the water needs of
water and confirmation of this use by in nearby streams. This reduction in the project were determined aad how
the water court. The priority protects streamflow can affect the amount of the new water use can occur without
these water rights which are, therefore, water available to water rights on that affecting senior water rights.
What is an Augmentation Plan? (cont.)
You may contact the water courts in resource engineers may be found under Water attorneys; engineers and
their respective divisions to obtain Engineers-Water Supply. division persomiel may be able to
information regarding the filing of provide some suggestions. Due to
applications with the court. Water Unfortunately, there is uo comprehen- legal constraints, personnel from this
attorneys may be found in the yellow slue information available concerning office cannot act as your engineer or
pages under Attorneys-Water. Water sources or cost of augmentation water. attorney.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
What Can I Do With That Spring On My Property?
What is a spring'? Although the Colo- which would then be subject to rights are satisfied. Anew water right
• rado state statutes do not specifically administration in the priority system for a developed spring would he so
define a spring, a hydrologic definition with all other water rights. junior, that on an over-appropriated
is "a discharge of ground water on the drainage system, there may be few or
surface in sufficient quantities so as to Tf the spring development fails to meet no times of the year when water could
produce a current of flowing water." the above conditions, it rnust be consid- be beneficially used from the spring- It
This office receives many calls regard- ered a well, which withdraws ground might seem then that it would be
ing springs. The typical caller states water, and all of the ~ most advantageous to call the
that there is a flowing spring located laws associated with a - fir" b~'`'°;;,~'~~'.;'' 3; ~ stntcture a well, but that is not
on their property, and they would like well apply. If the ~ ~;y • r~ necessarily true. A potential
~6. ,F
to know if they could develop it and spring development ~ • A',?i,~•.- _ ° problem is that if there is
put the water to some beneficial use. does meet the above ~ . already a wall on the
One issue that quickly arises is conditions, it is not property, you may not be able
whether or not the s rin is actuall a mandato that it be to obtain a er-mit to ermit
well. A well is defined by statute as, considered a spring `the spring as a well. Further-
' _
"...any structure or device used for the subject to admiristra- „r, - ;.'~->y+` more, even if there was no
purpose or with the effect of obtaining lion in priority. It is - ~ •~~•.Y , - ~ ~ existing well on the property
ground water for beneficial use from the owner's option to ~ rnd you were able to obtain a
an aquifer." A change in the law in either adjudicate the '~:j:- '`s permit, in many areas of the
1995 provided an exception to the structure as a spring or ~ Mate, the use of the water
definition of a well fox certain limited permit it as a well. if ' ' - _ ~ ~ would be limited to in-house
excavated spring developments of permitted as a well, the N ~ - 'use only if the well were to be
natural springs. If the spring develop- owner must comply I sP~B near Rnrrna Vista (the only well on less than 35
ment meets the following conditions, it with the requirements acres. Additionally, use of a
is excluded from requiring a well of the Water Well Construction Rules shallow spring well as a water source
permit or compliance with the Water regarding well construction and for a residential dwelling raises
Well Construction Rules: variances thereto- questions about the quality of the water
and the dependability of the supply.
I. the structure or device used to Most of the state's natural surface
capture or concentrate the natural drainage systems are over-appropriated Due to the various possibilities regard-
spring discharge must be located at by senior vested water rights. In ing spring development, each situation
or within 50 feet of such spring; simplistic terms, that means that there must be independently evaluated.
2. the structure or device used to are more decreed water rights claims on Therefore, we suggest you contact
capture or concentrate the natural the system than can be satisfied by the Ground Water lnformation of this
spring discharge must be no more physical amount of water available. office, at 303-866-3587, Monday
than ten feet below ground surface; Therefore, under the priority system through Friday, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00
and ("first in time, first in right"), when the p.m., or the appropriate division office,
3. the owner must adjudicate (obtain a most senior rights are making a call for for more specific information regard-
water right through the water court) water, the most junior rights have to ing spring development (see Contact
the structure or device as a spring, curtail diverting until the calling senior Information on the back of this guide).
Page 14
' ~ +
Can I Build a Fishpond?
You may be thinking how nice it on t;tc system than car. be satistied by Water Information of this office at
would be to have a little scenic pond the physical amount of water available. 303-866-3:187 for clariftcation.
stocked with a few fish on your Therefore, under the priority system
property, and may be wondering how ("first in time, first in tight"), when the Impounding water above the natural
difficult this would be to accomplish. most senior rights are making a call for ground surface -The property owner
It would be simple enough to get a water, the most junior rights have to who wants to excavate a small pond
backhoc on the land, and excavate a curtail diverting tmtil the calling senior may be thinking that the excavated
depression in the ground, suitable for rights are satisfied. Anew storage material could easily be mounded up to
holding water. Surely creating a little right. would be so junior, that in an form a dam with the intent to impound
pond couldn't be much of a problem! over-appropriated drainage system, water behind it. [mpounding of water
However, the following issues can 1 above the natural ground surface
arise and must be addressed. ~ constitutes the creation of a dam,
_ ~ ~ and opens up a whole new array of
Exposing Around water - When Ly' issues. There are specific statutes
excavating for a pond, there is the _ ~ . ~ ~ ~ , that address the construction of
possibility of exposing ground ~ :a _ ~ j urisdictional and non-
water, especially in areas with a - ~ } - jurisdictional dams, livestock
shallow water table. If this occurs, ~ ~ water tanks, and erosion control
- -
by statutory definition, a well has ~ ~ r - _ dams. Por more information on
been constructed. A well permit • '•1`'rr'I~' ~ ~ this subject, please refer to the
from the State Engineer would be ~ , r - website of the Division of Water
required, and all of the laws associ- - ~ . - t ~ Resources' Dam Safety Branch at
aced with weal construction and ~ - ~ • http://www.water.state.co.us/
ground water use apply (see section _ : _ darnsafery/dams.aap or contact the
titled, "Glossary of Terms " fora ' .L,w'~r branch b y t e l e p h o n e a t
definition of Wc>!l in this guide). 1f PontiinWetMonntaiinValley 303-866-3581.
the pond is in an over-appropriated
area of the state, a permit would not be there may be few or no times of the In surnrnary, there are a number of
issued unless the pond well was year when water could be legally issues that must be addressed with
operated pursuant to acourt-approved diverted in priority into the pond. To regard to building a fishpond. There-
plan for augmentation, to offset all overcome this problem, a court- fore, it is imperative that these issues
depletions caused by evaporative approved plan for augmentation would are addressed prior to construction.
losses of water from the pond, as well be required. Ponds built on stream Ponds that are out of compliance with
as any other consumptive uses of water channels in over-appropriated areas state statutes and rules and regulations
(see section of this guide titled, "What must be capable of passing all incom- are subject to orders being issued by
is an Augmentation Plan" for more ing flows, having their water levels the State Engineer to drain the pond or
information on plans for augmenta- regulated, and of being completely other measures taken to bring the
lion). Developing plans for augmenta- drainable. if the pond is determined to struchire into compliance with state
lion can be difficult and costly, and be a well, a storage right cannot be law.
will normally require the services of a granted. If a pond is lined and the,
water resource consultin en ineer and liner is a roved b the State l;n ~r ~ ~ ~ i d ~ r
g g Pp Y b ! ~ ,r ..l ~ , ~ .
water attorney, Weer, the pond would be allowed to .v~'~i,~ r~1~y ~ r' ' ~ ~
store water and obtain a water right y'~~,, ; t~~/~1 1~/r~"
Storage rights - In order to store water P ~7y'•;1~ ~ ~j~~ + v> '°,tirc;
in a pond, a water storage right must be f•illr,a~pondt~ with ground water ~ J1 > > ; ~ • ~ h,,, s'
obtained from the water court {see sec- 1~ ifling a pond from a well is not ~ • ~,~„~z~ ~,r ` -
tions of this guide titled, "Water Righta• allowed unless the approved uses of ti~ ' ~ ~a , ~
in Colorado" and "How do 1 Obtain u the well specifically allow this use. 1!
Water Right?" for more information). Most wells cannot lawfully be used , _
M• ,
Most of the state's natural surface for pond filling. The well permit _ ~y? .
drainage systems are over-appropriated should be referred to for specific ~,1,
by senior vested water rights. In uses allowed. If there is any goes- ~ : _
simplistic terns, this means that there lion as to the allowed uses from a Backyardfiehpond
are more decreed water rights claims well, you should contact Ground
t
Water Rights in Colorado
Water rights in Colorado are unique of water. When the stream is carrying 185U's, and most of the stream systems
compared to parts of the eastern United five cfs of water or more, all of the have been over-appropriated, meaning
States. The use of water in this state rights on this stream can be fulfilled. that at some or all times of the year, a
and other western states is governed by However, when the stream is carrying call for water by a senior appropriator
what is known as the prior appropria- only three cfs of water, priority number is not being satisfied since the 189U's.
tion system. This system of water three will not receive any water, with The example above does, however,
allocation controls who uses how much priority number two receiving only half describe the basic theory behind the
water, the types of uses allowed, and of their right. Priority number one will system.
when those waters can be used. receive their full amount of two cfs
under this scenario. This process of How does this affect you? Practically
A simplified way to explain this sys- allocating water to various water users speaking, it means that in most river
tern is often referred to as the priority is traditionally referred to as water drainages, a person cannot obtain an
system or "first in lime, first in right." rights administration, and is the respon- underground water right or non-exempt
An appropriation is made when an sibility of the Division of Water well without a plan 1'or augmentation
individual physically takes water from Resources. that replaces the depletions associated
a stream or well (when legally avail- with that diversion. Surface water
able) and puts that water to some type ` l~ appropriations may still be allowed if
of beneficial use. The first person to they can he physically shut off when a
appropriate water and apply that water senior water right is calling for water.
to use has the first right to that water - ~ Domestic surface water rights (ditches
within a particular stream system. This - or pipelines), that do not have augmer,-
person, after receiving a court decree tation or sources of water replacement,
verifying their priority status, then be- ~ - - - ~ arc discouraged in over-appropriated
comes the senior water right holder ~ :~4~ - basins. To do so would place the rights
and that water right must be satisfied ~ _ of existing water users on a stream
before any other water rights are filled. - ~ ~~r' _ ~ system in competition with new hous-
~ : ' ~ ~ _ ~ ing developments that need a reliable
For example, three water users exist on _
source of water to meet their daily
a stream system with adjudicated I Diversion 6ttvcstnre on CryettrJ Creek household needs. For the most part,
(court approved) water rights totaling only small residential and livestock
five cfs (cubic feet per second). The wells are exempt from water rights
user with the earliest priority date has a Of course, the appropriation system is administration that meet strict criteria
decree for two cfs, the second priority much more complicated than this. set forth by the legislature and are
has a right for two cfs, and the third Some priorities on major stream allowed to be drilled without providing
priority right has a decree for one efs systems in Colorado date back to the for protection to senior water rights.
How Do I Obtain a Water Right?
In Colorado, the process for obtaining a water right is the diversion point, or filing for a well permit application can
complex, oftentimes requiring a water lawyer and/or water be considered sufficient physical notice of the intent to
resource engineer to assist in the process. This guideline is appropriate.
provided to give you a general idea of the process. It is not
intended to replace professional Legal or engineering advice. After this has been accomplished, it is advised to file a water
in most cases, it is recommended that you seek the assistance right application with the water court in the river basin in
of an attorney, which the diversion or proposed diversion exists to verify
your place in line within the priority system. Forms for water
In order to initiate an appropriation in Colorado, the user rights applications can be obtained from Bradford Publishing,
must first show an intent to divert water, put the water to located in Denver, from the specific water court, or from the
beneficial use, and demonstrate the intent to divert in an open, website hup;//www.courts.state.co.us. The fees for filing
physical manner. The physical act must be sufficient to put applications or opposition in the court are:
other parties on notice. Oftentimes, field surveys, posting at
~~CF~~A !`~Ef~ # ~ ,PACE
Pale 18
How Do I Obtain a Water Right? (cont.)
Application for surface water right .............................5156.00 oppose your application, and so on.
Application for ground water right $156.00
Application for change in water right .........................$3 f ] .00 The Division Engineer of the water division in which the
Application for approval of plan for augmentation.....$31 I.00 court application was filed will review the application. The
Protest to Referee's Ruling (if not already party) .........$70.00 Division Engineer will have staff perform a field investiga-
Statement of Opposition ...............................................$90.00 lion to verify the claims made on the application. These
investigations are routinely conducted by the local water
The water courts are District Courts that hear matters related commissioners who work under the direction of the Division
solely to water. The Colorado Supreme Court appoint, the L•'ngincer. Upon completion of the investigation, the Division
water judges for each of these courts. Engineer will submit a written consultation to the water court
~ stating his or her recommendations on the
Upon filing your applicati~~n application.
with a court, it is thin ; ..°~•~t '
published in a monthly resume. ` r ~ Assuming there is no opposition to your
Your application will also to 1',i, ~`•u',c~ _ application, the matter usually goes before the
noticed in local newspapcr~ x ~ M , ~ 4' water referee. The water referee is an
deemed proper for legal publi ; ~~~s•,.h"r a ~ ~ ~,~,r~,fY,~;;,, employee of the court that rules on most of
cation. Each court varic~ . ; , ~ the cases prior to final review by a water
somewhat in the publication x~r~~~ ' ~ ~ lodge. After the referee has reviewed your
rocedures and, in man; , ~ ~ ~ application asked for further information and
p - > ,
instances, you will have t~ ~ ~ ~ ]arification from ou a
~ s . ~ , Y, c y nd received aconsul-
write your own legal notic~° 'i• _ ' ° : tstion from the Division Engineer as to his or
and will be billed for any and ; ~ ~ ~ , > her recommendations on the application, the
all publication costs. You ~ - - - - referee will issue what is known as a ruling.
should contact the water court I Water Rights Arlrniniatration on EaBt River I If any party disagrees with the decision, they
clerk prior to filing to obtain may file a protest to the refexee's ruling. If no
specific information as to publication procedures (see Cnrttuct protest is tiled, the matter goes to the judge and he/she signs
Information on the back of this guide). the ruling, making it a decree of the court.
Once the application is filed and published in the newspapers If the matter is protested, the case may go before the water
and resurnc, parties who may have concerns regarding your judge for trial unless the parties can reach agreement orr any
application have two months to oppose the application and contested issues. If the case goes to trial, the judge will set
file a statement of opposition with the water court. For the matter for hearing and decide whether or not the applica-
example, if your application is received by the water court lion should be granted. Should any party participating in the
any time between April 1 and April 30, the resume listing case be dissatisfied with the judge's ruling, they can then
your application will be published during May and parties appeal directly to the Colorado Supreme Court. The total
have until the last business day in June to oppose that time required for this process varies anywhere from four
application. For applications filed with the court in May, months to two years, depending on the complexity of the
parties would have until the last business day in July to case.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Glossary of Terms
Abandonment of water right: the termination of a water beneficial use. See definition for conditional water right.
right in whole or in part, resulting from the intent of the Acre-foot: the volume of water equivalent to covering one
owner to permanently discontinue its use. A conditional acre of land to a depth of one foot; equal to 43,560 cubic feet
water right may also be terminated by failure on the part of or 325,851 gallons.
the owner to develop it with reasonable diligence until
absolute, or to make filings to the water court every six years Adjudication: the judicial process through which the
showing due diligence has been made towards perfecting the existence of a water right is confirn~ed by decree of the water
water right. court.
Absolute water right: a water right that has been put to a Appropriation: the right to take a certain portion of the
%~CiE~IDI~ i E EIS # >
Glossary of Terms (continued)
waters of the state to be put to beneficial use. The specific been made toward completion of the project. Once die right
quantity and rate of flow may be confirmed by a water court has been placed to beneficial use, the holder of the condi-
decree. tional right must then ask the court to make it an absolute
Aquifer: a formation, group of formations or part of a forma- water right. See definition for Absolute water right.
lion containing sufficient saturated permeable (able to pass Consumptive use: the amount of water that is Lost to the
through) material that could yield a sufficient quantity of stream system, for example, through crop consumption or
waier that may be extracted and put to beneficial use. evaporation, when applying water to beneficial uses.
Augmentation plan: a way for junior appropriators to obtain Cubic •/eet per second: a rate of flow of water passing a
water supplies through terms and conditions approved by a given point each second of time, amounting to one cubic foot.
water court that protects senior water rights from the This is equal l0 7.48 gallons per second, 448.8 gallons per
depletions caused by the new diversions. It typically will minute or approximately two acre-feet per day.
involve storing junior water when in priority and releasing Decree: an official document issued by the water court
that water when a call comes on, purchasing stored water to including, but not limited to, the priority date, amount, use,
release when a river call comes on, or purchasing senior and location of the water right.
imgation water rights and changing the use of those rights to
offset the new users' injury to the stream. (Note: These Depletion: the withdrawal of water from a surface or ground
plans can be very complex and it is suggested that an engi- water stream or basin at a rate greater than the rate of
neering consultant be hired to allow for proper consideration replenishment. Depletion is determined for a system by
of all hydrologic and water rights factors.) subtracting system outflows from system inflows.
Aug»:entation water: water that is r Designated ground water: ground water
added, left, or replaced in a stream ~ ~ ti ri _ that, in its natural course, is not available to
system to offset out-of-priority ~ I ~i or required for the fulfillment of decreed
diversions. .'r` _ surface rights, or ground water in areas
Beneftcial use: the use of a reasonable 'w _ ~ ~ ixrt adjacent to a continuously flowing
- natural stream, wherein ground water with-
amount of waier necessary to accom- ' ' ~ drawals have constituted the principal wa-
plish the purpose of the appropriation _r~ ' to usage for at least I S years preceding the
without waste. Some common types of date of the first hearing on the proposed
beneficial use are: domestic, household 1;~ designation of the basin, and which is
. .
use, irrigation, municipal, wildlife, within the geographic boundaries of a
recreation, and mining. r:' designated ground water basin.
i ~
Call: a request by a water right appro- Arch Diteh Diversion 8tsaetnne Designated ground water basins or
priator that more junior water rights on "designated basins": those areas of the
the same drainage system curtail their state established by the Ground Water Commission in accor-
diversions of water to the extent necessary; such that suffi- dance with Section 37-90-106, CKS. The designated basins
cient water is made available to satisfy the senior water right are located in the Front Range and in eastern Colorado.
placing the call. Such calls are administered by the Division There are currently eight designated basins (see section of
Engineer and staff for the division in which the call was this guide titled, "Ilow do I Obtain a Water Well Permit
placed. Within a Designated Basin? "for more information).
Change of water right: any change in any way that a water Diversion: to divert and control water from its natural course
right is used. It can be changed in type, place or time of use, by means of a structure.
point of diversion, adding points of diversion, etc. It is not
considered a change in use if a farmer changes the type of Division Engineer: the State Engineer's principal water
crop grown or the type of irrigation method. Changes of official in each of the seven water divisions (also see glossary
water rights must be approved by the water court to assure terms, State Engineer and Water divisions).
that no injury occurs to other water rights. Ezempt uses: any recognized uses that are not subject to
Conditional water right: a water right obtained through the administration under the priority system. For further infor-
water court where the water has not been placed to a benefi- mation, see Sections 37-92-602 and 37-90-105, CRS.
cial use. It gives the holder of that right time to complete a Exe»rpt well: a well allowed to be used for exempt uses. For
project as long as they diligently pursue completion of the further information, see Sections 37-92-602 and 37-90-105,
project. Every six years, the court reviews what progress has CRS.
AGEI`lI~A ITEM PAGE
Pale 18
Glossary of Terms (continued)
Ground water: any water not visible on the surface of the surface water drainage system that has more decreed water
ground under natural conditions. rights claims on the system than can be satisfied by the physi-
Ground Water Commission: atwelve-member body created cal supply of water available.
by the Legislature, nine of which are appointed by the Gover- Potability: a reference to water that does not contain pollu-
nor to carry out and enforce the state statutes, rules and tion, contamination, or infective agents, and is considered to
regulations, decisions, orders and policies of the Commis- be safe for human consumption.
Sion, dealing with designated ground water (see section of priority: the right of a senior water rights holder to divert
this guide titled, "Flow Do I Obtain a Water Well Permi! water before a junior water rights holder from a common
Within a Designated Basin? "for more information). source. Priority is based on both the appropriation date and
Ground water management district: any district organized adjudication date of a water right, as confirmed by the water
under Section 37-90-118 to 37-90-135, CRS, for the purpose court.
of consulting with the Ground Water Commission on all Recharge area: reservoirs and ditches that are designed to
designated ground water martens within a particular district. replenish groundwater depletions, due to out-of-priority
There are currently l3 districts (see section of this guide diversions, by artificially introducing water into the ground
titled, "flow Do 1 Obtain a Water Well Permit Within a water aquifer.
Designated Basin? "for more information).
Irrigution year: the irrigation year for the purposes of re- Resume: a monthly publication by the water court of a
cording annual diversions of water for irrigation in Colorado summary of water rights applications filed in the water court
begins November 1 and ends on October 31 of each year. that month.
Junior water right: a relative term describing a water right River basin: the land area and water catchment surrounding
with a priority less than that of a "senior right" from a a river from its headwaters to its mouth.
common source of water. River call: usually a written document filed with the
Division Engineer stating that, as of a certain date and time, a
Nutive waters: surface and underground waters naturally water right holder is not receiving all of the water they are
occurring in a watershed. entitled to by decree, and are requesting that the Division
Nan-consumptive: uses that do not reduce the quantity of Engineer shut down all upstream water rights junior to them
water available to the stream system. until their senior right is satisfied.
Non-exempt uses: any recognized beneficial uses of water Senior water right: a relative term describing a water right
that are administered under the priority system. For further with a priority greater than that of a "junior right" from a
information, see Sections 37-90-]37 and 37-90-107, CRS. common source of water.
Non-exempt well: a well allowed to be used for non-exempt State Engineer: the Governor-appointed chief state water
uses, official in charge of administering the waters of the state.
Non-native waters: waters imported or not originally Structure: any apparatus constructed to divert water, such as
hydrologically connected to a watershed or drainage basin a headgate, pipe, or well.
physically or by statute; non-tributary ground water and Transmountain diversions: water that is diverted from one
transmountain water are non-native. watershed to another across the Continental Divide.
Nontributary ground water: ground water located outside
the boundaries of any designated ground water basin, where Standard Water Use Rates
the withdrawal of this ground water by a well will not, within ? Each ordinary household use: 0.3 acre-foot per year
100 years, deplete the flow of a natural stream at an annual ? Use for four large domestic animals: 0.05 acre-foot per
rate greater than one-tenth of one percent of the annual rate of~ year
withdrawal. ? Use for each 1,000 square feet of lawn irrigation: 0.05
Not Nontributary ground water: ground water located acre-foot per year
within those portions of the Dawson; Denver, Arapahoe, and Water Conversions
Laramie-Fox Hills aquifers that are outside of any designated ? 1 cfs (cubic feet per second): 646,560 gallons per day
ground water basin in existence on January 1, 1985, the with- (gpd); 449 gallons por minute (gpm)
drawal of which will, within 100 years, deplete the flow of a Per 24 hours: 1.983 acre-feet (AF)
natural stream at an annual rate greater than one-tenth of one ? 1 acre-foot: 325,851 gallons
percent of the annual rate of withdrawal. ? 1 cubic foot: 7.48 gallons
Over-appropriated: a water rights term used to describe a
l
~~GEND~1 ITE~~ PAGE
Glossary of Terms (continued]
Tributary water: water that is hydrologically connected to a drainages. The seven divisions are: Division I-South Platte
natural stream system either by surface or underground flows. River Basin; Division 2-Arkansas River Basin; Division
User supplied data: data or records of water uses provided 3-Rio Grande River Basin; Division 4-Gunnison River Basin;
by an owner/user that has not been verifred by state officials. Division 5-Colorado River Basin; Division 6-Yampa/White
River Basins; Division 7-San Juan/Dolores River Basins.
Water commissioner: state water offcial, appointed by the Water right: a property right that is either conditional or
State Engineer and working under the direction of the absolute and conveys the right to use a particular amount of
Division Engineers, who performs the day-to-day administra-
tion of surface and ground water in each water district (also Water, with a specified priority date as confirmed by the
see glossary terms, Division L•'~agineer, State Engineer, Water Water court, or by the Ground Water Commission if within
districts, Water divisions). the designated ground water basins (also see glossary terms,
Absolute water right and Conditional water right).
Water Court: a district court that hears matters related to
water. To obtain a judicially recognized water right, change Well: any structure or device used for the purpose, or with
a water right or obtain an augmentation plan, requesting the effect, of obtaining ground water for beneficial use from
persons or entities file applications with one of these courts an aquifer. Additionally, any test hole or other excavation
and the court will issue a decree or order. that is drilled, cored, bored, washed, fractured, driven, dug,
jetted, or otherwise constn~cted, when the intended use of
Water districts: eighty geographical divisions of the state such excavation is for the location, monitoring, dewatering,
that were originally used for the granting of water rights. The observation, diversion, artificial recharge, or acquisition of
districts are now largely used for administrative purposes. ground water, or for conducting pumping equipment or
Water divisions: the seven geographical areas of the state of aquifer tests.
Colorado corresponding to the major natural surface water
i,~
CONTACT INFORMATION ~
~ ~i
Colorado Division of Water Resources, 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818, Denver, CO 80203
Website: http:l/www.water.state.co.us
Denver Office:
Main Number: 303-866-3581 Fax: 303-866-3589 (24 hours a day)
Ground Water Information: 303-866-3587 Public hours: 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Records Section: 303-866-3447 Public hours: 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Fax: 303-866-2223 (24 hours a day)
Water Division Office Water Court
Division Location River Basin Phone # Phone #
1 Greeley South Platte 970-352-8712 970-351-7300 ext. 5402
2 Pueblo Arkansas 719-542-3368 719-583-7048
3 Alamosa Rio Grande 719-589-6683 719-589-4996
4 Montrose Gunnison 970-249-6622 970-252-4335
5 Glenwood Colorado 970-945-5665 970-945-8109 or 5075
6 Steamboat Yampa/White" 970-879-0272 970-879-5020
7 Durango San Juan / Dolores 970-247-1845 970-247-2304 ext. 115
The White River Basin is located in Division 6, but water rights are decreed by fhe Division 5 Water Court
.ti ~ -
~1G~~It~A ~~'~AA # , PACE
COLORADO DIVISION OF
WATER RESOURCES
Y ~
I
y'i'rr f z ~ ` I.
_
.t~~~r
I Colorado State Capitol Building, Denver I
-
iq~~~!:~~u~~ to
N/\TU 111 [
Note: This .document is provided as a public service and descrfbes the process for obtaining a water right
In broad, general parameters. It is not intended to substitute as legal advice. You should consult an attor-
ney and/or engineer prior to initiating the actions described in this guide.
Original publication date: June 2002
~1GEi~lDA iTEi1~ ,PAGE % / ,
VEGETATION ZONES AT THUNDERBIRD LAKE -CURRENT WATER LEVELS
,1
_ •',eac ~
zs,
fi
~TJ~~
tom.-3~: - v• ~ - ~ t~s(
~y~i~:;; ~'~s'~ t+L^'h.~-;4 ~ ~ ~ j`~: ~(jy?7c , . {ry , tri~.~~r' ',~a
~ f.-~,.-~r ` , ~ t;a ~ ' ~,i n~~. ,.j' TYPICAL EMERGENT/WETLAND
.L~~.~~~-a „I MANICURED TURF bf"^. ,,''1~ T~~~t ~~,~~lt1~~';~~' ; VEGETATION
~ L°~`:.'' ~ ~ r~ ~ - GRASS IN PARK z..• .~..y~~iy!;
'l ~ may... ~ -y :.i.'
r~ TYPICAL UPLAND/RIPARIAN I' I ~~7`/
VEGETATION~~~~.~ ~ah,~. ;;~~;a:. DUCKWEED IN LAKE
ESTIMATED LAKE EDGE WITHOUT
SUPPLEMENTAL WATER
i
I
EXISTING ~ ~
SIDEWALK ~ ~
~ \ THUNDERBIRD DR.
~ ~
PARK TURF \
~O,Z,P ` GRASS LA,KE ELEVATION \
? - t t' wlo 5312 ~
- - ~YIEW ARF~ ~
~ ~ '
:"v> P ~ ~
G:
~ ~ ~
UPLAND VEGETATION - ? ~ - ~s~wlo~
SEE PHOTOS ? P ! / VIEW AR :
.
WETLAND VEGETATION - ~O~
SEE PHOTOS
~ - ~ ~ S~G~
~ Q' ~ l
~ ? G EBO
- ~
POTENTIAL NEW
~ BOARDWALK AND
DOCK WITH SEATING
~ ~
OPTIONS WITHOUT SUPPLEMENTAL WATER ` ~~o~~~~ ~
• USES EXISTING WATER SOURCES - NO SUPPLEMENTAL WATER Qp~ ~
1" = 100'-0" (SCALE APPROXIMATE)
NEW WETLAND - ~
PLANTINGS -SEE , . ,
PHOTOS FOR TYPICAL
WETLAND
VEGETATION
EXISTING
SIDEWALK -
THUNDERBIRD DR.
PARK TURF
~O,Z,P ` GRASS LAKE ELEVATION
~ _ > i i' WIDE 5315 FEET
VIEW AREA
r , • ~ V15' WIDE ;
UPLAND VEGETATION - ~
SEE PHOTOS ~ ~ ~ • I
~ ~\O • • •
~ GAZEBO
m
~ a
OPTIONS DURING TIMES OF SUPPLEMENTAL WATER ` ~~o~\,~ ~
• ADDS WATER TO RAISE LAKE ELEVATION Q^
• REPLACES EXISTING WETLAND PLANTINGS IN NEW LOCATION / `
1" = 100'-0" (SCALE APPROXIMATES
Water Right Diagram
-WATER HISTORICALLY AVAILABLE
i UNDER EXISTING WATER RIGHT
SURF=-~OW
DAM
DRAIN TILE
THUNDERBIRD LAKE OUTLET
PIPE
WELL
UNDERGROUND WATER FLOW
(WATER NOT HISTORICALLY TAKEN AND
WILL REQUIRE AUGMENTATION IF USED]
~y
4EDROCK
O
Q