The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutTBP 1998-08-05 . . TOWN OF FRASER "Icebox of the Nation" P.O. Box 120/153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, Colorado 80442 (970) 726-5491 FAX Une: (970) 726-5518 TOWN BOARD AGENDA REGULAR MEETING August 5, 1998, 7:30 p.m. 1. Roll call 2. Approval of minutes from 7/15/98 and 7/24/98 3. Open Foium a) John Hillson, vacation of the, Park-Eastom alley 4; Chamber of Commerce. Update, Catherine Ross " 5. ,Public Hearing ..:.. none ....... 6. 'Action Items 0 0" 7. Discussion Items a) Maryvale request for water service on the Forest Meadows property b) Excavation ordinance 8. Staff Choice o. a) Setting a public hearing to consider a moratorium on development within the wellhead protection area b) Planning Area 28 update c) Walk Through History Park statue bronzing options d) Housing Authority appointee 9. Board Member's Choice Upcoming Meetings August 19th: Town Board RegUlar Meeting August 26th: Planning Commission Regular Meeting , . TOWN OF FRASER ''Icebox of the Nation" P.O. Box 120/153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, Colorado 80442 (970) 726-5491 FAX Line: (970) 726-5518 Manager's Briefmg: July 31,1998 Discussion items and staff updates dominate Wednesday's agenda. Enclosed for your perusal is Draft 4 of the proposed grading ordinance. Until the ordinance is adopted, we're relying on regulations in the Uniform BUilding Code which caps the amount offill a property owner can place on a property at 5,000 cubic yards without an engineers report as long as the ~,OOO cubic yards does not leave fill of more than two feet in depth. . , Thank you for a great workshop! Y ou'U be seeing bits and pieces from the workshop . show-up in the next few weeks. . ' . Have a grand w~lcend! / - , . ýÿ . . TOWN BOARD JULY 15, 1998 I WORKSHOP 6:00 P.M. A workshop was held to review the draft amendment to the business zone regulation. Representatives from Grand County # 1 Water and Sani. District were present to comment on the proposed Amendments. REGULAR MEETING The regular meeting of the Town Board was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Board present "' were Mayor Johnston, Klancke, Sanders, McIntyre, Swatzell, Rantz and Soles. Staff present were Reid, Trotter, Winter and Stone. McIntyre made a motion to approve the minutes of 6\17\98, 2nd Soles, carried. DISCUSSION ITEMS Jim Swanson gave an update on the paving project. Vicki Mattox, George K. Baum bond Company, reviewed various bonding options and costs to the Town. Tom Peltz, Bond Attorney discussed various issues regarding bonding. Jim Hoy discussed the need for casting a mold on the "Indian and Eagle"preparing the piece for bronzing. Hoy also will restore the statue for display inside. Hoy also asked the Town to consider lending the Foundation the money to bronze the statutes as the Foundation will be seeking grant money for this project but it could take some time. Board discussed the upper tier of "planning area 28" with regards to where the property line should be placed. Swanson, Tucker, Ed Hill and Dave Cautrell visited the site to determine where the slope should be. Cautrell representing the Cemetery stated that the survey should be done after the Town has cut back the slope. Town Board members expressed that they would like this work to be accomplished in the next several months. ACTION ITEMS Clayton Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Resubdivision of Tract Bland Tract C, Clayton subdivision. Cheri Sanders declared a conflict of interest and removed herself from the Board. Reid reviewed the Amended Subdivision Improvement Agreement. The agreement gives the Town Lot I in trade for the improvements that are required being the responsibility of the Town. McIntyre made a motion approving Resolution 7-1-98, 2nd Klancke, carried. ; i . . Mcintyre made a motion approving the Re-subdivision Plat, 2nd Swatzell, carried. DISCUSSION ITEMS Reid prepared a estimated budget for the next several years as a tool to help with the Bonding decision. Board gave the consensus to go forward with the Bonding for the paving project. Reid gave an update on the DIS payment submittals. Reid ordered the last of the Precision Standard Stock sold. The Town netted around the expected $100,000. No further business, meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. . . TOWN BOARD SPECIAL MEETING JULY 24, 1998 I the Special meeting was called to order by Mayor Johnston at 10:00 a.m. July 24, 1998. roard present were Swatzell, Sanders, wIcIntyre, Rantz, Soles and Klancke. Staff present fere Reid and Winter. i fublic Hearing regarding amendments to the Business Zone Regulations and Zoning I .f a 24 acre parcel of property recently annexed to Fraser and owned by Grand County Water and Sanitation District. +ICIntyre made a motion to open the Public hearings, 2nd Swatzell, canied. I I Town Manager Reid offered the fonowing to set the record I txlnmt A Proof of Publication of these hearings. lxhibit B. Notice and mailing receipts of property owners within 200'. $xhibit C. Copy of Business regulations. rD' Camp. Plan xhibit E. Planning Commission recommendation for a Business Zone. xhibit F. Recommendation from staff for a business zone. $watzen made a motion to accept the Exhibits in the record, 2nd McIntyre, canied. *eid reviewed any changes that we made in the proposed Ordinance to amend the business fone regulations from the last review of the proposed Ordinance. ~d CoU11ly Water and Sanitation Dis1rict attomey Bailey commented 1hat they ppreciated the process that the Town took to develop this Ordinance and the proposed dinance was a good one. Bailey also advised that he would recommend no further ~ction from Grand County "Water and Sanitation regarding the annexation or the Ordinance. tJntyre made a motion to close the public hearing, 2nd Rantz, canied. rdinance 248 Amendment to the Business District regulations I ~oles made a motion to adopt Ordinance 248, with the changes to a few words, 2nd anders, canied. Vote 7-0. ýÿ . . Ordinance 249. Zoning the 24 acre parcel Business. KIancke made a motion to adopt Ordinance 249, 2nd Swatzell, canied. Vote 7-0. No further business mee1ing adjourned at 10:40 a.m. . ýÿ l · ~lt, rl'^tc i> 1v ~ DRAFT ~ . +:~ ~ CoJ~~ , ? Low- ~ _ L. \' ~d{ TOWN OF FRASER C. 0.1\ 1JlOJ'I'^/)lI\ ~ "fJ'I,.\.,. · ~ 7 ORDINANCE NO. ?/- ~l\r;,. , "'$,,(,., /Y ~ ~D';G. AN ORDINANCE REGULATING EXCAVATION AND GRADING ONfpRIVATE . ..-- / PROPERTY IN THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADOAtJ~ 1b~(..A.z.ltJ~ 4lf\\ ~~ct, WHEREAS the Board of Trustees of the Town of Fraser hereby finds that it is necessary of the protection of the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Town of Fraser to regulate grading on ~c property. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF FRASER IN THE STATE OF COLORADO: PART 1. AMENDMENT OF TOWN CODE: The Code of the Town of t\.. FIllSer, Colorado is hereby amended by adding a ~cle ~d Code entitled 1'. "Grading Permits," which shallread as follows: ~"k ~ I ?u.~'/Tl> ~ -1- 2 ? I Section 1. Private Prooerty Defined: As used herein, the words "private property" . "'5han mean any real estale not open to, ~11ed by the public. * · ifl J/1 ~ \;t~\1.\ Section 2. Permits ReQuired: Except as peci ed in S 'on 3 of this Article, no . ~6f' person shall do any grading.sr excavatio~ 'thout first obtaining a grading permit from $\l'{ ~ X the building official. A sepbte permit shall be obtained for each site, and may cover t rA#\ both excavations and fills. ~ ~ ~ Section 3. Exempted Wodc A gmding permit is not required fur the following: 1. When approved by the building official, grading in an isolated, self contained area if there is no danger to private or public property. 2. An excavation below finished grade for basements and footings of a building, retaining wall or other structure authorized by a valid building permit. This shall not exempt any fill made with the material from this excavation. 7Ci) Cemetery graves. 4. Refuse disposal sites controlled by other regulations. ? 5. Excavations f6e!Jj)or utilities. 6. Mining, quarrying, excavating, processing or stockpiling of rock:, sand, gravel, aggregate or clay where established and provided for by law, provided such < . . . ,~ operations do not affect the lateral support or increase the stresses in or pressure upon ~ any adjacent or contiguous property. .~ I 7. Exploratory excavations under the direction of soil engineers or ~ engineering geologists. ~ 8. A fill less than twenty (20) cubic yards on anyone lot or lots providing ~ that the fill does not obstruct a drainage course or encroach on a floodway or floodplain. . ~ -- 9. An excavation or fill less than two (2) feet in depth with side slopes not ~ steeper than three (3) feet horizontal to every one (1) foot in vertical dimension. ~ Exemption from the permit requirements of the ordinance shall not be deemed to grant ~ authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this \) ordinance or any other laws or ordinances of the Town. ~ '1, Section 4. Annlication for a GradinfI Permit: An application for a grading permit is ~ required for any grading in excess of twenty (20) cubic yards or any excavation or fill in ~ excess of two (2) feet in depth. The application shall be made for either a general grading permit or an engineered grading permit. ~ ~tC~ 'f A ge:Berai grading permit shall be required if the excavation or fill exceeds twenty (20) \\ cubic yards and less than one thousand (1000) cubic yards/or is less than twenty (20) . ~ ',~ 1, cubic yards and its vertical dimension ~two (2) feet. ~ ~\"\ ~ I I II ~ , \ ' I~ ~e.fM 't'u-. \\ ~. An engineered grading permit shall be requjre4 .whenever the excaviltion or fill exceeds ~ one thousand (1000) cubic yardsrr oIl,t\-;(.1 cl'tvtf-,\'I~i()'Vl e>f.r.W'> -\VO l'L ') ~t :" G~~ ~ Section 4.1. Rc;J(.ular GradinfI Permit: Each application shall be accompanied by a plan ~ in sufficient clarity to indicate the nature and extent of the work. The plan shall give the ~ location of the work, the name of the owner, the name of the person who prepared the ~ plan .and a construction sequ.c:nce outlining the ~ro~sed ti~e-table for completion of the ~ grading. The plan shall also Include the followmg InformatIOn: . ... -t- 1. General vicinity of the proposed site. ~ 2. Limiting dimensions and depth of the cut and/or fill. ~ 3. Location of any building or structure within fifteen (15) feet of the ~ proposed grading. ~ 4. Location, size and depth of all existing utilities and easements on the ~.. proposed site. ~ 5. Location of all natural features, such as watercourses, on the proposed site J; or within one hundred (100) feet of the "graded area. " \ I ,I Section 4.2 Engineered GradinfI Permit: Each application shall be accompanied by\; two (2) sets of plans and specifications, supporting data and a construction sequence \ c J "0 I I, I II I, ~!vJ ~ 1=F ih~f' r ~ ~ ktvVe. c.'D"ld ;{'iYn~ ,:\ \ \M.- 'eLl..) \aA ()It'-d '-') A~.L, ipv ~I j ~ I '..J-, \ Vll. ,..J "y"" ; \- ~i +L AWI"-. Y t< ..., t+,,~ ~ "~L~t'-- ~ \1 to" ~ 'b~ ..H< ~ ~ c. vJbk k~c--) ~~ ~~L ~'i)aJ ~ .: t-:w1.~~ -fec)J\l-dJe.. l. - ýÿ , . . , outlining the proposed time-table for completion of the grading; The plans shall contain the following information: 1. General vicinity of the proposed site. 2. Property limits and accurate contours of existing ground and details of terrain and area drainage. 3. Limiting dimensions, elevation or finish contours to be achieved by the grading, and proposed drainage channels and related construction. 4. Location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed and the location of any buildings or structure on the land of adjacent owners that are within fifteen (15) feet of the property or that may be affected by the proposed grading operations. 5. Recommendations included in the soils engineering report shall be incorporated in the grading plans and specifications. 6. Location, size and depth of all existing utilities and easements on the proposed site. ~7. Location of all natural features, such as watercourses, on the proposed site . \l-~ or within one hundred (100) feet of the "graded area" Section 5. Soils EDJrineeriIu! Reoort: The soils engineering report required shall include data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures and design criteria for corrective measures, including buttress fills, when necessary, and opinion on adequacy for the intended use of sites to be developed by the proposed grading as affected by soils engineering factors, including the stability of slopes. Section 6. Hazards: Whenever the building official determines that any existing excavation or embankment or fill eB pIi'fJatc propenyhas become a hazard to life or limb, or endangers property, or adversely affects the safety, use or stability of a public way or drainage channel, the owner of the property upon which the excavation or fill is located, or other person or agent in control of said property, upon receipt of notice in writing from the building official, shall within the period specified therein repair or eliminate such excavation or embankment to eliminate the hazard and to be in conformance with the requirements of this code. Section 7. Environmental Hazards: Off-site fill material shall be free of environmental hazardous materials. Applicants for a permit shall ensure the Town that fill material hauled from an off-site location is free of environmental contaminants. The source of fill material shall be identified prior to application for a grading permit. If directed by the Town, the applicant shall have testing performed on a representative sample( s) of the fill material to determine if environmentally hazardous materials are present in the fill. Section 8. Fill Material: Detrimental amounts of organic material shall not be permitted in fills. No rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension ýÿ ~.. . ~J "^ ~,p",',k I ,flY" r'f%;'l\~"""' \ greater than 12 inches shall be buried or placed in fills~AlI fills shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% of maximum density. Section 9. Erosion and Sedimentation Control: The applicant conducting the grading activity shall install and maintain temporary and pennanent erosion and sedimentation control measures. Where cut slopes are not subject to erosion due to the erosion-resistant character of the materials, such protection may be omitted. Section 10. Pennit Fee: Applicants for a permit under this Article shall pay the required and necessary fee to the Town before the issuance of such permit. The fees for such pennit shall be established and amended from time to time ~lution of the Board of Trustees of the Town ofFrasern ()}I .t.1h.~\"'W ~ V ~C ~ Section 11. Valid Period: All grading permits shall be valid for six (6) months from !he date the permit is issued provided that ~prOVed applica,n an~ the conditions of Its appro~ ~ not changed. N1> Wlrnt. . ~~ "(Ij ~'1 'Yt" W\fr ~~ I ~ v.A t Ol\i... VMcd fb (~ w ().. ~~"- ~, . Section 12. niSt) av of Penn it: Each permit issued un r this Article shall be kept at the grading site while the work is in progress and shall be exhibited upon request to any officer of the Town. Section 13. Bonds: The Town may require bonds in such forms and amounts as may be deemed necessary to ensure that the work, if not completed in accordance with the approved plan and specifications, will be corrected to eliminate hazardous conditions. Section 14. Penalties: Every person convicted of a violation of any provision of this f Article shall be punished by a fine not exceeding three hundred dollars ($300.00) or by 1-:( jJ.- Jt( ~sonmet1I n':lexceeding ~ (90) days, or both ,rh fine and imprisonment .~,. ~tJ 7 ~ ' ,tUI/ll '^ - 5 ,/;, W ,.d ",.J"." '1 'Xd... -rh.!1 &. ~ tftfP'loiNl< riIy. r::::; , p ARTm:. SEVERABILITY: If any part or parts of this Article are for any re:11? . held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Article and this Board of Trustees hereby declares that it would have passed this Article and each part or parts thereof. irrespective of the fact than anyone part or parts be declared invalid. rA~~ -e-M~alC.'1 ~L.l.4 ~') ADOPTED AND APPROVED TIllS _ DAY OF --' 1998. TOWN OF FRASER BY: Mayor ýÿ . . . t ATIEST: BY: Town Clerk SEAL /grading.doc ýÿ . . . . S/5/Qa - ~ - SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF COMBINING TOWN OF FRASER'S WATER RIGHTS, THE MARYVALE PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION DECREED IN CASE NO. 86CW258 AND REQUESTED TO BE AMENDED IN CASE NO. 98CW401, AND THE FOREST MEADOWS' PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION DECREED IN CASE NO 83CW362 INTO A PRACTICAL BASIS FOR WATER SUPPLY TO THE TOWN OF FRASER WITH ANNEXATION OF MARYV ALE. Prepared for: Town of Fraser 153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, Colorado 80442 Prepared by: McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd. 2420 Alcott Street Denver, Colorado 80211 August 1998 ýÿ . , . . '. .. - TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF COMBINING TOWN OF FRASER'S WATER RIGHTS, THE MARYV ALE PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION DECREED IN CASE NO. 86CW2S8 AND REQUESTED TO BE AMENDED IN CASE NO. 98CW401, AND THE FOREST MEADOWS' PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION DECREED IN CASE NO 83CW362 INTO A PRACTICAL BASIS FOR WATER SUPPLY TO THE TOWN OF FRASER WITH ANNEXATION OF MARYV ALE. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .......................................... 1 ANALYSIS .......................................................... 1 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................... 1 RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 TABLES Table 1 Summary of Water Rights and Plans of Augmentation for Town of Fraser, Maryvale, and Forest Meadows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. S Table 2 Comparison of Plans for Augmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 . ýÿ [ . I . . - ~ - INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The basic objective of this investigation is to detennine: 1. The feasibility, from an operational and administrative standpoint, of combining the two augmentation plans (Forest Meadows and Maryvale) with the Town of Fraser's water ~ rights portfolio to produce the necessary legal water rights basis required for the Town of Fraser to meet future water supply requirements of the Town of Fraser with Maryvale annexed. 2. What needs to be changed in the existing plans for augmentation in order to produce an operationally feasible water supply system for Fraser which can meet the future water supply requirements at buildout conditions. ANALYSIS A detailed analysis and comparison of the Town of Fraser's water rights, the Forest Meadows plan for augmentation decreed in Case No. 83CW362, Maryvale plan for augmentation decreed in Case No. 86CW258, and the amended Maryvale plan for augmentation proposed in Case No. 96CW041 are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. There will be sufficient water for augmentation purposes available under the Maryvale plan for augmentation and the amended Maryvale plan for augmentation to cover expected out of priority diversions by the 16 Maryvale wells if the assumptions and conditions in the Maryvale plan for augmentation or the amended plan for augmentation are adhered to (e.g., no more than 53.0 acre-feet per year of consumptive use from the 3401 EQRs at build out conditions, no more than 20.2 acres of irrigated landscaping, 3.33 percent consumptive use from in-house use, etc.) 2. There will be sufficient water for augmentation purposes available under Forest Meadows plan fop augmentation to cover expected out of priority diversions by Fraser Well Nos. 1 and 2 serving the Forest Meadows area if the QSsumptions and conditions in the Forest Meadows plan for augmentation are adhered to (e.g. no more than 32.65 acre-feet per year of consumptive use from 592 EQRs, 5 percent in-house consumptive use, no more than 10.1 acres of irrigated landscaping, etc.) 3. There will be sufficient physical water supply to the proposed development at Maryvale under both alternatives (with and without the 91 small capacity wells) proposed in the amended plan for augmentation if 901 acre-feet per year can be produced by the 16 wells decreed in the original Maryvale plan for augmentation. 4. There will likely not be sufficient physical supply from the approximately nine wells decreed in Case No. 85CW377 to serve the remainder of Fraser not covered by either the Maryvale plan for augmentation (either the original or the proposed amended) or the Forest Meadows plan for augmentation at buildout conditions. It will be necessary to divert from surface water or pennit additional wells to serve as alternate points of diversion for Fraser's senior rights in order to have sufficient physical supply at buildout conditions. 1 J':9.5.022.001p11U1P1aIImemo ýÿ . . . '. - ~ S. The major problem facing the Town of Fraser in assembling a legal and physically practical water supply system using the two augmentation plans and the Town's water rights portfolio is producing an accounting and reporting system that: (1) will be faithful to the requirements decreed in the original Maryvale plan for augmentation plan (and which will not be altered by the requested amended plan for augmentation), (2) will be acceptable to the Division S Engineer and I can be used in drought years as a basis for administration, and (3) is sufficiently practical that it .. ban be carried out by the Town without undue expense for lawyers and engineers and a lot of hassle to the Town. 6. The basic problem exists because the Forest Meadows and original Maryvale plans for augmentation were each developed and decreed as separate, stand alone plans for augmentation with their own sources of supply serving only the Forest Meadows area or the original Maryvale area. Each individual plan for augmentation has specific defInitions of an EQR and limits on consumptive use for in-house domestic use, unit consumptive use for landscaping purposes (acre- feet/acre), etc. There are numerous differences and conflicts between the two plans for augmentation. For example, the site decreed for the augmentation reservoir in the Forest Meadows plan for augmentation is proposed to be served by the amended Maryvale plan for augmentation. In-house domestic use will have 5 percent consumptive use in the Forest Meadows plan for augmentation and 3.3 percent consumptive use in the original and amended Maryvale plans for augmentation. There are numerous other examples of the conflicts and differences among the plans for augmentation detailed in Tables 1 and 2. 7. The master plan water system which will be developed for the existing Town of Fraser and the areas included in the Forest Meadows and Maryvale plans for augmentation will tie all these areas together for purposes of physical supply. The lines will be looped and the distribution systems for the existing Town, Forest Meadows area and Maryvale will all be interconnected and it should be possible to serve most areas from any well or surface diversion. As a result of this physical integration of three systems (existing Town, Maryvale and Forest Meadows) which were legally decreed as three separate systems, it will be very difficult to operate the combined system and to meet the reporting and accounting requirements specified in the decrees in Case Nos. 86CW2S6, 98CW41, and 83CW362 and the numerous decrees in the Town's water rights portfolio. 8. This is not a trivial problem. Undef future drought conditions in the Fraser River, there will be strict administration of water rights by the Division S Engineer who, in turD, will require reporting of data to demonstrate that the Town is adhering to the requirements of its degrees and augmentation plans and is replacing all out of priority depletions. This will require the Town to operate the water supply system in accordance with the decreed plans for augmentation and have a workable and practical accounting and reporting system that will be satisfactory to the Division S Engineer. 9. Under the present situation, with the augmentation plans and the Town's water rights decreed separately and independently of one another and with the resulting conflicts among the various decrees and water rights, it is very likely that operating the combined systems and developing an acceptable accounting and reporting system to the Division Engineer will be difficult, complicated and expensive. 2 P:9.S-42%.OOlp/allJp1amDcmo ýÿ . . . . ~ ~ - 10. Stan Cazier has already detailed many of the problems and has made recommendations for solving the problems in his protest of the Maryvale amended plan for augmentation in Case No. 98CW041 and in his comments on Maryvale's request to use the Forest Meadows plan for augmentation. Stan has correctly highlighted the continuing jurisdiction problem as one of the main problems, and perhaps the main problem, with Maryvale's amended plan for augmentation. Under both the ,- original plan for augmentation decreed in Case No. 86CW256 and the proposed amended plan for augmentation, there is continuing jurisdiction for 10 years after 1600 gpm is pumped from the 16 Maryvale wells; consequently, continuing jurisdiction could go on for a very long time. Consequently, the Town will be required to adhere to the requirements of the plan for augmentation long after the Maryvale developer has left and the Town will be responsible for coming up with additional augmentation water if necessary, doing all the monitoring required, and generally trying to run this plan for augmentation in a very different environment/system than for which it was decreed. 12. Following are some additional recommendations and some expansion on some of Stan's recommendations that will increase the likelihood of the Town ending up with a water rights portfolio with which it can efficiently serve the Town (including Maryvale and the Forest Meadows areas) without wmecessary expense and hassle. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. First choice would be to do a plan of augmentation for the Town which would incorporate the Town's existing water rights portfolio, the Maryvale plan for augmentation (either amended or in the form decreed in Case No. 86CW258), and the Forest Meadows plan for augmentation. This would result in a good legal basis to support an interconnected and looped physical water supply system that will allow for water from any well or surface diversion to be used any place in the system and satisfactorily accounted for. If you were to select this option, it would be necessary for the Town to require that more consumptive use credits be transferred from Maryvale to the Town than are presently proposed in Maryvale's amended plan for augmentation because it is likely that some of the basic parameters and requirements in an amended Maryvale plan for augmentation (e.g. the 3.33% in- house depletion/consumptive use) will be changed by the Water Court thereby resulting in an increased demand for augmentation water. A key action necessary to integrate the two augmentation plans and the Town's water rights portfolio into a common plan for augmentation will be to define a uniform EQR for use throughout the Town's service area that will allow for uniform replacement of out of priority depletions regardless of the source of depletions; i.e. out of priority pumping from a Maryvale well will require equivalent replacement of depletions regardless of whether the pumped water supplies a home in Maryvale or a home in the Forest Meadows area. 2. Second choice would be to attempt to change the proposed amended Maryvale plan for augmentation in Case No. 98CW401 as much as possible so that it will conflict as little as possible with the Town's water rights portfolio and the Forest Meadows plan for augmentation. This would be done by continuing our protest to various requirements and deficiencies in the proposed amended plan for augmentation through the Water Court process together with using leverage through the annexation agreement to get as much change as possible. 3 P:9S4Z2.0II1pfllllPlaDmano . . .~ - The major problem here is that the end result is going to be pretty much of a jerry rigged deal and, in my opinion, is going to cost the Town more money and grief in the future. Also, many of the same difficult problems are going to have to be faced in this alternative as in the first choice; for example, the 3.33 % in house consumptive use factor, the limited water for augmentation purposes offered by Maryvale, the excessive monitoring requirements, the Winter Park West Stipulation, etc. This alternative will require significantly more change than is contained in the proposed amended plan for augmentation (Case No. 98CW041). The major objective of the proposed Maryvale amended plan for augmentation is to ratchet down the amount of augmentation water required so that Maryvale will have sufficient water for augmentation purposes to support the golf course. 3. A third alternative would be to accept the Maryvale amended plan for augmentation without major change and plan to work out operation, administration and accounting matters in the future. The major problem with this alternative is that the Town gets stuck with having to resolve all the problems caused by the inconsistencies and conflicts among the two augmentation plans and the Town's water rights in the future by itself. Furthermore, this is likely to happen in a future series of dry years when all water rights in the Fraser River valley and tributaries will be tightly administered and rectifying conflicts and deficiencies will be costly and time consuming. 4 P:9:S-022.00lp/auaplamnemo . . - ~ Table 1 Summary of Water Rights and Plans of Augmentation for Town of Fraser, Maryvale, and Forest Meadows I .. Town of Forest Original Amended Aug Plan .' Fraser Meadows Maryvale in 98CW041 in 83CW362 Aug Plan 86CW258 w/o Small w/Small Capacity Capacity Wells Wells Total EQRs at Build- 2535(20} 592(16) 5516(4) 340 1 (6) 2829(6) out Annual Demand 1052 AF'13) 263 Af<2) 1459 Af<27) 901 AF'17) 748.9 AF17) (af/yr) CU (af/yr) 96.3 32.65 AF'I) 84.5 AF'18) 53.0 AFI9) 45.7 AF(19) AF/yr(15) Area 600 Acres(2l) 40.29 Ac Approx Approx Approx 700 acres 960 acres(23) 960 acres(23) 75.3 Ac including 37.1 Area "D "(22) acres of lawns(l4) Supply 900 gpm (9) 350 gpm (I) 1600 gpm 1600 gpm 1600 gpm 870 AF/yr 1459 901 AF/YR(29) 748.9 AF/YRI'YJ) AF /YR(1J!) from 16 wells from 16 wells supply central supply central system system; 91 small capacity wells Physical supply source 9 wells(9) Troub\fsome( Troublesome Troublesome Troublesome producing at aquifer via aquifer aquifer aquifer through 100 gpm through 16 through up to up to 16 large 60% Fraser Well wells(ll) 16 wells(1I) wells &, 91 on- of the time NDsl&2 site wells(1l) =870 ac- ftIyr Source of Aug Water (10) Elk Creek Cozens Ditch, Cozens Ditch, Cozens Ditch Ditch NA Maryvale Maryvale Maryvale Res 2(12). Res., Res., Detention 17.66 AF Detention Detention Reservoirs storage is Reservoirs Reservoirs required Quantity of Aug 183 32.65 116 AF/YR(4) 116 AF'4) 116 AF'4) Water AF/yr<10) AF/yr(l2) 5 P:95-022.001plaugplaDmemo ~ ýÿ . . - ,- (24) (25) (26) Required Accounting (26) (26) Covered by Gfeen No No No No Mm.. Reservoir Operating Plan Consumptive use as % N.A. 5%(\) 3.3% 3.3%(4) 91 wells of total water divided 10 % Idomestic(6) 86 %Ilawns 3.3% for central(4) water system. Maryvale Golf Course (7) (8) FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE 1 (1) From Case Nil 83CW362, Table I, Fraser Well Nils 1 and 2 were conditionally decreed in Case Nil 82CW219 with Appropriation date of July 22, 1982 for 150 gpm and 200 gpm respectively metered diversions to the subdivision shall not exceed 2630 acre-feet in any 10 consecutive years. Consumotion Demand Summary Domestic Consumption = 11.64 AF Irrigation Consumption =437,500 ft2 x lAc = 10.04 Acres x I.01AF = 10.14 AF 43,560 ft2 Ac Evaporation from Augmentation Reservoir = 10.87 AF Total = 32.65 AF Total depletion of the Fraser River is limited to 32.65 AF/yr. (2) Town of Fraser "Integrated Augmentation Plan Framework" HRS Water Consultants, February 1990 Water Dema.nd Domestic Demand Irrie:ation Demand SFDU 30 x 350 gpd = 10,500 3000 ff/unit = 9O,OOOff MFDU 480 x 250 gpd = 120,000 500 rr/unit = 240,()()()ff Hotel 500 units 500 x 125 gpd = 62,500 150 rr lunit = 75, ()()()ff Com & Ind 130,000 ff x 107 gpdIl000 rr = 13.900 250 ffl1000 ff . = 32.500ff 206,900 gpd 437,500t'f Domestic & household = 206,910 gpd x 365 davs x AF = 232 AF Yr 325,851 gal Diversion Demand SnmmaTV Reservoir Storage = 17.7 AF Irrigation Demand 437,500 rr x Acre x 1.34 AF = 13.5 AF 43,5&>2 Ac Domestic = 232 AF Total = 263.2 AF 6 P:9S.m2.001pfaugplallmcmo ýÿ . . I I - - I The 1.34 acre-feet/acre demand is based on: a. 12.07 inches/irrigation consumptive use of water for irrigation cited in: HRS Water Consultants, Inc., 1982, Engineers Report for Augmentation Plan for Town of Fraser, Appendix C to report by Broyles Engineering Co. b. Assuming on irrigation efficiency of 75 percent results in an irrigation demand of 1.34 acre-feet/acre/year. I (3) Predesign Study 1996 Water Improvements for the Town of Fraser, MWE, Ltd., September 1996 (4) Case Nil 86CW258. The source of augmentation water for the 5516 EQRs at buildout is 116 acre- feet of historic consumptive use credits from the Cozens Ditch which can be stored in the 84 acre- feet of storage in Maryvale Reservoir, Maryvale Reservoir enlargement and the proposed detention reservoirs. (5) Engineer Report for Augmentation Plan for the Town of Fraser, Broyles Engineering Company, November 20, 1984, Item B.2, Page 1 (6) Application to Amend Finding of Fact, Conclusion of Law, Judgement and Decree Adjudicating Augmentation Plan Gathered in Case Nil 86CW258, September I, 1988 indicates 3401 EQRs at buildout without small capacity wells and 2829 EQRs with small capacity wells. Of the 2829 total EQR's for the with small capacity well scenario, 2738 EQR's would be served by the central water system and 91 EQR's would be served by the small wells. (7) Golf Course was not included in Case NQ 86CW258 (8) Per 1989 lease agreement between Town of Fraser and Maryvale, 65 acre-feet of water from Middle Park Conservancy District were to be leased by the Town of Maryvale for golf course irrigation. (9) . 9 wells decreed in 85CW337 (Windy Gap Exchange) with permitted yield of: (a) 2.23 cfs (1000 gpm) for Wells Nil 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4 and 5, and (b) 1.11 cfs (500 gpm) for Wells Nil 7,8 and 9. A total of 3.34 cfs (1500 gpm) can be pumped from Wells 1,2, 3a, 3b, 4,5, 7,8 and 9 as decreed in 82CW219 and 85CW339 (Elk Creek Ditch No.2). . 2.28 efs decreed for Fraser domestic water system in Civil Action 1175, W2279 and 82CW219. . Wells 1-5 are alternate points of diversion for 2.28 efs (1954 appropriation date from Fraser domestic water system. . Per Decree 9OCW235 and information provided to MWE April 4, 1998 titled "Original Approximate Well Capacities"; the Fraser well capacities are: 7 P:9S-022.001p/augplanmemO . . - - Well Capacltv (20m) 1 100 2 100 3A 40 3B 70 4 unknown 5 18 (not used) 6 18 (not used) 7 65 (manual start) 8 not drilled 9 not drilled . For purposes of this comparison, the nine wells are assumed to each have a capacity of 100 gpm, and would pump at 60% of the time. This would result in a total annual combined production of: 9 wells x 100 fPm x 1440 min x 365 days x AF x 60% = 870 AF we day yr 325,851 gal (10) The Town of Fraser does not have a decreed augmentation plan; instead the Town relies on a collection of replacement sources to insure that the Town's nine decreed wells in Case Nil 85CW337 can continue to pump out of priority when a senior call is administered. Sources of replacement water include: . Green Mountain Reservoir releases to augment municipal water rights with priority dates senior to October 1977. All nine of Fraser's wells have appropriation and adjudication dates junior to 1977. Well Nils 1-9, however, are decreed as alternate points of diversion for other water rights senior to 1977 in Case Nils 82CW219 and 82CW337 (Gaskill Ditch and Fraser Domestic Water System). Therefore, these wells should be covered by Green Mountain Reservoir releases. In the event that Green Mountain Reservoir releases are not available, the Town's junior wells are covered by other sources of augmentation water discussed below. There appears to be some question that Well Nils 1 and 2 are covered by Green Mountain. This question is being investigated by MWE. Well Nils 1 and 2, however, are augmented in the Forest Meadows plan for augmentation decreed in 83CW 362 and the decree in Case no. 85CW339 by Elk Creek Ditch Nil 2 (7/23/1894 appropriation date and 8/11/1906 adjudication date) for 32.65 ac-ftIyear of historic consumptive use). 8 P:95-022.001p/augplamnemo . . ~ - . Fraser bas 80 acre-feet of Middle Park water: 6S acre-feet can be used by Maryvale under an 1989 lease to irrigate the proposed Maryvale golf course. This water can be exchanged to Fraser Well NQs 1,2,4 and 5, the Gaskill Ditch, Wells RM-S, RM-6, and RM-7; detention reservoirs K-la, K-lb, K-2, J-2, J-3, E-F; and Maryvale Reservoir under the terms and conditions decreed in Case NQ 9O-CW-23S. . Fraser has 2S acre feet of Windy Gap water which can be used for augmenting out of priority diversions by Well NGs 1-9. This was decreed in Case NQ 8SCW337. .. Fraser has 110 acre-feet of Clinton Reservoir Agreement water which it can use for direct supply or augmentation/replacement purposes. However, this water is only available from September 151h to May 5th. This gives the Town the right to have Denver bypass 110 acre-feet of water from diversion into its Fraser River collection system and deliver this water instead to either St. Louis Creek, Big Vasquez Creek anellor the Fraser River. St Louis Creek joins the Fraser River downstream from the Town's well field while the Big Vasquez Creek joins the Fraser River upstream from the Town's well field. The Fraser River point of delivery would also be upstream from the Town's well field. These factors make the Big Vasquez Creek point of delivery and the Fraser River point of delivery more advantageous than the St. Louis Creek point of delivery. If the Town wants its Clinton Reservoir water delivered at Big Vasquez Creek or the Fraser River upstream from the Town it must provide 0.67 ac-ft of replacement water to Denver for each acre-foot of Clinton water bypassed to the Big Vasquez Creek or Fraser River. In addition, the Town must replace its depletions resulting from use of the by- passed water. In contrast, if the Town were to accept delivery of its Clinton Reservoir water At Williams Fork Reservoir, it will not have to make the replacement payment of 0.67 ac-ftlac-ft to Denver. The Town has already acquired the necessary water to allow the Town to receive delivery of the Clinton water at Big Vasquez Creek or the Fraser River. This replacement water has been transferred to Denver. The amount of water required for replacing the Town's depletions when the 110 acre-feet is bypassed to the Town's points of diversion on the Fraser River or Big Vasquez Creek is based on 5 % of depletions because this by-pass water will be required during the winter when there will only be depletions resulting from in-house use. These depletions will be replaced by bypassing 5.0% of Fraser's 110 acre-feet or 5.5 acre-feet (.05 x 110 acre-feet = 5.5 acre-feet) of Clinton Reservoir water at Williams Fork Reservoir . Assuming the Town takes all of its 110 acre-feet of Clinton Reservoir bypass water from either the Fraser River or Big Vasquez Creek and replaces 5.5 acre-feet of its depletions from by-passing flows at Williams Fork Reservoir, this will require payment of 70 ac-ft to Denver (110 ac-ft - S.Sacft) x 0.67 ac-ftlac-ft = 70 ac-ft). This 70 ac-ft will be released from Wolford Mountain Reservoir under terms of an agreement. In summary, the sources of water available to Fraser in addition to Green Mountain for replacing out of priority diversion include: 9 P:9S-022.00lp/augplamDemo ýÿ . . - - Source Acft/vear . Augmentation of Fraser Well Nil 1 and 2 by the Forest Meadows Plan 32.65 for Augmentation decreed in Case Nil 83CW362 and 85CW339. . Windy Gap Water decreed in Case Nil 85CW337 25.0 . Remaining Middle Park Conservancy District water from 80 acft 15.0 after leasing 65 acft to Maryvale. This water can be exchanged to Fraser Well Nils 1,2,4 and S (Case Nil 9OCW23S). . Clinton Reservoir Agreement water 110.0 Total 182.65 (11) The source of supply is 16 wells decreed in Case Nil 86CW258 and included in the amended Maryvale plan for augmentation. Results of well production for Wells 7, 8 and 9 are from "Town of Fraser 1994 Testing Program Well Nils 7,8 and 9". Prepared for the Town of Fraser by HRS Water Consultant Inc. October 1994. Well Nil 7 was estimated to produce 88 gpm, Well NSl 8 at 70 gpm, and Well Nil 9 at 150 gpm. (12) As decreed in Case Nil 83CW362, the source of augmentation water is Elk Creek Ditch Nil 2 for 0.5 cfs diversion and 32.65 acre-feet/year from previously irrigated meadowland consisting of 32.32 acres. Storage will be required to carry over the 32.65 acre-feet/year of historic consumptive use credits from the Elk Creek Ditch Nil 2 for use during the non-irrigation season. The decree in case Nil 83CW362 {paragraph 120 requires the reservoir to be at least 17.66 acre-feet. This plan for augmentation will become effective only after a conditional decree for the 17.66 acre-foot reservoir is obtained. (See paragraph 121 in decree in Case Nil 83VW362.) (13) Average Annual Demand is projected to be: In house: 2535 EQRs x 350 ~al x 365 days x AF = 994 AF EQR day Yr 325,851 gal Landscape irrigation: 2535 EQRs x 750 ff + 43560 sQ ft x 1.34 AF = S8 AF EQR day EQR Ac Total = 994 + 58 = 1052 AF Because the distribution among single family, multifamily, commercial and industrial was not provided by Fraser, 750 square feet of irrigated landscaping per EQR was used to estimate irrigation water demand. The source of the 1.34 acre-feet/acre irrigation demand is detailed in footnote (2) herein. 10 P:9S-022.001p/augpJamncmo . . ~ ~ Engineering Report Plan of Augmentation Prepared for Regis - Maryvale, Inc., Grand County, Colorado by Wright Water Engineers, January 1987, Section 1 (14) Consumptive use for the Town of Fraser is based upon 5 % of the average annual daily diversion .- (350 gpd/EQR) being consumed for in house use. For landscape irrigation during the months of June, July, and August, and assume 500 sq ftlEQR of landscape irrigation and 1.6 ac-ft/acre of consumptive use. In house consumptive use for June, July and August: 350 gal/day EQR x 2535 EQR x AF x 5 % x 92 days = 12.5 AF 325,851 gal Landscape irrigation: 500 sq ftlEQR + 43,560 sq ftj acre x 1.6 AF/acre x 2535 EQR = 46.6 AF (?) In house consumptive use for January through May and September through December: 350 gal/day EQR x 2535 EQR x AF x 5% x 273 days = 37.2 AF 325,851 gal TOTAL CONSUMPTNE USE = 96.3 AF (16) The following calculations were made to determine the number of EQR's projected for the Forest Meadows One Development as detailed in the decree for Case Nil 83CW362. The number of single family and other development categories together with the gallons/development/day is specified in Case Nil 83CW362. SFDU 30 x 350 gpd x 1 EOR = 30 EQRs 350 gpd MFDU 480 x 250 gpd x 1 EOR = 343 EQRs 350 gpd Hotel 500 x 125 gpd x 1 EOR = 179 EQRs 350 gpd Commercial & Industrial: 130,000 ft2 x -1M x 1 EOR = 40 EORs 1000 350 gpd Total EQRs = 592 EQRs (17) As proposed in Case Nil 98CW041; Application to Amend Case Nil 86CW258, see paragraph 41.. 11 P:~.OOlp/augplamnemo . . . - - (18) As decreed in Case Nil 86CW258, Maryvale Plan for Augmentation. (19) As proposed in Case Nil 98CW041, Application to Amend Case Nil 86CW258 , see paragraph 4 I. (20) Predesign Report and Application for Site Approval, Wastewater Treatment Plant ExpansionlUpgrade for the Fraser Sanitation District and Winter Park West Water and Sanitation District, Grand County, Colorado by Mclaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd., January 1998. Page n-2: Ultimate EQR within Town Limits 1335 EQR Developable Areas outside Town, excluding Maryvale and Forest Meadows One: Existing 150 lots to northwest 150 EQR Denver Water Board Property 50 acres 200 EQR Commercial Site to North 250 EQR Developable Land Adjacent to the Town on the West (150 acres) 600 EQR Total EQR's 2535 EQR These projections were corroborated by Vicki Winters, Town of Fraser staff, July 8, 1998. (21) This value of the service area was provided by the Town of Fraser personnel. (22) Engineering Report for Augmentation Plan for the Town of Fraser, By Boyles Engineering Co., November 20, 1984. (23) Estimate of Acreage by MWE from Exhibit A of Case Nil 98CW041, prepared by Martin and Wood, March 1998. (24) The Town of Fraser must: (1) Maintain records on volume of Clinton Reservoir bypass water taken at: (a) St Louis Creek, (b) Big Vasquez Creek, and (c) Fraser River. (2) Maintain records on volume of Clinton Reservoir bypass flows used to repla~ depletions from Clinton Reservoir bypass flows. (3) Amount of Clinton Reservoir deliveries taken at Williams Fork Reservoir. (4) Amount of Middle Park Conservancy District water requested and the amount provided to augment the Maryvale golf course. (5) Amount of Windy Gap water requested (6) The quantity and timing of augmentation water used to augment Town of Fraser Well Nils 1 and 2 under the terms and conditions of the Forest Meadows plan for augmentation decreed in Case Nil 83CW262. 12 P:9S-022.00lp/augplalJmrmo . . - - (7) The volumes of pumping from the Town's nine wells: (1) Under their own priorities (2) As alternate points of diversion for: (25.) The following requirements are included in the decree in 83CW362: a. Consumptive use (not just out of priority depletions) from project will not exceed 32.65 AF/yr including 10.87 acre feet of reservoir evaporation. Depletions to Fraser River must be less than 32.65 AF/yr. b. Less than 10.1 acres of landscape irrigation and Town shall require developer to have protective covenants to limit to native vegetation. c. Irrigation season of May 15 - September 30. d. Water lines from Fraser Well Nils 1 and 2 and additional wells shall be metered. "Metered diversions into the subdivision shall not exceed 2,630 acre feet in any 10 consecutive years. n Therefore, you can pump more from Well Nils 1 and 2, but you can only divert 263 AF/yr to Forest Meadows. e. Reservoir must be at least 17.66 acre feet. f. Install meters on all wells used in this plan for Augmentation and report to Division Engineer. g. Reservoir evaporation will be calculated and replaced. h. This is really not a measured plan for augmentation. It calls for releases every month for replacement of domestic depletions of 0.97 AF and variable amounts for replacement of irrigation depletion and reservoir evaporation depletion during the summer (see Table 1 in decree in 83CW362). There doesn't appear to be a provision for pro rata amounts to be released before buildout conditions are achieved. i. Maximum number ofliving units shall be 1010 and less than 130,000 sq ft of commercial. (26) The following accounting and reporting requirements will be necessary: a. Case no. 86CW256 1. Page 13: Applicant shall replace 3.33 % of out of priority diversion applied to domestic uses and 85 % of out of priority diversions applied to irrigation purposes.. . Domestic use = total well pumping - Irrigation Demand . Irrig. Demnad = Irrig. Landscape acres X Mlac irrig demand. 13 P:9S-022.001p/augpJamnrmo . . . - ~ 2. This has to be calculated every week during April-Sept. During the rest of the year, the frequency of making this calculation is not clear. b. Case No. 98CW041 1. The basic accounting concepts as detailed in Case No 86CW258 are not changed in 98CW041 . 2. Weekly accounting of pumpage from the wells, including the small wells will be necessary. This is going to require installation of meters, that really work, and someway to read all these meters on the small wells. 3. In the case of the Maryvale well field; this will be supplying water to areas other than Maryvale because there will be a looped system. Consequently, you would have to read all the meters on all the homes in Maryvale every week. 4. An alternative would be to utilize the procedure that they employ in page 5 of 98CW041 to estimate the total domestic CU: i. For the EQRs served by the central water system, assume a prorated weekly I portion of 0.OO853af/yr/central system EQR and multiply by the current number of central system EQRs and ii. For the EQRs served by the small wells use 0.02565 af/yrlEQR served by small wells and multiply by the number of EQRs served by small wells. This will work fine if you can get it approved in the amended aug plan: Marylvale needs to get this approved, however. (27) The 1459 acre-feet/year in-house and landscape irrigation demand is decreed in Case Nil 86CW258. We believe this estimated 1459 acre-feet/year demand for 5516 EQR's is likely underestimated. (28) Estimated supply is based on: . Assuming 100 gpm yield based on Fraser Well Nil 1 and 2 and a well utilization factor of 0.60: 100 gpm x 16 wells = 1600 gpm, 1600 gpm x 1440 min/day x 365 days/yr x 0.60 + 325, 900 gallAF = 1550 AFlYr . The decree in Case Nil 86CW2581imits pumping from the wells to 1600 gpm and 1459 acre-feet/year . The total for the with on-site wells situation is: 1600 gpm + 270 gpm = 1870 gpm, and 1550 AFlYr + 130 AFlYr = 1680 AFlYr 14 P:9S-022.001p/augpJamncmo ýÿ . . . -~ ~ (29) As indicated in paragraph 41 of the Application for an amended plan for augmentation (Case Nil 98CW041) the applicant proposes to reduce the total annual water demand, and consequently the supply, to 901.0 acre-feet/year. No reduced rate of pumping is proposed in the amended augmentation plan in Case Nil 98CW041; therefore, it is assumed that the 1600 gallon/minute limitation on the rate of pumping decreed in Case Nil 86CW258 will still apply. (30) The amended plan for augmentation proposed in Case Nll 98CW041 proposes 748.9 acre-feet/year total pumping from the 16 wells and the 91 small capacity wells. The amended augmentation plan in Case Nll 98CW041 does not change the 1600 gallon/minute rate decreed in Case Nll 86CW258 or the 16 wells. The amended plan for augmentation in Case Nil 98CW041 does not propose separate limits on pumping by the 16 wells and the 91 small capacity wells. However, assuming 3 gpm for the on- site small capacity wells and a well utilization factor of 0.30: 91 wells x 3 gpm = 273 gpm, 273 gpm x 1440 min/day x 365 days/year x 0.30 + 325,900 gallAF = 130 AFlYr would be produced from these 91 small capacity wells. The decree in Case Nll 86CW258 limits pumping from the 16 wells to 1459 AFlYr and 1600 gpm. The application in the amended plan for augmentation (Case Nll 98CW041) proposes to limit total supply to 748.9 AFlYr for the 16 wells supplying the central system and the 91 small capacity wells. Paragraph 14L of the decree in Case Nil 86CW258 limits pumping to less than 1600 gallons/minute and 1459 acre-feet/year for the 16 wells. Paragraph llE of the decree in Case Nil 86CW258 limits pumping to 1459 acre-feet per year and consumptive use to 84.S acre-feet per year. Paragraph 41 of the amended plan for augmentation in Case Nil 98CW041 proposes to modify paragraph lIE of the decree in Case Nil 86CW258 by limiting supply without the small capacity wells to 901 acre-feet/year and 748.9 acre-feet/year with the small capacity wells. This amendment proposes similar limits for consumptive use to 53.0 acre-feet per year without the small capacity wells and 45.7 acre-feet per year consumptive use with the small capacity wells. The following concerns result from the proposed amendment to the augmentation plan: a. A breakdown of the 748.9 acre-feet/year pumping limit must be provided between the annual allowable pumping for the 16 wells and the 91 small capacity wells. b. If the town accepts the amended Maryvale plan for augmentation proposed in Case Nll 98CW041, necessary accounting requirements must be determined in order to limit water supplied to the Maryvale EQR's to the 901 acre-feet/year without the small capacity wells or the 748.9 acre-feet/year (net of the pumping by the small capacity wells). 15 P:9S-022.001p/augplamDano I I . TABLE 2 . . COMPARISON OF PLANS FOR AUGMENTATION Case Nll 86CW256 Case Nil 98CW401 Case Nil 83CW362 Item (Original Maryvale) (Proposed Maryvale Amended) (Forest Meadows) 1. EQR's (2.75 people/EQR) 5516 EQR 340 EQR wlo small wells 1010 Units (p S) (P4) 2829 EQR wI small wells 130,000 sq ft commercial 2. gpd/EQR 275 350 gldlsingle family 250 gldlmulti-family . 125 gldlbotel unit 107 gld11000 sq ft commercial 3. Irrigate ImutllNlping/EQR 2SO No change 3000 sq ft/single family (tr/EQR) 300 sq ft/multi-family 150 sq ftlhotel room 250 sq ft/l000 sq ft commercial 4. People/EQR 275 Water/EQR (gldJ 275 S. Occupancy rate 70% - 90% No change 6. cu · Domestic: % 3.33% w/o small w small 5% total 47.1 AF/yr wells wells 32.65% . Landscape: . · Acreage (Ac) 31.7 Ac 20.3 Ac 17.0 Ac 10.1 · Demand (AF/Ac) 1.39 AF/Ac 1.39 AF/Ac 1.39 AF/Ac · cu (AF/Ac) 1.18 AF/Ac 1.18 AF/Ac 1/18 AFI Ac 10.1 · cu (AF/year 37.4 AFlyear 23.9 AF/yr 20.0 AF/yr · Efficiency 85% 85 85 7. Total Demand (AF/yr) 1459 901 (w/o small wells) 32.65 AF/yr 53.0 (wI small wells) 16 P:9S-022.00lp/augplanmemo --" , i . Case Nil 86CW256 Case Nil 98CW401 Case Nil 83CW362 Item (Original Maryvale) (proposed Maryvale Amended) (Forest Meadows) 8. Total CD (AF/yr) 84.5 45.7 (w/o small wells) 53.0 (wI small wells) 9. Storage in Detention Fill wi excess CD credits from No exchange except to increase Storage reservoir with 4.08 Reservoirs and Expanded Cozens Ditch storage volume of reservoirs surface acres. Maryvale Reservoir May 15 - Aug 15 10. Dry up Annually dry up land to provide No change .' Aug. water. Dry up is pennanent. 0.928 AF of CD water/Ac of dry up. (p 10) 100yr running average. 0.3168 AF/Ac winter return flow. 11. Winter Park West Applies. Paragraphs 1.A - A.E. No change Stipulation requires monitoring and Regs protects W'mter Park West water rights. 12. Cozens Ditch Diversion for 0.01 cfs/Acre of dry up No change Augmentation 0.015 cfs/Ac abandoned to stream 13. Diversions limits and other · Less than 1600 gpm and 1459 · No change Less than 2630 AF in 100year period limits AF/yr from wells from wells · Less than 16 wells · No change 2 wells plus more can be added . · Less than 5,516 EQRs · Less than 3401 or 2829 wells · IMFU = 0.8 EQR · 1 motel unit = 0.35 EQR · No change · 1000 ft2 retail = 0.3 EQR · 1000 ft2 office = 0.6 EQR · Less than 31.7 Ac of muniCipal · Less than 20.3 (17.0 Ac) lawns and open green areas 17 P:9S-ml.OOlp/augplanmemo ýÿ . ; I Case Nll 86CW256 Case Nll 98CW401 Case Nll 83CW362 Item (Original Maryvale) (Proposed Maryvale Amended) (Forest Meadows) 14. Acc01mting (p 13) During Domestic use = No change except for the following: May - Sept; calculate each week: Total Irrigation Calculate Domestic Use Depletions: Well - Demand Pumping EQRs under X 0.008531 AF/yr big wells EQRs under X 0.02565 AF/yr . small wells Irrigation Demand = The .00853 is based on 3.33% co of 0.2565 AF/yrlEQR demand (p 5 of Landscape AFof 86CW258). The .00853 is the same Irrigated X Irrigation in the original decree and in Acreage Demand 98CW401. The 0.02565 is based (p 14) on 10% Cll because of leach fields. During Oct - April, all use is domestic, no irrigation. Calculate Domestic Use Depletions; Domestic = Domestic x .033 Depletions Use Calculate Irrigation Depletions: .- Irrigation = Irrigation x 0.85 Depletions Demand 18 P:9S-022.00lpfaugplamnemo . -, . I I , Case Nil 86CW256 Case Nil 98CW401 Case Nll 83CW362 Item (Original Maryvale) (Proposed Maryvale Amended) (Forest Meadows) 15. Accounting Regis has the burden of showing that there are no unexplained reductions in the river between Maryvale and the Hammond ND 1 Ditch. Therefore, it is necessary to install gages on the river and its tributaries upstream from the Hammond Nil 1. Otherwise, you've . got to augment the Hammond Nil I. 16. Continuing Jurisdiction 10 years after 1600 gpm is pumped. No Change Apparently Forever 17. Structures to be Augmented 16 wells in Regis Maryvale 16 wells in Regis Maryvale Fraser Wells 1 and 2 plus future wellfield wellfiedl wells 18. EQRs (or units) · Single Family 30 units · Multi-family 5521 EQR 3327 EQR - 480 units · Hotelllodge units 2466 EQR 1420 EQR - 500 units . Retail space (ft2) 272,650 EQR 459,000 EQR - · Office space (ff) 257,350 EQR 51,000 EQR - · Commerciallmuni ..0- -0- 130.000 sq ft · Total 5516 EQR 340IEQR 2829 EQR 1010 units (w/o small wells) (w/small wells) . . . 19. 1. Max to release from storage to: a. replace out of priority 76.6 AF/year 67.6 w/o small wells depletions during non- irrigation season. b. maintain historic 64.2 wi small wells No requirements to maintain historic winter return flow winter return flows. patterns in paragraph 11.1 of decree. 19 P:~.OOlp'augplamnemo ýÿ I II .. Case Nll 86CW256 Case Nil 98CW401 Case Nll 83CW362 Item (Original Maryvale) (proposed Maryvale Amended) (Forest Meadows) 20. More on cu P 5: Alternative parcels (w/o small wells): (2829 EQRs) total 2829 - 91 = 2738 EQRs supplied by 16 wens. 2738 x .00853 = 23.355 AF/yr domestic Cll 91 EQRs supplied by small wens . 91 x .02565 = 2.334 Total = 25.689 Cll for domestic property which checks. P 5: Irrigation w/o small wlsmaU wens wens Acres 20.3 17.0 Irrig Reg 28.2 23.4 cu 23.4 20.0 Domestic en 25.7 23.4 Total Cll 49.1(1) 43.4(1) . 20 P:9S-m2.00lp/augp1amnemo ýÿ . ~ . . TOWN OF FRASER "Icebox of the Nation" P.O. Box 120/153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, Colorado 80442 (970) 726-5491 FAX Une: (970) 726-5518 Manager's Briefing: July 28, 1998 Tomorrow is the annual retreat/workshop, the agenda is attached. We'll be meeting at the Iron Horse Resort (room 3308) at 3:00. When you CQme to the Iron Horse, look for balloons with directional arrows. Follow the. arrows. - The agenda is attached, along with four "questions that you need to answer before you Jirrive. These questions -will .assist in the introductory actiVity which is guaranteed to b€? full and . . stimulating (which is probably the best offer most of us will get this week). - fu the attached .." questions, the word "thing" is uSed loosely:" it may be a physical tIliDg or.an emotional thing .~~ . _' . . whatever. There are 110 rules. about your answers." However, due to the game we will ~ playirig,o:- you may want to keep yoilr_answers.to YOurself (at least until.tomorrow). . .- ." "" <- ~ Also attached are the 1998 goals and objectives. Call with questions. See you tomorrow! .. ~ . . TOWN OF FRASER ''Icebox of the Nation" P.O. Box 120/153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, Colorado 80442 (970) 726-5491 FAX Una: (970) 726-5518 TOWN BOARD & PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RETREATIWORKSHOP JULY 29, 1998, 3:00 p.m. IRON HORSE RESORT ROOM 3308 3;00 p.m. : Introductory Activity 3:30 p.m. SWOT analysis .'!'Ii, . , , What are Frase(s strengths, weaIai~ses, opportunities, and/or threats? , . '.' , , 4:30 p.m. , How does the. SWOT analysis relate to our goals an<i objectives? - - -" 5:00 p.m. ,What is the status of the 1998 goals and objectives? "-" 5:15 p.m. What are we doing that is allowing us to meet our goals and objectives? What are we"doing that is,limiting us in our effort to meet goals and objectives? 6:15 p.m. What are Fraser's 1999 goals and objectives? 6:30 p.m. Board & Commissioner Choice 7:00 p.m. Supper at The Rails Restaurant ýÿ