Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRUDOLPH FARMS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT - FDP220010 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 4 - SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Memorandum The Rudolph Farm project will utilize available well and surface water to serve all landscape areas within the development and to fill the three on-site ponds. System Overview Irrigation water from the well and surface water sources, as well as site stormwater will be directed to three on-site pond locations, as detailed in the current drainage plan prepared by Northern Engineering. Pond 2, with a proposed surface area of 2.42 acres, will serve as the primary collection pond for storage of irrigation water and pond make-up water to be distributed to the secondary ponds 1 and 3. Pond 2 will receive water from the surface water sources and from the on-site wells such that water delivery will be available to maintain the target water level. Water will enter from the existing surface ditch, located on the West side of the site, that will convey the available surface and well water. Make-up water will be transferred to ponds 1 and 3 via an irrigation pumping station which will draw water from pond 2 and into distribution piping to serve irrigation needs and maintain the water elevation in each of the ponds. The irrigation pump station will employ multiple variable speed pumps to provide system redundancy and to enable the system to respond efficiently to a wide range of system flow rates. The pumps will maintain pressure in the system in order to provide a ready supply for the various irrigation systems throughout the site and for the pond fill needs. The ponds are intended to function as wet ponds with storm detention capacity. Pond water levels will be maintained continuously by a float fill system so that storm flows will pass over and will not be held beyond the stormwater detention limits. The proposed pond wet elevations are as follows. (See the Northern Engineering Drainage Plans for more information). Pond 1 = 4904.10 Pond 2 = 4911 Pond 3 = 4919 It is expected that water levels in pond 2 would recede only during peak season irrigation operations. Water delivered from each source will be measured upon delivery to the pond system as will the volume of water transferred through the pump station. In the event that stormwater is received during irrigation operations or at any time when the pond is below the maintenance level, the water volumes received in the pond and the water volume discharged through the pumping system can be tracked via appropriate telemetry to transfer the appropriate volume of stormwater for discharge directly to the TRIC. Date: January 12, 2023 To: Mr. Blaine Mathison, Northern Engineering From: Hines Inc Re: Rudolph Farm - Non-Potable Water Supply Overview Colorado Office 323 West Drake Road, Suite 204 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Phone: 970-282-1800 Fax: 970-226-4662 Rudolph Farms – Non-Potable Water Supply Overview January 12, 2023 2 Water Supply The project will be supplied from a combination of well and surface water sources which will be delivered to the irrigation pond for distribution. (See the attached 2020 Irrigation Water Value Review memo which references and includes, attached, the 2016 Water Rights Investigation prepare by White Sands Water Engineers) Based on previous analysis referenced above, up to 304 acre-feet of water may be available in an average year from the various sources provided. Compared with the approximately 78 acre- feet required for irrigation, an excess of native waters will be available for the site. Currently, two of the existing wells are permitted for residential use & only offer the right to irrigate up to one (1) acre at the original home sites. We do not believe it will be cost effective or practical to maintain these wells for on-going site irrigation. Existing Wells There are two wells in the northwest corner of the property that have been discharged to a point in the onsite lateral just east of Vixen Dr. for delivery to the irrigation pond. As described in our 2016 irrigation water use analysis, the following water resources are available. 1. Well # 2-11993 a. Decreed for a substantial pumping rate of 1.65 CFS however, b. Production records state the well only operates for 15 days per season then runs dry c. Additionally, this well is decreed to be used for a 40-acre section at the northeast portion of the project site. 2. Well #’s 8-19642-1 & 7-19642-2 a. Together these wells are permitted for 240 acre-feet of water per year. b. This well is decreed to be used for a 40-acre section at the northwest portion of the project site. Surface Water From the East, the property is provided Kitchel Reservoir water via an open ditch that runs northwest from the reservoir, crosses CR5, runs along the North and then West side of several 10 acre lots, then West along the North side of Kitchel Estates to the northeast corner of the Rudolph property. It is reported that this water source has rarely been used in the last 10 years. From the North, the property is able to receive Eaton Ditch, Larimer-Weld and No. 10 water. This water is delivered via ditches that start where the Larimer-Weld ditch crosses Hwy 14, and then run West along the South side of Hwy 14, then turn South near Sunchase Dr and continue South along the West side of the Clydesdale neighborhood via a combination of pipes and open ditches. This is the primary delivery route for ditch water to the property. a. In an average year both surface rights (Kitchell & Larimer & Weld) provide an estimated 61 acre-feet of water. (Larimer & Weld must be used in 72 hrs. Kitchell rights may be stored at will) b. This water can be used anywhere on the property c. In a dry year, an estimated 14 acre-feet may be available for use. d. *Please note: Kitchell does not have good records for available water & effective delivery rates for the property. While up to 74 acre-feet may be available as a maximum allowance, historic notation indicates that none of the current delivery infrastructure to the property is metered. Delivery structure efficiency should be Rudolph Farms – Non-Potable Water Supply Overview January 12, 2023 3 researched and reviewed. It may be necessary to lease additional water with storage rights to maintain pond levels. Surface water and well water will be conveyed through the on-site ditch which flows from the NE corner of the site to the West and then South to the proposed irrigation pond location. Water Source Management Strategies Surface Water o Surface water supplies will be delivered to the site via surface ditch delivery. o A measurement structure meter, meeting ditch company standards, will be utilized to chart water deliveries to the site o The community water manager will coordinate deliveries with the ditch company ditch rider and irrigation system manager o Pond water levels will be managed utilizing water level sensors located at the pond Well Water Supplies o Use of well water will be prioritized during irrigation shoulder seasons, when surface water supplies may not yet be available and when minor mid-season irrigation water requirements arise. o Delivery from each well to the pond will be controlled via lake water level sensor and coordinated electronically with surface water deliveries. o Each well will include a meter with remote read and monitoring capabilities to manage water supplies. A surface water delivery schedule, utilizing average year yields and deliveries by month, should be developed by a water resource engineer as a general guideline. A monthly recording of irrigation demand requirements will be kept by community management. Water deliveries amounts, from both well & surface water sources will also be provided for reconciliation of supply and demand calculations and reporting. The non-potable water system, storage, distribution and irrigation will be designed to match the decreed area requirements for each water source. Irrigation water dedication will be required for each residential lot to serve exterior lot landscape irrigation purposes & open space landscape irrigation requirements. Hines has provided the following to facilitate more detailed water planning, raw water dedication negotiation, improved water conservation planning & a reduction of developer costs. Rudolph Farms – Non-Potable Water Supply Overview January 12, 2023 4 Estimated Water Demand Based on Hines analysis of combined irrigation demands to serve both open space & residential (on-lot) water use calculations, the total irrigation water demand for the project is estimated to be approximately 78 acre-feet. Interior water use dedication requirements for this project are estimated at 203 acre-feet. ELCO does not provide final tap sizing for commercial taps until final building design. The above amounts are an estimate based on historic projects and discussion with ELCO. The exact amount may vary with some significance depending on usage and tenant needs. IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS AND LANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATIONS The following parameters have been utilized to estimate irrigation water use for the project site. Please refer to the attachment below for Water Use Estimates organized by Project Area. Landscape water use and irrigation water demands have been calculated using: o Regional evapotranspiration (ET) rates averaged over 30-years o Specific plant coefficients based on proposed landscape material o Irrigation equipment efficiency data based on Rotor sprinklers serving large turf and native grass Spray sprinklers serving small turf areas Drip irrigation serving trees and shrubs o 8-10 hour watering window on common landscape areas Turf, shrub, & tree plant material will be permanently irrigated Turf is assumed to be a bluegrass/fescue blend Native areas will be irrigated for establishment o Irrigate only during an establishment period of approximately 3 years Irrigation Water Budget Summary Equipment Area (acres) Month Plant Water Req'mt (in) Monthly Water Req'mt Monthly Water Use Plant Water Req'mt (in) Monthly Water Req'mt (in) Monthly Water Use (gal) Plant Water Req'mt (in) Monthly Water Req'mt (in) Monthly Water Use (gal) January 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 - February 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 - March 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 - April 1.35 2.08 597,257 0.99 1.10 280,433 0.54 0.77 496,894 May 3.90 6.00 1,725,409 2.86 3.18 810,138 1.56 2.23 1,435,471 June 4.95 7.62 2,189,942 3.63 4.03 1,028,253 1.98 2.83 1,821,944 July 5.33 8.19 2,355,847 3.91 4.34 1,106,150 2.13 3.04 1,959,970 August 4.65 7.15 2,057,219 3.41 3.79 965,934 1.86 2.66 1,711,523 September 3.38 5.19 1,493,143 2.48 2.75 701,081 1.35 1.93 1,242,235 October 1.35 2.08 597,257 0.99 1.10 280,433 0.54 0.77 496,894 November 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 - December 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 - Subtotal (inches/year) Subtotal (gallons/year) Subtotal (acre-feet/year) Peak Flow (gpm) PROJECT DEMANDS TOTAL SOUTH NORTH IRRIGATED ACRES 44 17 26 GALLONS/YEAR 25,353,428 9,763,781 15,589,647 ACRE FEET/YEAR 78 30 48 PEAK SEASON GPM 434 167 267 INSTANTANEOUS PEAK GPM REQUIREMENT 521 201 321 14.23 9,164,932 157.0588.63 28.1315.87 5,172,422 20.29 188.77 38.31 33.81 11,016,074 Native Rotor 23.85 Turf Spray 10.65 Shrub Drip 9.44 Interior Water Use Dedication Requirements Annual Allotment PIF Gallons CBTor NPI JDC. WSS $ 47,238,000 203 217 $2,963,036 21,411,000 92 99 1,303,692 25,827,000 111 119 1,659,344 ELCO Raw Water Dedication PROJECT TOTAL PARCELS NORTH OF CANAL PARCELS SOUTH OF CANAL Raw Water Dedication Requirements AcFt Rudolph Farms – Non-Potable Water Supply Overview January 12, 2023 5 o Following the time for establishment, Native Grasses will be removed from seasonal irrigation pending significant drought. o Removing Native Grass from long-term supplemental irrigation may reduce on- going irrigation water requirements by nearly 40-acre feet annually. o We recommend allotting a portion of annual water use to maintain native grasses in a healthy state of dormancy during significant drought. This may equate to 30% of the above amount noted depending on the quality of establishment, maintenance practices, & severity of drought. Open Space Landscape Area Please refer to the attachments below for a specific breakdown of landscape areas as provided by the project Landscape Architect. Additional clarifications are provided below. The total landscaped area for the project is 44-acres, 28-acres of which is dedicated to common area open space. 16-acres consist of landscape areas located within private areas of the project. Landscape typologies include: Manicured turf Mulched planted beds ‘Dryland’ Native Seed areas o Receive establishment water for 2-5 years after which supplemental irrigation will be turned off pending severe drought Annual Project Estimated Water Use: 78 acre-feet The South portion: o 30 acre-feet to meet annual irrigation requirements The North portion: o 48 acre-feet to meet annual irrigation requirements Please refer to the attached Water Budget tables and the Irrigation Masterplan which document landscape assumptions, & overall water use requirements by landscape type for residential lots & open space areas as described by the landscape architect. FES CONTROLIRR CONTROLIRR V.P.FE SDD D TRAFFIC VAULT VAULTF.O. ELEC HY DTRAFFIC VAULT GAS/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / /EEEEEEEXXXXEGG/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / /WXXXXXFOFOB M ELEC C VAULTF.O. CT C CT VAULTF.O. ELEC ELEC TC C T VAULTF.O. C C VAULTF.O. T C ELEC C ELEC VAULTF.O.CABLE CABLE ELEC BRKR HY DHY DHY DHY DW ELEC FO HY DH2O ELEC ELEC HY DCELEC LID LID util LID ELEC FESFESFES FES FES S S D S D S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSTFOCTVEEFOFOCTVCTVE EEEEEE E E E E F E SFES HY DELEC D D D D DD VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC VAULTELEC ELEC F.O. ELEC FOF.O.F.O. F.O.F.O. M H2O FO M ELEC ELECELEC ELEC FO VAULTF.O. VAULTF.O./ / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / /FOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFO FO FO FO FO FOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW W W W W W W W W W W W W WWW WWSTE E E E E X/ / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / // / / / / / / / OHU OHU OHU G G GSTSTSS SS SS SS S SS / / / / / / / // / / / / / / /X/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / /G G G GCTV H2O H2O H2O H2O H2OH2O H2O WV WV W C C C W CCW E CABLE H2O WVWV W W W W W W W W W W W W W W V.P. V.P.V.P. CABLE MM C S MMM W T H2O M12345G0G432112345G0G43210000000000000000/ / / / / / / /WW W W SB SB SB SB KIT DEN DR.HUNTSMAN DR. W W W WWW8" SS8" SS8" SS8" SSG G G G G GGGGGGGGG12" SST G G G 12" SS 12" SS 12 " S S 12 " S S 1 2 " S S 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W WF FW T8" W8" W23 22 21 18 16 17 15 14 1 13 11 12 10 7 54 3 19 2 24 M M M M M M M 6 98 20 / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / 400' BAY TAPER FOR LEFT TURN (2 x 200') 84.38' TRANS MATCHES EX. 200' TRANS./BAY TAPER / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 200' / / / / / / / / IRRIGATION PUMP STATION PERMANENT PUMP STATION WITH AUTO-FLUSHING FILTER WITH 200 MICRON SCREEN PRESSURE: 95 PSI FLOW: 800 GPM POWER REQUIRED: 460V/3Ph/60Hz CANAL CROSSING POND 1 POND 2 EAST POND 2 WEST POND 3 WEST POND 3 EAST EXISTING WATER SUPPLY CONVEYANCE DITCH WELL WATER SUPPLY OUTLET INTO DITCH PA-5 PA-8 PA-9 PA-6 PA-7 PA-3 PA-4 PA-2 PA-1 P IRRIGATION LEGEND BASKET FILTER AND INTAKE PIPE FROM POND POND FILL FLOAT VALVE ASSEMBLY TO MAINTAIN WATER LEVEL Irrigation water from the well and surface water sources, as well as site stormwater will be directed to three on-site pond locations, as detailed in the current drainage plan prepared by Northern Engineering. Pond 2, with a proposed surface area of 2.42 acres, will serve as the primary collection pond for storage of irrigation water and pond make-up water to be distributed to the secondary ponds 1 and 3. Pond 2 will receive water from the surface water sources and from the on-site wells such that water delivery will be available to maintain the target water level. Water will enter from the existing surface ditch, located on the West side of the site, that will convey the available surface and well water. Make-up water will be transferred to ponds 1 and 3 via an irrigation pumping station which will draw water from pond 2 and into distribution piping to serve irrigation needs and maintain the water elevation in each of the ponds. The irrigation pump station will employ multiple variable speed pumps to provide system redundancy and to enable the system to respond efficiently to a wide range of system flow rates. The pumps will maintain pressure in the system in order to provide a ready supply for the various irrigation systems throughout the site and for the pond fill needs. The ponds are intended to function as wet ponds with storm detention capacity. Pond water levels will be maintained continuously by a float fill system so that storm flows will pass over and will not be held beyond the stormwater detention limits. The proposed pond wet elevations are as follows. (See the Northern Engineering Drainage Plans for more information). ·Pond 1 = 4904.10 ·Pond 2 = 4911 ·Pond 3 = 4919 It is expected that water levels in pond 2 would recede only during peak season irrigation operations. Water delivered from each source will be measured upon delivery to the pond system as will the volume of water transferred through the pump station. In the event that stormwater is received during irrigation operations or at any time when the pond is below the maintenance level, the water volumes received in the pond and the water volume discharged through the pumping system can be tracked via appropriate telemetry to transfer the appropriate volume of stormwater for discharge. SYSTEM OVERVIEW POINT-OF-CONNECTION ASSEMBLYPOINT-OF-CONNECTION ASSEMBLY SLEEVES:CLASS 200 PVC DISTRIBUTION PIPE:CLASS 200 PVC X-INCH SIZE UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED OWNER: DATE: SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:RUDOLPH FARM INFRASTRUCTURE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (FDP)FORT COLLINS, COPNE PROPSECT ROAD HOLDINGS, LLC 900 CASTLETON RD, STE. 118 CASTLE ROCK, CO 80109 (303) 892-1166 (REP.)ZM,LFCS05/25/22 SUBMITTAL 08/31/22 SUBMITTAL R 244 North College Avenue #165 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 P 970.409.3414 www.norris-design.com NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION NORTH 0 15075 300 SCALE 1" = 150' OVERALL IRRIGATION IR100 Memorandum The Prospect & I25 project is a water rich project providing substantially more water for irrigation than landscape water requirements demand. The value of this water may be assessed in various ways, however, one key metric for assessing value may be reviewing the cost of developing a potable irrigation water source through the local water provider, ELCO. The cost of developing water through ELCO will include the cost of Plant Investment Fees & Raw Water Dedication (cost of purchasing appropriate water rights to turn over to the Water District). Utilizing ELCO’s PIF calculation metrics, we assume that the irrigation related PIF cost for this project will be approximately $1.4M. As described in our 2016 irrigation water use analysis, the likely long-term annual landscape water requirement for the project site is approximately 58 acre-feet (AF). ELCO would require purchase and dedication of 40-50% more water to meet current raw water dedication requirements which would cover potential, future drought year conditions. This would indicate the developer plan for purchase and dedication of 80- 90AF to develop a potable irrigation water source via ELCO. Acceptable water shares include CB+T, which is currently priced at $58,000 per share ($83,000/AF). Jackson Ditch, WSSC, New Mercer, Larimer Canal #2, Arthur Ditch, & Pleasant Valley are also accepted for dedication and can be priced at $50,000/AF. Assuming the above, costs for Raw Water Dedication would range from $4.5M - $7.5M. If we incorporate PIF costs discussed above, the total increases to $5.9M - $8.9M. Date: August 11, 2020 To: Mr. Rick White, Mr. Dave White From: Nate Hines Re: Prospect & I25 Irrigation Water Value Review Colorado Office 323 West Drake Road, Suite 204 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Phone: 970-282-1800 Fax: 970-226-4662 Memorandum Utilizing the water rights documentation & the site planning & density study documents provided by BHA Design Group, Hines Engineers have developed the following Opinion of Probable Estimated Landscape Water Use for the above referenced project. Additionally, our water resources team has conducted a review of the water rights associated with the property & provided a detailed review of available waters, their uses, conveyance, & a typical water rights yield schedule by month. Site & Landscape Assumptions: 1. For the purposes of this report, Hines utilized the Prospect & I25 Potential Development Plan (see attached) to provide area product type & gross square footages. 2. Each product type is assumed to include 25% Open Space. a. Open Space within developed areas is assumed to be comprise of: i. 15% Planting beds ii. 15% Turf iii. 70% Native grasses 3. Streetscapes within the development are assumed to include 20% landscape area: a. Landscape area associated with streetscapes are assumed to be comprise of: i. 20% Planting beds ii. 80% Turf iii. 0% Native grasses 4. Common areas are assumed to include 100% Native Grass 5. Highway & Ditch Buffer areas are assumed to include 100% Native Grass Please review the following project summary for a review of estimated irrigation water use & area of the project. A specific breakdown of estimated irrigation water use by specific area, plant type, & month of the year is provided in the attached project appendix. Date: April 12, 2016 To: Mr. Rick White, Mr. Dave White From: Nate Hines Re: Prospect & I25 Landscape Irrigation Water Use Analysis Colorado Office 323 West Drake Road, Suite 204 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Phone: 970-282-1800 Fax: 970-226-4662 RE: Prospect & I25 Irrigation Analysis April 12, 2016 2 Although we found the water resources analysis positive, there is two challenges to be discussed & overcome. We have outlined the following the following primary items of note: 1. Upon initial review, up to 304 acre-feet of water may be available in an average year from the various sources provided. Compared with the approximately 58AF required for irrigation, an excess of native waters will be available for the site. 2. Currently, two of the existing wells are permitted for residential use & only offer the right to irrigate up to one (1) acre at the original home sites. We do not believe it will be cost effective or practical to maintain these wells for on-going site irrigation. 3. Well # 2-11993 a. Decreed for a substantial pumping rate of 1.65 CFS however, b. Production records state the well only operates for 15 days per season then runs dry c. Additionally, this well is decreed to be used for a 40-acre section at the north east portion of the project site. See Figure 2 of the WR report attached. 4. Well #’s 8-19642-1 & 7-19642-2 a. Together these wells are permitted for 240AF of water per year. b. This well is decreed to be used for a 40-acre section at the north west portion of the project site. See Figure 2 of the WR report attached. 5. Surface Water Rights a. In an average year both surface rights (Kitchell & Larimer & Weld) provide an estimated 61AF of water. b. This water can be used anywhere on the property c. In a dry year, an estimated 14AF may be available for use. d. *Please note: Kitchell does not have good records for available water & effective delivery rates for the property. While up to 74AF may be available as a maximum allowance, historic notation indicates that none of the current delivery infrastructure to the property is metered. Delivery structure efficiency should be researched and reviewed as it may be very poor to non-existant. e. Hines Engineers currently are working with Kitchell to prepare for proper lake level monitoring & potential storage expansion. Both of these efforts positively impact this project. 6. Project Challenges: a. Well Water Usage i. The three primary water wells are limited to providing irrigation to the northern 80-acres of the project site by decree. ii. Annual accounting procedures may be utilized to show well pumping rates match the irrigation water requirements of landscape in this zone. iii. One well (#2-11993) is decreed to irrigate the NW 40-acres of the top portion of the site & suffers from poor production with an unknown cause. iv. It may be important to rehab this well to provide irrigation to meet the irrigation demands for this section of the property during a dry year when surface rights will not be adequate to serve this portion of the project. b. Surface Water Usage: i. Surface water can be utilized anywhere on the project site. ii. This allows the Client to use surface rights to irrigate the lower portions of the site which cannot utilize well water. RE: Prospect & I25 Irrigation Analysis April 12, 2016 3 iii. Currently, we estimate the southern portion of the site may require approximately 20-25AF of water. iv. In an average year, assuming 61AF is available, we see no reason why surface water might be used to irrigate the southern portion of the site unaddressed by wells & potentially the NW 40- acres with a non-functioning well. v. Please note that while Kitchell rights may be used or stored at will, shares of water from Larimer & Weld must be utilized within 72- hours of receipt. Please review the following water resources memorandum, prepared by White Sands Water & Hines Inc, as well as the detailed Appendix of estimated site irrigation water use data. Do not hesitate to contact Hines with any comments or questions. Details ZONING CONCEPT PROSPECT & I-25 POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT I - AFFORDABLE HOUSINGI - AFFORDABLE HOUSINGI - AFFORDABLE HOUSING26.16 ac I - IndustrialI - IndustrialI - Industrial I - IndustrialI - IndustrialI - Industrial 11.26 ac 15.42 ac OPEN SPACEOPEN SPACEOPEN SPACE 4.81 ac I - IndustrialI - IndustrialI - Industrial I - Industrial I - Industrial I - Industrial 7.68 ac 3.89 ac CG - Retail CG - Retail CG - Retail 3.04 ac CG - Commercial Retail CG - Commercial Retail CG - Commercial Retail 14.59 acINTERSTATE 25PROSPECT GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) POTENTIAL USES: Commercial/Retail - Lodging - Retail - Office - Health Clubs - Recreation Facilities - Entertainment Facilities - Restaurants - Fast Food - Grocery - Gas/ Convenience - Animal Facilities - Adult/Child Care Residential - Mixed Use - Multi-family INDUSTRIAL (I) Industrial: - Wholesale Distribution - Research Labs - Workshops - Warehouses - Storage Facilities - Showrooms Light Industrial: - Enclosed Mini-Storage - Office - Flex Office - Services - Recreation Facilities - Animal Facilities - Adult/Child Care Residential - Mixed Use URBAN ESTATE (UE) Residential - Single-family - Duplex - Small group homes Institutional/Civic/Public Uses: - Education Facilities - Places of worship - Child/Adult care LA K E C A N A LBOXEL DER CREE K TI M N A T H I N L E T C A N A L TIMNATH INLET CANAL1/4 mile I-25 SetbackLAKE CANALUE - Institutional UE - Institutional UE - Institutional Trail System UE - Residential UE - Residential UE - Residential 5.82 ac 10.74 ac memorandum    The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a summary of our investigation of the water rights  associated with the property at the northeast corner of the intersection of Prospect and I‐25  (Property) in Fort Collins.  The Property is located in the SW ¼ of Section 15, Township 7 North,  Range 68 West; a general location map for the parcel and its various water rights is included with  this letter as Figure 1.  By performing this investigation, we aimed to determine the water rights the developer owns,  the average and dry year yields of these rights, as well as any potential limitations on future use  of said water rights on the Property.  In conducting this investigation, we have relied upon the  following:   Decree for Case No. W‐6376, Water Division No. 1, January 27, 1976   Decree for Case No. W‐7921(75), Water Division No. 1, February 10, 1976.   Decree for Case No. CA‐11217, Water Division No. 1, September 10, 1953.    Well permit records from the Colorado Division of Water Resources website.   Letter to David B. White from Steven P. Jeffers RE: Summary of Water Rights Associated  with the Horton/Rudolph Property in Larimer County, dated July 1, 2005.     Phone discussion with Mark Simpson (District 3 Water Commissioner) on March 17, 2016.   Phone discussion with Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company staff on March 17, 2016.   Email correspondence with Lesa Graber (main contact for the Kitchell Reservoir Company)  on March 16 and 17, 2016.   Bylaws of the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company, dated October 4, 1991.   Bylaws of the Kitchell Reservoir Company, dated October 25, 1915.   Diversion records and structure summary reports from the State Engineer’s Office  website (“http://cdss.state.co.us/Pages/CDSSHome.aspx”).   South Platte Decision Support System Task 5 Memorandum ‐ Key Structure, Larimer and  Weld Irrigation Company. March 5, 2005.    To:  Nate Hines  Hines, Inc.  From:  Jennifer Ashworth and Evon Harmon  White Sands Water Engineers, Inc.  CC:    Date:  4/11/2016  Re:  I‐25 and Prospect Property Water Rights Investigation  Nate Hines  April 11, 2016  Page 2      1 Summary of Investigation  The following outlines our investigation of the future potential  uses  and  limitations  of  the  Property’s  water  rights  based  on  the  information  reviewed.    Given the lack of available  information with regard to specific yield, conveyance efficiencies, and deliveries, conservative  assumptions were made to effectively determine historical average and dry year yields that may  be relied upon in the future.  1.1 Wells and Groundwater Rights  Based on the letter by Steven Jeffers, the deed transferring ownership of the Property also  conveyed all surface and groundwater rights appurtenant to the Property.  The groundwater  rights identified included three (3) irrigation wells and two (2) domestic wells located within the  SW ¼ of Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M.  A map showing the location  of these wells is attached to this letter as Figure 1.   Four of the wells on the Property were decreed together in 1976 in Case No. W‐6376 in Water  Division 1. The fifth well (Well Permit No. 3734) was permitted for domestic use as an exempt  well, but does not have a decreed groundwater right associated with it.  Since the domestic well  is exempt, it may operate under the terms of the permit without being subject to administration.   The same is true for the decreed domestic well, Well No. 5‐RN‐192.  Each of the wells on the  property possesses a different date of appropriation, decreed flowrate, and specified use. The  following table summarizes the attributes of each well (Table 1).  Nate Hines  April 11, 2016  Page 3      Table 1. I‐25 & Prospect Property Well Attributes  Well Name  WDID  Decreed  Appropriation Date Amount (cfs)  Decreed Use  Well No. 2‐11993  0306724  May 9, 1955  1.65  Irrigation of 40  acres in the NE ¼  of SW ¼ of  Section 15  Well No. 5‐RN‐192  0306871  November 14, 1956  0.0666  Domestic and  stock watering  Well No. 7‐19642‐2  0305441  January 31, 1930  1.0  Irrigation of 40  acres in the NW ¼  of SW ¼ of  Section 15 Well No. 8‐19642‐1  0305447  January 31, 1930  2.15  Well Permit No. 3734  N/A  N/A  0.0445  (permitted,  not decreed)  Domestic  (permitted, not  decreed)    1.1.1 Uses and Potential Limitations    In terms of limitations of use associated with these wells, three of the four wells are decreed for  irrigation use on at least a portion of the Property (Well Nos. 2‐11993, 7‐19642‐2, and 8‐19642‐ 1).  Well No. 2‐11993, is the only well decreed to irrigate the 40 acres in the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of  the Property, as shown on Figure 2.  However, according to the letter from Steven Jeffers, the  well has limited production and is only able to run for approximately 15 days at a rate of 0.22 cfs  before going dry for the remainder of the irrigation season.  This well was rehabilitated in 2003,  but the rehabilitation did not improve production.  At a rate of 0.22 cfs for 15 days, this well may  be  able  to  produce  6.5  acre‐feet  during  the  irrigation  season  before  going  dry.    Further  investigation could be done to determine why this well is running dry after 15 days of minimal  pumping and whether further rehabilitation could resolve the issue and allow the well to pump  closer to its decreed rate of 1.65 cfs.  Due to the current production problems associated with  this well, we have not included the yield from this well as an irrigation supply for the future  development of the Property.      Nate Hines  April 11, 2016  Page 4      The other two irrigation wells (7‐19642‐2 and 8‐19642‐1) are decreed to irrigate the 40 acres in  the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 15, as shown on Figure 2.  It is our understanding these wells  serve as the primary supply for the entire Property and are pumped at a combined rate of 2.0 cfs  from mid‐March through September.  Although the wells have the capacity to provide a reliable  supply to the entire Property, there is some risk the State or Division Engineers Office could  require the use of the wells to be limited to just the 40 acres in the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section  15.           All three irrigation wells on the Property are part of the Cache  La  Poudre  Water  Users  Association’s plan for augmentation (Case No. W‐7921).  Accordi ng to the previous owners’ 2001  application to include the wells in the augmentation plan, the three wells are limited to irrigating  the 80 acres in the N ½ of the SW ¼ of the Property, with an anticipated diversion of 240 acre‐ feet per year. So long as the irrigation wells continue to be used for their decreed irrigation uses  on the lands specified in the decree plan, they will not need to be changed in Water Court.   Additionally, assuming the augmentation plan continues to be operated by the Cache La Poudre  Water Users Association, the three irrigation wells may continue to operate as alternate points  of diversion for the more senior surface water rights described in the augmentation plan.  In  summary, so long as the augmentation plan decree and the well decrees remain operational and  unchanged, the three irrigation wells may continue to provide water to the N ½ of the SW ¼ of  the Property.  Given the potential for considerable opposition to any change of water rights, it  may not be advantageous to try to change the location of use of the irrigation wells.  For the  purpose of this investigation, we have assumed the 240 acre‐feet per year volume associated  with the productive irrigation wells is a reasonable estimate of the yield of the wells that can be  covered under the existing augmentation plan.    The other two wells on the Property, Well No. 5‐RN‐192 and Well Permit No. 3734, are for  domestic uses and are exempt from administration. Given that the houses on the property were  served by taps from East Larimer County Water District, the domestic wells could continue to be  used for limited irrigation around the two home sites.  Although not specified in the older  domestic well permits, the outdoor use of domestic wells permitted today is limited to one acre  or less of lawn or garden area.  For the purpose of this investigation, we have assumed a demand  of 2 feet per acre per year, resulting in each domestic well providing approximately 2 acre‐feet  per year for the irrigation to up to one acre of lawn or landscaped area around the home sites,  as shown in Figure 2.     Nate Hines  April 11, 2016  Page 5      1.2 Kitchell Reservoir Company Shares  Four, out of a total of 22 shares in the Kitchell Reservoir Company, are held under Certificate No.  69 in the name of Prospect Interchange, LLC and are associated with the Property. Kitchell  Reservoir is located in the W ½ of the NE ¼, the NW ¼ of the SE ¼, and the SE ¼ of the NW ¼ of  Section 14, Township 7N, Range 68W, as shown on Figure 3.  Under the decree in Case No.  CA11217, the Kitchell Reservoir Company possesses a storage right in the Kitchell Reservoir in  the amount of 410 acre‐feet, which is the decreed capacity of the reservoir.  The current actual  capacity of the reservoir is unknown, but may be less than the decreed 410 acre‐feet.  The decree  also states the water from Kitchell Reservoir was historically used to irrigate 446 acres, but does  not define the location these acres.      Water is delivered to storage in Kitchell Reservoir via a system of seepage sloughs known as the  Duck Slough Seepage Ditch System which originates northeast of the Property in Section 36,  Township 8 North, Range 68 West. The slough system (originally decreed in the same case as  Kitchell Reservoir) has a decreed carrying capacity of 4.75 cfs.    Based on the decreed volume of the reservoir, the 4 shares associated with the Property result  in a pro‐rata interest of 74.5 acre‐feet.  This would be the maximum yield (less any conveyance  losses) that could be provided to the property.  Kitchell Reservoir water is delivered to the  Property at the northeast corner of the Property where it is then distributed to the rest of the  farm.  Notes from the Steven Jeffers letter indicate the reservoir delivered water to shareholders  on a rotational basis such that the four shares would have been delivered water on 2 out of every  11 days, and that very little of this water could physically be delivered to the Property.        Neither the Reservoir nor the Duck Slough system have their deliveries measured quantitatively;  the extent of available data indicates some years when water was taken and sparse records  identify the number of acres irrigated with diverted water. Additionally, it is our understanding  through personal communication with Lesa Graber that no ditch rider exists for the Duck Slough  system or Kitchell Reservoir.     Nate Hines  April 11, 2016  Page 6      Based on readily available aerial photography from Google Earth, spanning from 1999 through  2014, it is apparent that Kitchell Reservoir is not full during periods of drought and does not  always begin the irrigation season with a full capacity, such as in 2002, 2004, and 2006.  Without  diversion, delivery, or storage records, it is impossible to determine an accurate average or dry  year yield supply from these shares.  However, generally, a junior reservoir can yield an average  of 1/3 to ¼ of its capacity, but zero in a dry year.  Given that the aerial photos reflect some  sensitivity to dry years, and the comments from the Steven Jeffers letter, we have assumed these  rules‐of‐thumb to be reasonable for Kitchell Reservoir.  Based on an average yield of ¼ of the  reservoir volume (assumed to be 410 acre‐feet), the four shares likely yield an average of  approximately 19 acre‐feet per year, but nothing in a dry year.  Since the water is being delivered  from a reservoir, it is likely the water would have historically been used to supplement other  direct flow supplies during the peak irrigation season (June through August).       1.3 Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company Shares  Four shares in the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company are associated with the Property under  Certificate No. 5540; with an undivided 90 percent interest in Mary A. Horton’s name, and an  undivided 10 percent in Prospect Interchange, LLC’s name.  Based on the Larimer and Weld  Irrigation Company bylaws, a total of 1,419 shares have been issued.  Water under the Larimer  and Weld Irrigation Company’s four direct flow water rights is delivered through the canal  throughout the irrigation season.  This water is delivered to the Property through a lateral that  crosses Mulberry Street and enters the Property from the north at the northeast corner of the  Property.  We have approximated the location of this lateral as shown on Figure 3.  In addition  to the four direct flow rights owned by the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company, other types of  water, not associated with the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company’s water rights is also run  through the canal.    Although daily diversion records for the Larimer and Weld Canal were available for the time  period extending from 1950 through 2014 from the Colorado Division  of  Water  Resources  HydroBase database, only the records coded as Source:1, Use:1 (source from the river and use  to irrigation) were used to estimate yield and monthly distribution of the water deliveries.  These  records were only available from 1950 through 1973.  The Source:1, Use:1 records generally  reflect the direct flow water associated with just the company’s water rights, and exclude other  water run through the canal.  A table summarizing the average and dry year river headgate  diversions for the Larimer and Weld Canal, along with the percent distribution throughout the  irrigation season, are summarized below (Table 2).     Nate Hines  April 11, 2016  Page 7      Table 2. Larimer and Weld Canal River Headgate Average and Dry Year Direct Flow Diversions  (1950‐1973)   Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Total Average  Year  Diversions (ac‐ft) 131  7,487  17,972 5,410  1,257  853  65  33,175 % of Annual 0.4%  22.6%  54.2%  16.3%  3.8%  2.6%  0.2%  100%  Dry Year  (1954)  Diversions (ac‐ft) 0  2,610  2,033  573  208  254  1,220 6,898  % of Annual 0%  37.8%  29.5%  8.3%  3.0%  3.7%  17.7% 100%    Bill  Johnston,  Superintendent  for  the  Larimer  and  Weld  Canal,  thought  the  average  river  headgate diversion per share is between 20 and 22 acre‐feet per year, and the lowest yield was  7 acre‐feet per year for each share.  The average river headgat e diversion from the State’s records  (33,175 acre‐feet) shown in Table 2, result in approximately 23.4 acre‐feet per share, which is  similar to Mr. Johnston’s average annual estimate per share.  T he letter from Steven Jeffers notes  an average yield of approximately 18.1 acre‐feet per year for each share, but it is unclear where  that information was obtained.    From personal communication with ditch company personnel as well as Mark Simpson, the  Water Commissioner in District 3, it has come to our attention that a ditch loss study is currently  being  conducted  on  the  Larimer  and  Weld  Irrigation  Canal  to  determine  what  the  overall  conveyance efficiency may be.  Although an approximate ditch loss is unknown at this time, Mr.  Simpson added that, while ditch loss varies considerably between wet and dry years, several ditch  companies within his district suffer a ditch loss of up to 50 percent.  In the interest of being  conservative, a 50 percent ditch loss was assumed for our investigation.    To estimate the average monthly farm headgate deliveries associated with the four shares  applied to the Property, an average river headgate yield of 21 acre‐feet per year per share was  distributed throughout the irrigation season using the distribution pattern determined from the  State’s diversion records, and an estimated 50 percent ditch loss was then applied. The same  approach was used to estimate the yield in a dry year, based on the smallest yield estimate  provided by Mr. Johnston.  The table below summarizes potential delivery from these four shares  in both an average and dry year (Table 3).     Table 3. Estimated Larimer and Weld Canal Farm Headgate Delivery for 4 Shares (ac‐ft)   Apr  May Jun Jul Aug Sep  Oct  Total Average Year 0.16  9.48  22.75  6.85  1.59  1.08  0.08  42  Dry Year 0.00  5.30  4.13  1.16  0.42  0.52  2.48  14  Nate Hines  April 11, 2016  Page 8        2 Future Uses  Based on the various groundwater and surface water supplies historically used on the property,  it appears the total demands can be met using the yield from the existing supplies associated  with the Property.  Given the estimated demand by Hines, Inc. o f 58.4 acre‐feet of water per year  for the developed site, the existing water supplies are sufficient to meet demands.    Note the  groundwater rights and yield from Kitchell Reservoir may be pumped or released out of the  reservoir to meet demands.  The direct flow rights associated with  the  Larimer  and  Weld  Irrigation Canal are only available when they are delivered.  Table 4 summarizes the demands  and estimated available supplies in an average year, and Table 5 summarizes the demands and  estimated available supplies in a dry year.  Table 4. Total Demands vs. Supplies in an Average Year (ac‐ft)   Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Total  Demand  3.2  9.1  11.6  12.5  10.9  7.9  3.2  58.4  Total Supply 35.0  44.2  62.3  51.1  41.2  35.9  34.9  304.6   Wells1 34.8  34.8  34.8  34.8  34.8  34.8  34.8  243.6   Kitchell2 0  0  4.7  9.5  4.8  0  0  19.0   Larimer  & Weld 0.2  9.4  22.8  6.8  1.6  1.1  0.1  42.0  Notes:   1) Assumes the yield from the wells is evenly distributed  2) Assumes the yield from Kitchell Reservoir is distributed during the peak irrigation months (June through  August)    Table 5. Total Demands vs. Supplies in a Dry Year (ac‐ft)   Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Total  Demand  3.2  9.1  11.6  12.5  10.9  7.9  3.2  58.4  Total Supply 34.8  40.1  38.9  36.0  35.2  35.3  37.3  257.6   Wells1 34.8  34.8  34.8  34.8  34.8  34.8  34.8  243.6   Kitchell2 0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0   Larimer  & Weld 0  5.3  4.1  1.2  0.4  0.5  2.5  14.0  Notes:   1) Assumes the yield from the wells is evenly distributed  2) Assumes zero yield from Kitchell Reservoir  Nate Hines  April 11, 2016  Page 9      The most reliable supply is from the two irrigation wells located in the northwest corner of the  Property.  Although these two wells alone can provide up to 240 acre‐feet per year, if the State  or Division Engineer require the wells operate consistent with the terms of their decree, this  supply could be limited for use on only the 40 acres located in the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section  15.  The yield from the remaining irrigation well on the Property (which is limited to irrigating the  NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 15) was assumed to be zero due to production problems with the  well. The yield from the two domestic wells was assumed to total 4 acre‐feet per year, but each  well is also limited to irrigating one‐acre lawn or landscaped areas around the home sites (located  in the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 15).  The combination of all the groundwater rights totals  approximately 244 acre‐feet per year, but again, the location of use may be limited in the future  per the decrees associated with these rights.    The surface water rights through the ownership of 4 Larimer and Weld Irrigation Canal Company  shares and 4 Kitchell Reservoir Company shares results in an average  annual  yield  of  approximately 61 acre‐feet (42 acre‐feet and 19 acre‐feet, respectively).  However, in a dry year,  the yield may be as low as 14 acre‐feet from just the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Canal shares.   These surface water rights do not appear to be bounded for use on any specific acreage, and  could be used anywhere within the Property.  Although the total supply is sufficient to meet the total demand, there may be some risk in the  location of demand versus the location of the supply.  If, for example, the entire demand of the  developed site is located outside of the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 15, and the State or Division  Engineer’s Office enforces the terms of the decree for the well rights, then additional water may  be needed to meet demands.    Nate Hines  April 11, 2016  Page 10      3 Conclusions  In summary, and based on readily available data, we estimate the total irrigation supply available  at  the  Property  in  an  average  year  is  approximately  305  acre‐feet, and in a dry year is  approximately 258 acre‐feet.  Although the  estimated supply is greater than the projected  demand,  as  determined  by  Hines,  Inc.,  there  are  some  decreed  limitations  on  where  approximately 244 acre‐feet of the supply can be used.  Specifically, the 244 acre‐feet is limited  to use in the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 15, Township 7N, Range 68W.  Depending upon the  location of the demands for the developed property, additional water supplies may be required.   If additional water supplies are required, an alternative could be to change the location of use of  the groundwater rights, but since those rights are in an older augmentation plan, it is doubtful  they could be changed without significant opposition or being removed from the augmentation  plan.  We reserve the right to supplement or revise this memorandum and the associated analysis in  the case that any additional relevant information is received.  % Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community7N 7N68W 68W - 0 0.06 0.12 Miles LARIMER WELD The ma ppi ng co nta in ed w ith in t his d ocumen t is in ten ded to b e u se d fo r re feren ce pu rp oses o nly a nd i s not su ita ble for co nstructio n a nd /or surveyin g p urpo ses. F IG U R E 1 - H O R TO N PA R C E LWELL LO CATION M AP ProjectLocation April 2016 Well No. 2-11993 Well No. 5-RN-192 Well No. 7-19642-2 Well No. 8-19642-1 %Well Perm it No. 3734 East Larim er C ounty Water District Taps #Kitchell R eservoir Inlet from Duck Slough Seepage Ditch System (4 Shares) Larim er and Weld County C anal (4 Shares) Cache La Poudre Reservoir Inlet (No A ssociated Water Rights) Horton Parcel CacheLaPoudreReservoirIn l e t % Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, Copyright:© 2013National Geographic Society, i-cubed7N 7N68W 68W - 0 0.1 0.2 Miles LARIMER WELD The mapping contained within this document is intended to be used for reference purposes only and is not suitable for construction and/or surveying purposes. FIGURE 2 - HORTON PARCEL GENERAL LOCATION MAPProjectLocation March 2016 Well No. 2-11993 Well No. 5-RN-192 Well No. 7-19642-2 Well No. 8-19642-1 %Well Permit No. 3734 East Larimer County Water District Taps #Kitchell Reservoir Inlet from Duck Slough Seepage Ditch System (4 Shares) Larimer and Weld County Canal (4 Shares) Cache La Poudre Reservoir Inlet (No Associated Water Rights) Well Nos. 7-19642-2 and 8-19642-1 Irrigated Area Well No. 2-11993 Irrigated Area Horton Parcel Cache La Poudre Reservoir Inlet Text*Irrigation of up to 1 acre around original home site* # % Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community7N 7N68W 68W - 0 0.25 0.5 Miles LARIMER WELD The mapping contained within this document is intended to be used for reference purposes only and is not suitable for construction and/or surveying purposes. FIGURE 3 - IRRIGATION SUPPLY LOCATION MAP ProjectLocation April 2016 Well No. 2-11993 Well No. 5-RN-192 Well No. 7-19642-2 Well No. 8-19642-1 %Well Permit No. 3734 East Larimer County Water District Taps #Kitchell Reservoir Inlet from Duck Slough Seepage Ditch System (4 Shares) Larimer and Weld County Canal (4 Shares) Cache La Poudre Reservoir Inlet (No Associated Water Rights) Horton Parcel L at e r a l f r o m K i t ch e l l R es e r vo i rLateralfromLarimerandWeldCanalCacheLaPoudreReservoirInlet Ki tchellRes.