HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.16 Water Supply & Distribution Plan
Water Supply and Distribution Plan
FOR THE
Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Garfield County, CO
FEBRUARY 2, 2023
Water Supply and Distribution Plan
FOR THE
Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Garfield County, CO
List of Appendices
Appendix 1: LRE Physical Water Supply Report
Appendix 2: Raw Water Process Flow Diagram
Spring Valley Ranch PUD 1
Water Supply and Distribution Plan
1.0 Introduction
The Spring Valley Ranch PUD will be served by its own potable water system, which will consist of
groundwater wells, chlorination treatment, storage tanks, and a distribution system. Information
regarding the physical source of water supply, legal ownership of the source water, in Appendix O of the
PUD amendment application. The physical water supply report including well pump tests and water
quality results are included in Appendix 1 of this report.
The water system will serve a total of 577 residential lots and 80 commercial Equivalent Residential Units
(EQRs). The system will pump groundwater from unconfined wells and based upon the water quality
results included in Appendix 1 the wells are only required to be treated with liquid chlorine in accordance
with the Colorado Department of Public Health (CDPHE) Design Criteria. See the Physical Water
Supply Report in Appendix 1 for more details on water quality results. Water demands estimated for the
PUD were calculated using the Spring Valley Sanitation District’s (SVSD) EQR schedule. All
infrastructure is sized for the future buildout of the PUD, and to meet the Maximum Daily Demand
(MDD) and fire demand simultaneously.
A separate raw water system will serve the golf course irrigation and snowmaking needs of the PUD.
Water located in the lower meadow will be pumped to the golf course and to Hopkins Reservoir during
the appropriate season of use.
1.1 Potable Water System Summary
The Spring Valley Ranch’s potable water system can utilize up to 36 groundwater wells, to treat a total
system demand of 300 gallons per minute (gpm) to serve the domestic and irrigation demands of the
entire Spring Valley Ranch PUD. Currently, the six wells drilled for potable consumption were tested
and can produce a total 314 gpm. Specific capacity calculations indicate that several of the wells could
produce more than what was produced during the test given the available drawdown water column in the
well (See Appendix 1 for more details). Using the permitted maximum pumping rate, the total production
could be increased from 314 gpm to 395 gpm if the pumps were lowered to access the full water column.
This would result in the upper system being able to produce 110 GPM, and the lower system could
produce 285 gpm, which can meet the estimated full build out demands of the PUD.
Due to the age of the wells, all existing well casings and pipes will be replaced. In some instances, the
wells will need to be redrilled to a larger diameter to house the required 6-inch modern motor to serve the
PUD and possibly drilled deeper to access full sustainable production from the aquifer. Once the wells
are rehabilitated and re-drilled, pump testing will be completed at each well to determine the sustainable
production rate. If production rates do not increase due to the well improvements, then the PUD will
utilize their water right to drill additional wells for increased source capacity and redundancy. Refer to
Appendix O (Legal Water Supply Report) for details on water rights for the wells.
The water system will be made up of two separate systems, which will operate independently, herein
referred to as the upper system and lower system. Refer to Appendix L, Schematic Engineering Plans for
a map of the proposed water system. Due to the large distances between wells, tanks, and layout of the
project, having two systems reduces the infrastructure required to serve water to all taps and simplifies
system operations. However, the upper system will have a pressure reducing valve (PRV) and an
automatic isolation valve vault located at the lowest point of its typical service area which will
Spring Valley Ranch PUD 2
Water Supply and Distribution Plan
interconnect to the lower system in the event of a water related emergency (e.g. system outage, fire, etc.).
During normal operations, the interconnect valve box will have a blow-off valve to release excess
air/pressure in the upper system.
The upper portion of the system will serve taps located at elevations of 9410 ft to 7800 ft, which includes
approximately 191 single family homes and 35 commercial Equivalent Residential Units (EQRs). The
lower system will serve taps located at elevations of 7955 to 7019 ft, which includes approximately 386
single family taps and 45 commercial EQRs. Each system will have a group of groundwater wells which
will be piped and treated with liquid chlorine prior to entering the water storage tank. From the tank, the
distribution system will be fed via a series of PRVs that are placed to ensure that the system pressure does
not exceed 135 psi at each hydrant, nor drop below 50 psi at each tap during peak hourly demands.
Between the two water systems there will be a total of 17 PRVs, with 9 in the upper zone, and 8 in the
lower zone.
Throughout the entire community there will be approximately 32 miles of distribution pipe. The
distribution pipe is sized for future complete buildout of the community and will be a mix of 12-inch and
8-inch ductile iron pipe (DIP). In general, the main water distribution pipe will be 12-inches and follow
along the main roadways. Along side streets, and cul-de-sac 8-inch pipe will be installed where practical
given the fire-flow and maximum day requirements. The distribution pipe is sized to ensure a minimum
of 50 psi is provided to each lot under peak hourly demand conditions, and that fire-flow (1500 GPM @
20 psi) can be achieved at each hydrant. In some instances, the steep and rocky landscape prohibits
looping, but the distribution system is looped at every location where it is topographically and spatially
feasible. At system dead-end locations, a hydrant is placed at the end of the water line, which will be
used as a blow-off valve. All hydrants within the system were designed to be able to deliver a minimum
of 1500 gpm at a residual pressure of 20 psi.
1.2 Potable Water Domestic Demands
Water demand for the system was calculated using the Spring Valley Sanitation District’s EQR Schedule,
with a defined potable water flow of 350 gallons per EQR per day (SVR defines wastewater flow at 300
gallons per EQR per day). 350 gallons per day (gpd) per EQR assumes an approximate 15% consumptive
loss and aligns with the required assumption listed in Garfield County Land Use and Development Code
Section 4-203.M.1. definition for a Single-Family Equivalent. The total water system demand was
calculated by first separating the system into commercial and residential demands.
The residential water demand is calculated by categorizing all residential units into four different parcel
types, each with their own conservatively-estimated home size and irrigated area assumptions. The
assumptions are based upon similar Mountain community developments in Utah and Arizona and are
summarized in Table 1. To estimate irrigation demands for residences, it is assumed that each home
would grow non-native bluegrass, which would require a 0.12-inch application rate to adequately water
the lawn during peak summer conditions (e.g. hot, dry, no precipitation). The application rate was
determined from local golf course data during the months of July and August when peak water is used. It
was assumed that this application rate was applied at 67% efficiency (e.g. typical efficiency for residential
sprinkler head). The total water demand for all residences, including irrigation, is 407,274 gallons per
day.
Spring Valley Ranch PUD 3
Water Supply and Distribution Plan
Water demand for commercial structures is calculated using SVSD EQR Schedule and Garfield County
defined 350 gpd per EQR. For commercial locations inside the golf course area (clubhouse, family barn,
etc.) all irrigation will be from the raw water system. For commercial locations outside of the golf course
area, the same assumptions used for residential lawns were used to calculation water demand at each site
for an area of 5,000 sq.ft. The total daily water demand from commercial sites including irrigation is
33,925 gpd.
Table 1. Potable Water Demand Summary
Dwelling Unit Type
Estimated
Max. House
Size (sq. ft)
Max.
Irrigation
(sq.ft)
Daily Demand per Unit Type
(inc. irrigation)
(gpd)
No. of Dwelling Units
Estate 6,500 2,500 630 146
Ranch 9,000 2,500 718 250
Mountain 11,500 4,000 974 106
Community Housing 2,000 500 434 75
Total Residential ADD (gpd) 407,274
Total Commercial ADD (gpd) 33,925
1. ADD = Average Daily Demand in gallons per day (gpd)
1.3 Fire Demand
The proposed Spring Valley Ranch PUD Guide requires that all buildings over 500 sq.ft be sprinkled in
accordance with the 2015 International Fire Code (IFC 2015) and NFPA 13, 13R, or 13D depending on
building type and use. As such, for all residential structures a reduction in hydrant flow and flow duration
is applied in accordance with Appendix B Tables B105.1(1) and B105.1(2). For commercial structures, a
75% reduction in hydrant flow is applied to the hydrant associated with each commercial building using
Appendix B Tables B105.1(2) and B105.2. For commercial buildings the duration of flow is not reduced
even if the building is sprinkled (IFC 2015 Appendix B Table B105.2).
Using the assumed maximum residential home size of 11,500 square feet (sq.ft) and the maximum
commercial building size of 25,000 sq.ft for the lower zone (Golf Course Family Barn) and 6,500 sq.ft
(Community Gathering Amenity) for the upper zone, the required fire flow, duration, and storage for the
community is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Fire Flow And Fire Storage Requirements
Structure Type Building Size
(sq.ft)
Required
Hydrant Flow
(gpm)
Fire Hydrant
Duration
(hours)
Min. Required Fire
Storage (gals)
Residential 11,500 1,500 1 90,000
Commercial – Lower Zone 25,000 1,063 4 255,120
Commercial – Upper Zone 11,300 1,000 2 120,000
1.4 Water Storage
For each water system (upper and lower) there will be a separate concrete tank to serve each distribution
system. To calculate the water storage tank size for the upper and lower systems, the following equation
was used.
Spring Valley Ranch PUD 4
Water Supply and Distribution Plan
Total Required Storage (gallons) = Average Daily Demand (ADD) + Fire Storage + Dead Storage
The required storage for each zone is summarized in Table 3. The lower water tank is sized to handle a
residential fire event or commercial building fire event for all structures less than 11,300 sq.ft which
would require 120,000 gallons of fire-storage. Given the large amount of required fire storage for the
lower zone commercial structures over 11,300 sq.ft. (e.g. 25,000 sq.ft. family barn, or 15,000 sq.ft golf
and community maintenance shops) the upper system interconnect to the lower system will be utilized in
the event of a fire at these three structures. Therefore, once the 125,000 gallons of fire storage have been
used at the lower water tank, the system will begin to feed the fire demand from the upper tank via the
interconnect actuated valve and PRV. Having the interconnect provides the total required storage of
265,000 gallons for commercial structures up to 25,000 sq.ft in accordance with IFC 2015 Appendix B.
Table 3. Water Storage Tank Sizing
Zone ADD
(gallons)
Fire Storage
(gals)
Dead Storage1
(gals)
Total Required
Storage (gals)
Tank Dimensions
Lower 294,000 125,000 87,000 507,000 24 FT Tall, 60 FT Dia.
Upper 147,000 140,000 62,500 348,500 24 FT Tall, 50 FT Dia.
1. ADD for lower and upper zone includes commercial daily demands.
2. Dead storage includes the bottom 3 ft of the tank, which is unusable due to the potential instability of the water in the
tank were it to be drawn down that low. This dead storage also acts as equalization storage for each water tank.
Additionally, the dead storage also accounts for 1.25 ft at the top of the tank where the overflow pipe must be installed
per CDPHE requirements.
The upper tank is sized for the maximum fire demand of commercial buildings up to 11,300 sq.ft with a
required storage of 120,000 gallons. There are no commercial structures in the upper zone that will
exceed 11,300 sq.ft.
Using the calculated storage required for each tank, the upper and lower storage tanks will be circular
concrete tanks 24 feet tall with diameters of 50 and 60 ft, respectively. The tanks will be partially buried
and painted to blend in with the natural surrounding landscape and topography. It is important to note
since the system is controlled by PRVs and there is excess pressure in the system, during both typical
operations and fire emergencies the change in water level in the tanks will not impact the pressure
throughout the distribution system. Additionally, during the initial phases of development the tank
operating levels can be varied to reduce water age in the tank and provide the highest quality water to its
customers without any impact to distribution system pressures. As development continues changes in
operating levels can be adjusted to account for increased demand.
1.5 Fire Protection Demands and Infrastructure
All homes and buildings within the PUD larger than 500 sq.ft will be equipped with automatic sprinkler
systems in accordance with the 2015 International Fire Code and NFPA 13, 13R, or 13D. Additionally,
fire hydrant locations will conform to the 2015 IFC. In accordance with Appendix C Table C102.1
footnote g, all hydrants within residential areas will be spaced at 625 ft except along dead-end roads
where the hydrants shall be spaced 525 ft. Along corridors of commercial structures only (road following
golf course) hydrants will be spaced at 750 ft in accordance with IFC 2015 Appendix C table C102.1
footnote f.
Spring Valley Ranch PUD 5
Water Supply and Distribution Plan
A hydraulic model was developed to determine available fire-flow and pressures at each hydrant. The
model was built using distribution line size and layout, and pressure reducing valve location(s) as shown
in the Schematic Engineering Plans (Appendix L of PUD application). The fire-flow scenario included
the following assumptions:
1. Maximum daily demand is occurring throughout the distribution system, which in accordance
with Land Use Code Chapter 4, is 3.0 times the average daily demand distributed equally at each
home.
2. All hydrant laterals are less than 50 ft in length and are 6-inch C900.
3. The tank was assumed to be operating at its minimum capacity, which is after the low-level
switch has triggered the wells to turn on to begin tank refill.
4. An additional demand flow of 150 gpm per home was assumed to be occurring simultaneously at
the nearest hydrant was flowing. This equates to two sprinkler zones flowing at 75 GPM each
(two 1500 sq.ft rooms sprinkler systems are operating at same time).
5. A target flow of 1,500 gpm was used to determine residual pressure at each hydrant.
6. The hydrants in each zone that the distribution system was sized around are included in Table 4.
These hydrants will be the focus of the design as it progresses from conceptual to construction
drawings. Having these identified at this phase assists in understanding the overall requirements
of the water system to meet County and IFC 2015 requirements for fire-flow.
7. Static pressures in each pressure zone do not exceed 135 psi.
8. The minimum pressure at each house during peak hourly demand is 50 psi.
Table 4 –Two Limiting Hydrants under Fire-Flow Demand Scenario
Hydrant Location Elevation (ft) Flow (GPM) Residual Pressure (psi)
Lower Phase 5 7500 1,500 35
Upper Phase 4 9000 1,500 30
To see the locations of hydrants, refer to Appendix L, Schematic Engineering Plans. These two hydrants
are highlighted on the water system map.
1.6 Distribution System
1.6.1 Distribution System Pipe Size
The distribution system was sized using the hydraulic model, which evaluated the MDD plus the fire flow
demand as the maximum demand on the system. The peak hourly demand resulted in an instantaneous
flow of 2,100 gpm, and the maximum daily demand plus fire flow is equal to 2,379 gpm making the
MDD with fire-flow the more limiting scenario to evaluate.
The pipeline following main roads from the tanks and to various parts of the PUD will be 12-inch either
DR-14 C900 plastic pipe or single layer cement mortar lined ductile iron pipe (DIP). Where allowable,
the distribution pipe size was reduced from 12-inch to 8-inch ductile iron pipe through cul-de-sacs and for
certain looped portions of the system. All hydrant laterals will be 6-inch pipe and are shorter than 50 ft in
length. At locations where looping was not feasible, hydrants are located at the end of the water line to be
used a regularly exercised blow-off valves by the water operator.
Spring Valley Ranch PUD 6
Water Supply and Distribution Plan
1.6.2 Distribution System Pipe Materials
Depending upon market prices and availability of pipe, either DR-14 C900 or Class 53 DIP will be used
throughout the distribution system. The C900 pipe will have DR-14 pressure rating and be manufactured
in accordance with ANSI/AWWA C900-16, which is rated for an operating pressure of 305 psi. If used,
the DIP will be Class 53 pipe manufactured in accordance with AWWA C111/C150/C151, which is rated
for an operating pressure of 350 psi. Regardless of pipe type, restrained ductile iron mega-lug fittings
will be used at all joints, and bends, which have an operating maximum pressure of 350 psi.
Using the water model it was found that the maximum pressure at a hydrant flowing 1,500 GPM will be
approximately 80 psi. Therefore, in accordance with Garfield County Land Use and Development code
Section 4-302.M.f both C900 and Class 53 DIP exceed the factor of safety of 3 requirement. DIP and
fittings will have a factor of safety of 4.3 and C900 will have a factor of safety of 3.8 during fire-flow
demand. Ductile iron pipe and C900 both have an estimated lifetime of 100 years as reported by pipe
manufacturers and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
Proper trenching, bedding, and poly-wrap installation will be completed to ensure the maximum life of all
the distribution pipe and associated fittings. Given the elevation of the system, a minimum of 8 FT of
cover will be required for all buried pipe to prevent freezing. In locations where minimum depth cannot
be met due to physical limitations of the site, 2-inches of insulation will be required.
1.6.3 Pressure Reducing Valves
The distribution system for each water system includes pressure reducing valves creating distinct pressure
zones throughout the distribution system. Each vault will be identical with a 12-inch fire/maximum
demand PRV, and 2-inch bypass PRV for lower residential only flows. The valve settings were
determined to provide a minimum of 50 psi pressure to each home during peak hourly demand, with a
maximum system pressure of 135 psi.
1.7 Raw Water System
The raw water system will be used to irrigate the golf course and supply water to Hopkins Reservoir for
snowmaking operations. The raw water system will consist of four wells located in the lower meadow
(see Appendix 2 for process flow diagram), two pump stations, and approximately 5 miles of high-
pressure stainless steel welded pipe (ASTM A778).
1.7.1 Raw Water Demands
Raw water system demands were used to determine the number of wells, pump specification and sizing,
and pump station wet well sizing. To determine the demand for the golf course, local golf course
superintendents were consulted in the area. They shared real time data from the last 5-6 years to
determine a potential maximum irrigation demand during a hot, dry, and low precipitation summer.
The PUD golf course designer utilized local golf course data to determine that the golf course will utilize
approximately 329 acre-ft per year during the months of April to October (for more information see
Appendix O, Legal Water Supply Report. This value takes into consideration the elevation of the golf
course, evapotranspiration, efficiency of water application rate, and dry soil conditions. It was assumed
that water is applied at 80% efficiency across the 100-acre golf course. Understanding the hotter and
drier months (July and August) will require more water than during cooler wetter months all the
Spring Valley Ranch PUD 7
Water Supply and Distribution Plan
infrastructure (e.g. pump stations, wetwells, pipeline) was designed to accommodate a maximum daily
irrigation demand of 1,000,000 gallons per day in the event of extreme weather conditions.
The project ski resort designer determined the required snowmaking demand to be 46 acre-feet per month
during the months of November, December, and January. 46 ac-f per month equates to approximately
500,000 gallons per day. The infrastructure at pump station 2 was sized and designed to meet this
estimated demand.
1.7.2 Raw Water System Infrastructure
From the lower meadow the water will be pumped from the wells to the first raw water pump station. At
this station, the electrical panels, controls, and valving will be housed to control the well pump motors
and flowmeter. From the first station water will enter a wetwell and be pumped by 250 HP vertical
turbine pumps to the second pump station. Adequate electrical supply was confirmed with Holy Cross
Energy to power these pumps along with the well pumps.
During the summer, the pumping will stop at the second pump station. At this point the water will first
enter the wet well and then flow via gravity to irrigation ponds throughout the golf course. From there the
water will be pumped to irrigate the golf course as needed. During the winter, the water will enter the wet
well and then be pumped via vertical turbine pumps up to Hopkins Reservoir. The snowmaking pump
station will be located next to Hopkins Reservoir and will be pump water from the Reservoir up the ski
mountain. See Appendix 2 for a process flow diagram of the raw water system.
All of the raw water will be pumped via 12-inch welded stainless steel transmission pipeline, specifically
designed for high pressure applications.
Appendix 1
ROCKY MOUNTAIN | MIDWEST | SOUTHWEST | TEXAS
909 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Sp ring s , CO 81601 | Office: 970-945-6777 | LREWATER.COM
SPRING VALLEY RANCH
Physical Water Supply Report
Prepared for:
Roaring Fork Engineering
Date 3/8/2023
Project Number 21667SVRD02
The following members of the LRE Water staff contributed to the preparation of this report.
Angela Schenk, Senior Project Hydrogeologist
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
Section 2: Background ................................................................................................................. 1
Section 3: Physical Water Supply ................................................................................................... 1
3.1 SV Well No. 1 ..................................................................................................................... 2
3.2 ASR Well No. 16 fka Gamba 8 ................................................................................................ 4
3.3 Well 36567-MH ................................................................................................................... 7
3.4 Well 36596-MH ................................................................................................................. 10
3.5 SVR Well No. 20 fka Gamba 1 .............................................................................................. 12
3.6 ASR Well No. 15 ............................................................................................................... 15
3.7 ASR Well No. 14 ............................................................................................................... 17
3.8 SVH Well 10 ..................................................................................................................... 20
Section 4: Water Quality Results .................................................................................................. 23
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: SVR Well 1 (86630-F) Pump Test .................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2: SVR Well 1 (86630-F) Recovery ..................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3: ASR Well No. 16 (86629-F) Pump Test .......................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4: ASR Well No. 16 (86629-F) Recovery Analysis .............................................................................................. 7
Figure 5: Well 36567-MH Pump Test ............................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 6: Well 36567-MH Recovery Analysis ............................................................................................................... 10
Figure 7: Well 36569-MH Pump Test ........................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 8: Well 36569-MH Recovery Analysis ............................................................................................................... 12
Figure 9: SVR Well No. 20 (86628-F) Pump Test ........................................................................................................ 14
Figure 10: SVR Well No. 20 (86628-F) Recovery Analysis .......................................................................................... 15
Figure 11: SVR Well No. 15 (MH-36760) Pump Test ................................................................................................... 16
Figure 12: SVR Well No. 15 (MH-36760) Recovery Analysis ...................................................................................... 17
Figure 13: SVR Well No. 14 (66299-F) Pump Test ...................................................................................................... 19
Figure 14: SVR Well No. 14 (66299-F) Recovery Analysis .......................................................................................... 20
Figure 15: SVR Well No. 10 (MH-33819) Pump Test ................................................................................................... 21
Figure 16: SVR Well No. 10 (MH-33819) Recovery Analysis ...................................................................................... 22
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Spring Valley Ranch Wells Pump Test Analysis .......................................................................... 2
Table 2: Regulated Water Quality Results ................................................................................................................... 24
Table 3: Additional Water Quality Parameters ............................................................................................................. 25
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Well Location and Current Production Rate Map
Spring Valley Ranch Page 1 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
LRE Water, Inc. (LRE) was retained to perform 24 hour well pumping test with 24 hour recovery
period on the wells located on Spring Valley Ranch (SVR). In addition to the well pumping tests,
water quality samples were collected and analyzed by a State of Colorado certified laboratory that
follows accepted industry standards and quality assurance/quality control procedures. This report
describes the results of the pumping test and physical groundwater supply; the water quality
results; and provides recommendations for treatment.
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND
The Spring Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development (PUD) is an approximately 5,900 acre
planned development. The property consists of four parcels located in the Roaring Fork Valley
on the western end of Missouri Heights between the towns of Carbondale and Glenwood Springs
in Garfield County. A location map is included in Attachment 1.
SECTION 3: PHYSICAL WATER SUPPLY
LRE conducted a constant-discharge pump test at eight wells located on SVR. A map of the well
locations is included in Attachment 1. The pumps test were performed to evaluate the current
pumping capacities of the wells under current aquifer conditions. Additionally, these tests were
performed during the period of the year when groundwater is seasonally lower because there is
minimal recharge occurring.
All of the wells produce from unconfined aquifers, which largely recharge from snowmelt run-off,
precipitation, and irrigation occurring on the ranch. Currently, only a small area of the lower valley
is irrigated.
Table 1 provides a summary of the current static water levels, pumping capacities results from
the 24-hour pumping tests, drawdown of the wells evaluated, and calculated well production rates.
The individual well tests and results are described in more detail below.
Spring Valley Ranch Page 2 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
Table 1: Summary of Spring Valley Ranch Wells Pump Test Analysis
Well Production Rate, Static Water Levels, and Max Drawdown
Well Name
Permit/
Decreed
Rate
(gpm)
Permit
No.
Pump Test
Date
Pump Test
Production
Rate
(gpm)
Static
Water
Level
(ft)
Max
Drawdown
Measurement
(ft)
Max
Drawdown
(ft)
Well
Production
Rate
(gpm)
SV Well No. 1 300 86630-F 9/29/2022 300 22 161.53 139.53 550
ASR Well No. 16
fka Gamba 8 100 86629-F 10/12/2022 54.3 20.25 231.42 211.17 60
36567-MH 100 36597-MH 10/18/2022 7.7 89 219.37 130.37 10
36596-MH 100 36596-MH 10/19/2022 100 19.55 91.01 71.46 195
SVR Well No. 20
fka Gamba 1 300 86628-F 10/31/2022 51.6 113 169.9 56.9 95
ASR Well No. 15 100 36760 MH 11/14/2022 79 112.8 149.58 36.78 225
ASR Well No. 14 100 66299-F 11/30/2022 10 143.6 154 10.4 19
SVH Well 10 40 33819 MH 12/14/2022 11.4 95.7 340.78 245.08 12
TOTAL 614 1,166
3.1 SV WELL NO. 1
LRE conducted a 24-hour constant discharge pumping test at SV Well No. 1 on September 29,
2022. The temporary well pump was set at 180 ft. The perforated portion of the well casing is
from 85 ft to 285 ft below the ground surface. The pressure transducer was installed at 175 ft and
was set to record pressure and temperature reading every minute. Barometric pressure can
impact water levels in unconfined aquifers; therefore, all pressure values were corrected for
changes in barometric pressure. LRE relied on this dataset to analyze drawdown within the well
over the course of the pumping test. In addition, a turbine flowmeter was then connected between
the outflow of the pump and the discharge line. This meter was used to establish and monitor the
pumping rate and volume pumped.
The static water level prior to the test was measured to be 22 ft below the top of the well casing
(TOC). With the pump set at 180 ft below the ground surface, there was approximately 158 ft of
available drawdown in the aquifer. The pump was initially set to 100 gpm increased to 300 gpm
36 minutes after starting the test. On average, LRE Water calculated a pumping rate of 298.4
PUMPING TEST RESULTS
Spring Valley Ranch Page 3 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
gpm over the 24 hour pumping period, with a maximum pumping rate of 300 gpm. The pump was
intentionally operated to run at or near this rate based on the permitted rate.
Throughout the pumping test, manual readings were collected in the field. In particular, the
drawdown was monitored in order to determine if the pumping rate could be sustained. Once the
pump test started the aquifer dropped 131 ft within 40 minutes (six minutes after achieving 300
gpm), then incrementally dropped over the 24-hour test. The maximum water level drawdown
occurred at the end of the pump test with a water level depth of 161.53 ft below TOC (139.53 feet
of drawdown compared to static water levels). Figure 1 graphically shows the water depth
measurements that were taken both manually and electronically by the pressure transducer.
Figure 1: SVR Well 1 (86630-F) Pump Test
Depth from Top of Casing (TOC)
In addition to monitoring the water level during the pumping test, it is equally important to monitor
the recovery process. The pump and pressure transducer were therefore kept in place at the
conclusion of the test. The water level in the well at the start of recovery rebounded within the
first six minutes from a depth of 161.53 ft to a depth of 47.85 ft. Figure 2 depicts the water level
Static Water Level (ft)Notes: 1.) Initial Water Level = 22.0 ft. below Top of Well Casing
Depth of Water from TOC 2.) Final Water Level = 161.53 ft. below Top of Well Casing
Manual Measurements 3.) Well Depth =305 ft. from Top of Well Casing
Flow Rate (gpm)
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.00.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
1 10 100 1000
Fl
o
w
Ra
t
e
(g
p
m
)
De
p
t
h
fr
o
m
TO
C
(f
e
e
t
)
PumpingTime (minutes)
StaticWaterLevel =22.0ft.
AveragePumpingRate=300gpm
Spring Valley Ranch Page 4 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
recovery in the well and demonstrates the well recovered to 96% after 24 hours of the pump being
shut off.
Figure 2: SVR Well 1 (86630-F) Recovery
Depth from Top of Casing (TOC)
The aquifer drawdown and recovery data support that SV Well No. 1 can produce at the permitted
rate of 300 gpm and experienced a 96% recovery in 24 hours. Setting the pump at the deepest
elevation in the well results in approximately 260 ft of allowable drawdown of the aquifer. Using
an average pump rate of 300 gpm and total drawdown of 139.53 ft, the specific capacity of the
well was calculated to be 2.14 gpm per foot. Using the specific capacity of the well and 260 ft of
available drawdown, LRE estimates SV Well No. 1 can currently produce at 550 gpm.
3.2 ASR WELL NO. 16 FKA GAMBA 8
LRE conducted a 24-hour constant discharge pumping test at ASR Well No. 16 on October 12,
2022. The temporary well pump was set at 240 ft. The perforated portion of the well casing is
from 150 ft to 180 ft below the ground surface. The pressure transducer was installed at 235 ft
and was set to record pressure and temperature reading every minute. Barometric pressure can
impact water levels in unconfined aquifers; therefore, all pressure values were corrected for
changes in barometric pressure. LRE relied on this dataset to analyze drawdown within the well
Static Water Level (ft)
Residual Drawdown (ft)
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
1 10 100 1000
De
p
t
h
fr
o
m
TO
C
(f
e
e
t
)
RecoveryTime (minutes)
StaticWaterLevel =22.0ft.
Spring Valley Ranch Page 5 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
over the course of the pumping test. In addition, a turbine flowmeter was then connected between
the outflow of the pump and the discharge line. This meter was used to establish and monitor the
pumping rate and volume pumped.
The static water level prior to the test was measured to be 20.25 ft below the top of the well casing
(TOC). With the pump set at 140 ft below the ground surface, there was approximately 120 ft of
available drawdown in the aquifer. The well has a permitted rate of 100 gpm, so the pump was
initially set to 100 gpm. The pumping rate was decreased over the 24-hour pumping test due to
the rate of drawdown and available water in the well. On average, LRE Water calculated a
pumping rate of 54.3 gpm over the 24 hour pumping period.
Throughout the pumping test, manual readings were collected in the field. In particular, the
drawdown was monitored in order to determine if the pumping rate could be sustained. Once the
pump test started the aquifer dropped 93.32 ft within 10 minutes and continued to decline at a
steady rate until the flow rate was reduced to 82 gpm. The well recovered approximately 50 ft
after the flow rate was reduced, but then the aquifer level began to steadily decline until the flow
rate was reduced to a lower rate. A flow rate reduction was performed a couple more times
throughout the test. The maximum water level drawdown occurred at the end of the pump test
with a water level depth of 231.42 ft below TOC (211.17 feet of drawdown compared to static
water level). Figure 3 graphically shows the water depth measurements that were taken both
manually and electronically by the pressure transducer.
In addition to monitoring the water level during the pumping test, it is equally important to monitor
the recovery process. The pump and pressure transducer were therefore kept in place at the
conclusion of the test. The water level in the well at the start of recovery rebounded within the
first 10 minutes from a depth of 231.42 ft to a depth of 150.9 ft, equal to approximately an 80 ft
rise in the aquifer level. Figure 4 depicts the water level recovery in the well and demonstrates
the well recovered to 70% after 24 hours of the pump being shut off
Spring Valley Ranch Page 6 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
Figure 3: ASR Well No. 16 (86629-F) Pump Test
Depth from Top of Casing (TOC)
Static Water Level (ft)Notes: 1.) Initial Water Level = 20.25 ft. below Top of Well Casing
Depth of Water from TOC 2.) Final Water Level = 222.67 ft. below Top of Well Casing
Manual Measurements 3.) Well Depth =260 ft. from Top of Well Casing
Flow Rate (gpm)
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.00.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
1 10 100 1000
Fl
o
w
Ra
t
e
(g
p
m
)
De
p
t
h
fr
o
m
TO
C
(f
e
e
t
)
PumpingTime (minutes)
StaticWaterLevel =20.25ft.
AveragePumpingRate=54.3gpm
Spring Valley Ranch Page 7 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
Figure 4: ASR Well No. 16 (86629-F) Recovery Analysis
Depth from Top of Casing (TOC)
Using an average pump rate of 54.3 gpm and total drawdown of 211.17 ft, the specific capacity
of the well was calculated to be 0.26 gpm per foot. This is a conservative estimate since the
pump was pumped at higher rates for the first seven hours of the test, which could result in a
higher amount of drawdown than if the pump had been set at 54.3 gpm throughout the 24-hour
pumping period. Using the specific capacity of the well and 235 ft of available drawdown, LRE
estimates ASR Well No. 16 can currently produce at 60 gpm.
3.3 WELL 36567-MH
LRE conducted a 4-hour constant discharge pumping test at Well 36567-MH on October 18, 2022.
The temporary well pump was set at 240 ft. The perforated portion of the well casing is from 180
ft to 250 ft below the ground surface. The pressure transducer was installed at 25 ft and was set
to record pressure and temperature reading every minute. Barometric pressure can impact water
levels in unconfined aquifers; therefore, all pressure values were corrected for changes in
barometric pressure. LRE relied on this dataset to analyze drawdown within the well over the
course of the pumping test. In addition, a turbine flowmeter was then connected between the
outflow of the pump and the discharge line. This meter was used to establish and monitor the
pumping rate and volume pumped.
Static Water Level (ft)
Residual Drawdown (ft)
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
1 10 100 1000
De
p
t
h
fr
o
m
TO
C
(f
e
e
t
)
RecoveryTime (minutes)
StaticWaterLevel=20.25ft.
Spring Valley Ranch Page 8 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
The static water level prior to the test was measured to be 89 ft below the top of the well casing
(TOC). With the pump set at 240 ft below the ground surface, there was approximately 151 ft of
available drawdown in the aquifer. The pump was set to 8 gpm. On average, LRE Water
calculated a pumping rate of 7.7 gpm over the 24 hour pumping period, with a maximum pumping
rate of 8 gpm.
Throughout the pumping test, manual readings were collected in the field. In particular, the
drawdown was monitored in order to determine if the pumping rate could be sustained. Once the
pump test started the aquifer dropped 130.86 ft within 10 minutes. A rise in the water level
occurred in the well when the flow rate dropped to 6 gpm. When the flow rate was adjusted back
to 8 gpm around minute 100 the aquifer steadily declined, but experienced brief periods of
recharge. The maximum water level drawdown occurred at the end of the pump test with a water
level depth of 219.37 ft below TOC (130.37 feet of drawdown compared to static water level).
Figure 5 graphically shows the water depth measurements that were taken both manually and
electronically by the pressure transducer.
In addition to monitoring the water level during the pumping test, it is equally important to monitor
the recovery process. The pump and pressure transducer were therefore kept in place at the
conclusion of the test. The water level in the well at the start of recovery rebounded within the
first 10 minutes from a depth of 219.37 ft to a depth of 191.79 ft. Figure 6 depicts the water level
recovery in the well and demonstrates the well recovered to 91.5% after 4 hours and 100% after
16 hours of the pump being turned off.
The aquifer drawdown and recovery data support that Well 36567-MH can currently produce 7.7
gpm and with 91.4% recovery occurring in 4hours and 100% recovery experienced in 16 hours.
Setting the pump at the deepest elevation in the well results in approximately 165 ft of allowable
drawdown of the aquifer. Using an average pump rate of 7.7 gpm and total drawdown of 130 ft,
the specific capacity of the well was calculated to be 0.06 gpm per foot. Using the specific capacity
of the well and 165 ft of available drawdown, LRE estimates Well 36567-MH can currently produce
at 10 gpm.
Spring Valley Ranch Page 9 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
Figure 5: Well 36567-MH Pump Test
Depth from Top of Casing (TOC)
Static Water Level (ft)Notes: 1.) Initial Water Level = 89.0 ft. below Top of Well Casing
Depth of Water from TOC 2.) Final Water Level = 219.37 ft. below Top of Well Casing
Manual Measurements 3.) Well Depth =264 ft. from Top of Well Casing
Flow Rate (gpm)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.00.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
110100
Fl
o
w
Ra
t
e
(g
p
m
)
De
p
t
h
fr
o
m
TO
C
(f
e
e
t
)
PumpingTime (minutes)
StaticWaterLevel =89.0ft.
AveragePumpingRate=7.7gpm
Spring Valley Ranch Page 10 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
Figure 6: Well 36567-MH Recovery Analysis
Depth from Top of Casing (TOC)
3.4 WELL 36596-MH
LRE conducted a 24-hour constant discharge pumping test at Well 36596-MH on October 19,
2022. The temporary well pump was set at 150 ft. The perforated portion of the well casing is
from 80 ft to 150 ft below the ground surface. The pressure transducer was installed at 145 ft and
was set to record pressure and temperature reading every minute. Barometric pressure can
impact water levels in unconfined aquifers; therefore, all pressure values were corrected for
changes in barometric pressure. LRE relied on this dataset to analyze drawdown within the well
over the course of the pumping test. In addition, a turbine flowmeter was then connected between
the outflow of the pump and the discharge line. This meter was used to establish and monitor the
pumping rate and volume pumped.
The static water level prior to the test was measured to be 19.55 ft below the top of the well casing
(TOC). With the pump set at 150 ft below the ground surface, there was approximately 130 ft of
available drawdown in the aquifer. The pump was set to 8 gpm, based on the expected yield of
the well. On average, LRE Water calculated a pumping rate of 99.9 gpm over the 24 hour
pumping period.
Throughout the pumping test, manual readings were collected in the field. In particular, the
drawdown was monitored in order to determine if the pumping rate could be sustained. Once the
Static Water Level (ft)
Residual Drawdown (ft)
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
1 10 100 1000
De
p
t
h
fr
o
m
TO
C
(f
e
e
t
)
RecoveryTime (minutes)
StaticWaterLevel =89.0ft.
Spring Valley Ranch Page 11 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
pump test started the aquifer dropped 50 ft within 10 minutes, then incrementally dropped over
the 24-hour test. The maximum water level drawdown occurred at the end of the pump test with
a water level depth of 91.01 ft below TOC (71.46 feet of drawdown compared to static water
levels). Figure 7 graphically shows the water depth measurements that were taken both manually
and electronically by the pressure transducer.
Figure 7: Well 36569-MH Pump Test
Depth from Top of Casing (TOC)
In addition to monitoring the water level during the pumping test, it is equally important to monitor
the recovery process. The pump and pressure transducer were therefore kept in place at the
conclusion of the test. The water level in the well at the start of recovery rebounded within the
first 10 minutes from a depth of 91.01 ft to a depth of 36.74 ft, equal to approximately a 17.19 ft
rise in the aquifer level. Figure 8 depicts the water level recovery in the well and demonstrates
the well recovered to 97% after 24 hours of the pump being shut off.
Static Water Level (ft)Notes: 1.) Initial Water Level = 19.55 ft. below Top of Well Casing
Depth of Water from TOC 2.) Final Water Level = 88.75 ft. below Top of Well Casing
Manual Measurements 3.) Well Depth =163 ft. from Top of Well Casing
Flow Rate (gpm)
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
1 10 100 1000
Fl
o
w
Ra
t
e
(g
p
m
)
De
p
t
h
fr
o
m
TO
C
(f
e
e
t
)
PumpingTime (minutes)
StaticWaterLevel =19.55ft.
AveragePumpingRate=99.9gpm
Spring Valley Ranch Page 12 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
Figure 8: Well 36569-MH Recovery Analysis
Depth from Top of Casing (TOC)
The aquifer drawdown and recovery data support that 36596-MH can currently produce at the
permitted rate of 100 gpm and experience a 97% recovery in 24 hours. At the end of the 24 hour
pumping test, 61 ft of water in the aquifer remained in the well. Using an average pump rate of
99.9 gpm and total drawdown of 135 ft, the specific capacity of the well was calculated to be 1.45
gpm per foot. Using the specific capacity of the well and 135 ft of available drawdown, LRE
estimates 36596-MH can currently produce at 195 gpm.
3.5 SVR WELL NO. 20 FKA GAMBA 1
LRE conducted a 24-hour constant discharge pumping test at SVR Well No. 20 on October 31,
2022. The temporary well pump was set at 180 ft. The perforated portion of the well casing is
from 110 ft to 219 ft below the ground surface. The pressure transducer was installed at 175 ft
and was set to record pressure and temperature reading every minute. Barometric pressure can
impact water levels in unconfined aquifers; therefore, all pressure values were corrected for
changes in barometric pressure. LRE relied on this dataset to analyze drawdown within the well
over the course of the pumping test. In addition, a turbine flowmeter was then connected between
the outflow of the pump and the discharge line. This meter was used to establish and monitor the
pumping rate and volume pumped.
Static Water Level (ft)
Residual Drawdown (ft)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
1 10 100 1000
De
p
t
h
fr
o
m
TO
C
(f
e
e
t
)
RecoveryTime (minutes)
StaticWaterLevel =19.55ft.
Spring Valley Ranch Page 13 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
The static water level prior to the test was measured to be 113 ft below the top of the well casing
(TOC). With the pump set at 180 ft below the ground surface, there was approximately 67 ft of
available drawdown in the aquifer. The well has a permitted rate of 300 gpm. The pump was set
initially to produce at a constant rate of 70 gpm with the intent to increase to 100 gpm shortly after
the test began. The pumping rate was decreased over the 24-hour pumping test due to the rate
of drawdown and available water in the well. On average, LRE Water calculated a pumping rate
of 51.6 gpm over the 24 hour pumping period.
Throughout the pumping test, manual readings were collected in the field. In particular, the
drawdown was monitored in order to determine if the pumping rate could be sustained. Once the
pump test started the aquifer dropped 56.9 ft within 5 minutes, so the flow rate was reduced to
and then increased to approximately 80 gpm. The aquifer level began to steadily decline until the
flow rate was reduced to a lower rate. A flow rate reduction was performed a couple more times
throughout the test. The maximum water level drawdown occurred within the first five minutes of
the test with a water level depth of 151.44 ft below TOC occurring at the end of the 24-hour
pumping period. Figure 9 graphically shows the water depth measurements that were taken both
manually and electronically by the pressure transducer.
In addition to monitoring the water level during the pumping test, it is equally important to monitor
the recovery process. The pump and pressure transducer were therefore kept in place at the
conclusion of the test. The water level in the well at the start of recovery rebounded within the
first six minutes from a depth of 151.44 ft to a depth of 121.13 ft, equal to approximately an 30 ft
rise in the aquifer level. Figure 10 depicts the water level recovery in the well and demonstrates
the well recovered to 90% after 24 hours of the pump being shut off.
Using an average pump rate of 51.6 gpm and total drawdown of 56.9 ft, the specific capacity of
the well was calculated to be 0.91 gpm per foot. This is a conservative estimate since the pump
was pumped at higher rates for the part of the test, which could result in a higher amount of
drawdown than if the pump had been set at 51.6 gpm throughout the 24-hour pumping period.
Using the specific capacity of the well and 105 ft of available drawdown, LRE estimates SVR Well
No. 20 is capable of currently producing at 95 gpm if the pump was set at the deepest elevation
in the well.
Spring Valley Ranch Page 14 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
Figure 9: SVR Well No. 20 (86628-F) Pump Test
Depth from Top of Casing (TOC)
Static Water Level (ft)Notes: 1.) Initial Water Level = 113.0 ft. below Top of Well Casing
Depth of Water from TOC 2.) Final Water Level = 151.44 ft. below Top of Well Casing
Manual Measurements 3.) Well Depth =223 ft. from Top of Well Casing
Flow Rate (gpm)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.00.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
1 10 100 1000
Fl
o
w
Ra
t
e
(g
p
m
)
De
p
t
h
fr
o
m
TO
C
(f
e
e
t
)
PumpingTime (minutes)
StaticWaterLevel =113.0ft.
AveragePumpingRate=51.6gpm
Spring Valley Ranch Page 15 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
Figure 10: SVR Well No. 20 (86628-F) Recovery Analysis
Depth from Top of Casing (TOC)
3.6 ASR WELL NO. 15
LRE conducted a 24-hour constant discharge pumping test at ASR Well No. 15 on November 14,
2022. The temporary well pump was set at 190 ft. The perforated portion of the well casing is
from 110 ft to 220 ft below the ground surface. The pressure transducer was installed at 185 ft
and was set to record pressure and temperature reading every minute. Barometric pressure can
impact water levels in unconfined aquifers; therefore, all pressure values were corrected for
changes in barometric pressure. LRE relied on this dataset to analyze drawdown within the well
over the course of the pumping test. In addition, a turbine flowmeter was then connected between
the outflow of the pump and the discharge line. This meter was used to establish and monitor the
pumping rate and volume pumped.
The static water level prior to the test was measured to be 112.8 ft below the top of the well casing
(TOC). With the pump set at 190 ft below the ground surface, there was approximately 77 ft of
available drawdown in the aquifer. The pump was set to 100 gpm, based on the expected yield
of the well. The pumping rate was reported as decreasing over the 24-hour pumping test based
on the flow meter, but was not manually decreased because there was still plenty of water level
available in the well to maintain the 100 gpm pumping rate. Based on the reported flow rates,
LRE Water calculated an average pumping rate of 79 gpm over the 24 hour pumping period.
Static Water Level (ft)
Residual Drawdown (ft)
50.0
70.0
90.0
110.0
130.0
150.0
170.0
1 10 100 1000
De
p
t
h
fr
o
m
TO
C
(f
e
e
t
)
RecoveryTime (minutes)
StaticWaterLevel =113ft.
Spring Valley Ranch Page 16 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
Throughout the pumping test, manual readings were collected in the field. In particular, the
drawdown was monitored in order to determine if the pumping rate could be sustained. Once the
pump test started the aquifer dropped 30.36 ft within 5 minutes, then incrementally dropped over
the 24-hour test. The maximum water level drawdown occurred at the end of the pump test with
a water level depth of 149.58 ft below TOC (36.78 feet of drawdown compared to static water
levels). It is worth noting that approximately 40 ft of water in the well was available for additional
drawdown during the pump test. Figure 11 graphically shows the water depth measurements
that were taken both manually and electronically by the pressure transducer.
Figure 11: SVR Well No. 15 (MH-36760) Pump Test
Depth from Top of Casing (TOC)
In addition to monitoring the water level during the pumping test, it is equally important to monitor
the recovery process. The pump and pressure transducer were therefore kept in place at the
conclusion of the test. The water level in the well at the start of recovery rebounded within the
first six minutes from a depth of 149.58 ft to a depth of 124.83 ft, equal to approximately a 25 ft
rise in the aquifer level and then experienced an incremental rise throughout the monitoring
period. Figure 12 depicts the water level recovery in the well and demonstrates the well
recovered to 80% after 24 hours and 95% after seven days of the pump being turned off.
Static Water Level (ft)Notes: 1.) Initial Water Level = 112.8 ft. below Top of Well Casing
Depth of Water from TOC 2.) Final Water Level = 149.58 ft. below Top of Well Casing
Manual Measurements 3.) Well Depth =220 ft. from Top of Well Casing
Flow Rate (gpm)
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0Ͳ30.0
20.0
70.0
120.0
170.0
220.0
1 10 100 1000
Fl
o
w
Ra
t
e
(g
p
m
)
De
p
t
h
fr
o
m
TO
C
(f
e
e
t
)
PumpingTime (minutes)
StaticWaterLevel =112.8ft.
AveragePumpingRate=79gpm
Spring Valley Ranch Page 17 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
Figure 12: SVR Well No. 15 (MH-36760) Recovery Analysis
Depth from Top of Casing (TOC)
Using an average pump rate of 79 gpm and total drawdown of 36.8 ft, the specific capacity of the
well was calculated to be 2.15 gpm per foot. This is a conservative estimate since the pump was
pumped at higher rates for the part of the test, which could result in a higher amount of drawdown
than if the pump had been set at 79 gpm throughout the 24-hour pumping period. Using the
specific capacity of the well and 105 ft of available drawdown, LRE estimates the well can
currently produce at a maximum rate of 225 gpm if the pump was set at the deepest elevation in
the well. This and the unutilized 40 ft of water column in the well during the pump test suggests
that the well can support the 100 gpm permitted rate.
3.7 ASR WELL NO. 14
LRE conducted a 24-hour constant discharge pumping test at ASR Well No. 14 on November 30,
2022. The temporary well pump was set at 160 ft. The perforated portion of the well casing is
from 140 ft to 160 ft below the ground surface. The pressure transducer was installed at 155 ft
and was set to record pressure and temperature reading every minute. Barometric pressure can
impact water levels in unconfined aquifers; therefore, all pressure values were corrected for
changes in barometric pressure. LRE relied on this dataset to analyze drawdown within the well
over the course of the pumping test. In addition, a turbine flowmeter was then connected between
Static Water Level (ft)
Residual Drawdown (ft)
90.0
100.0
110.0
120.0
130.0
140.0
150.0
160.0
1 10 100 1000 10000
De
p
t
h
fr
o
m
TO
C
(f
e
e
t
)
RecoveryTime (minutes)
StaticWaterLevel =112.8ft.
Spring Valley Ranch Page 18 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
the outflow of the pump and the discharge line. This meter was used to establish and monitor the
pumping rate and volume pumped.
The static water level prior to the test was measured to be 143.6 ft below the top of the well casing
(TOC). With the pump set at 160 ft below the ground surface, there was approximately 16.4 ft of
available drawdown in the aquifer. The pump was set to 50 gpm based on the expected yield.
The pumping rate was decreased over the 24-hour pumping test due to the rate of drawdown and
available water in the well. On average, LRE Water calculated a pumping rate of 10 gpm over
the 24 hour pumping period.
Throughout the pumping test, manual readings were collected in the field. In particular, the
drawdown was monitored in order to determine if the pumping rate could be sustained. Once the
pump test started the aquifer dropped below the pressure transducer with in the first minute. The
pumping rate was decreased to 10 gpm and the water level in the well rebounded to 146 ft within
eight minutes. The rate was increased to 16 gpm at 10 minutes and the water level dropped
approximately 4.5 ft in two minutes. 30 minutes after pumping began the rate was decreased to
10 gpm and remained constant throughout the test. The water level depth at the end of the pump
test was 146.85 ft below TOC (3.25 feet of drawdown compared to static water levels). Figure
13 graphically shows the water depth measurements that were taken both manually and
electronically by the pressure transducer.
In addition to monitoring the water level during the pumping test, it is equally important to monitor
the recovery process. The pump and pressure transducer were therefore kept in place at the
conclusion of the test. The water level in the well at the start of recovery rebounded within the
first 1 minute from a depth of 146.85 ft to a depth of 143.95 ft, equal to approximately a 2.9 ft rise
in the aquifer level equating to 90% recovery. Figure 14 depicts the water level recovery in the
well and demonstrates the well recovered to 100% after 18 hours of the pump being shut off.
Spring Valley Ranch Page 19 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
Figure 13: SVR Well No. 14 (66299-F) Pump Test
Depth from Top of Casing (TOC)
Static Water Level (ft)Notes: 1.) Initial Water Level = 143.6 ft. below Top of Well Casing
Depth of Water from TOC 2.) Final Water Level = 146.85 ft. below Top of Well Casing
Manual Measurements 3.) Well Depth =180 ft. from Top of Well Casing
Flow Rate (gpm)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0142.0
144.0
146.0
148.0
150.0
152.0
154.0
156.0
1 10 100 1000
Fl
o
w
Ra
t
e
(g
p
m
)
De
p
t
h
fr
o
m
TO
C
(f
e
e
t
)
PumpingTime (minutes)
StaticWaterLevel =143.6ft.
AveragePumpingRate=10gpm
Spring Valley Ranch Page 20 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
Figure 14: SVR Well No. 14 (66299-F) Recovery Analysis
Depth from Top of Casing (TOC)
The aquifer drawdown and recovery data support that ASR Well No. 14 can currently produce 10
gpm and experience a 100% recovery in 18 hours. Using an average pump rate of 10 gpm and
total available drawdown of 30 ft, the specific capacity of the well was calculated to be 0.63 gpm
per foot. This is a conservative estimate since the pump was pumped at higher rates for the part
of the test, which could result in a higher amount of drawdown than if the pump had been set at
10 gpm throughout the 24-hour pumping period. Using the specific capacity of the well and 30 ft
of available drawdown, LRE estimates ASR Well No. 14 is capable of currently producing at 19
gpm.
3.8 SVH WELL 10
LRE conducted a 24-hour constant discharge pumping test at SVH Well 10 on December 14,
2022. The temporary well pump was set at 350 ft. The perforated portion of the well casing is
from 90 ft to 350 ft below the ground surface. The pressure transducer was installed at 345 ft and
was set to record pressure and temperature reading every minute. Barometric pressure can
impact water levels in unconfined aquifers; therefore, all pressure values were corrected for
changes in barometric pressure. LRE relied on this dataset to analyze drawdown within the well
over the course of the pumping test. In addition, a turbine flowmeter was then connected between
the outflow of the pump and the discharge line. This meter was used to establish and monitor the
pumping rate and volume pumped.
Static Water Level (ft)
Residual Drawdown (ft)
143.4
143.6
143.8
144.0
144.2
144.4
144.6
144.8
145.0
1 10 100 1000
De
p
t
h
fr
o
m
TO
C
(f
e
e
t
)
RecoveryTime (minutes)
StaticWaterLevel=143.6ft.
Spring Valley Ranch Page 21 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
The static water level prior to the test was measured to be 95.7 ft below the top of the well casing
(TOC). With the pump set at 350 ft below the ground surface, there was approximately 254 ft of
available drawdown in the aquifer. The pump was set to 50 gpm, based on the expected yield of
the well. The pumping rate was decreased over the 24-hour pumping test due to the rate of
drawdown and available water in the well. On average, LRE Water calculated a pumping rate of
11.4 gpm over the 24 hour pumping period.
Throughout the pumping test, manual readings were collected in the field. In particular, the
drawdown was monitored in order to determine if the pumping rate could be sustained. Once the
pump test started the aquifer dropped 184.78 ft within 5 minutes, so the flow rate was reduced to
to 38 gpm. After 40 minutes of pumping the well had experienced 228.85 ft of drawdown and the
water level was at 324.55 ft below the top of casing. The pumping rate was reduced to 16 gpm
and the water level experienced a 32 ft rise and then the aquifer level began to steadily decline
until the flow rate was reduced to a 12 gpm. A flow rate reduction was performed a couple more
times throughout the test. The maximum water level drawdown occurred at the end of the pump
test with a water level depth of 340.78 ft below TOC (245.08 feet of drawdown compared to static
water levels). Figure 15 graphically shows the water depth measurements that were taken both
manually and electronically by the pressure transducer.
Figure 15: SVR Well No. 10 (MH-33819) Pump Test
Depth from Top of Casing (TOC)
Static Water Level (ft)Notes: 1.) Initial Water Level = 95.7 ft. below Top of Well Casing
Depth of Water from TOC 2.) Final Water Level = 340.78 ft. below Top of Well Casing
Manual Measurements 3.) Well Depth =360 ft. from Top of Well Casing
Flow Rate (gpm)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
450
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 10 100 1000
Fl
o
w
Ra
t
e
(g
p
m
)
De
p
t
h
fr
o
m
TO
C
(f
e
e
t
)
PumpingTime (minutes)
StaticWaterLevel =95.7ft.
AveragePumpingRate=11.4gpm
Spring Valley Ranch Page 22 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
In addition to monitoring the water level during the pumping test, it is equally important to monitor
the recovery process. The pump and pressure transducer were therefore kept in place at the
conclusion of the test. The water level in the well at the start of recovery rebounded within the
first 5 minutes from a depth of 340.78 ft to a depth of 297.34 ft, equal to approximately a 43.44 ft
rise in the aquifer level. Figure 16 depicts the water level recovery in the well and demonstrates
the well recovered to 99% after 24 hours of the pump being shut off.
Figure 16: SVR Well No. 10 (MH-33819) Recovery Analysis
Depth from Top of Casing (TOC)
The aquifer drawdown and recovery data support that SVH Well 10 can currently produce 11.4
gpm and experience a 100% recovery in 24 hours. Using an average pump rate of 11.4 gpm and
total available drawdown of 254 ft, the specific capacity of the well was calculated to be 0.05 gpm
per foot. This is a conservative estimate since the pump was pumped at higher rates for the part
of the test, which could result in a higher amount of drawdown than if the pump had been set at
11.4 gpm throughout the 24-hour pumping period. Using the specific capacity of the well and 254
ft of available drawdown, LRE estimates SVH Well 10 is capable of currently producing at 12 gpm.
Static Water Level (ft)
Residual Drawdown (ft)
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
1101001000
De
p
t
h
fr
o
m
TO
C
(f
e
e
t
)
RecoveryTime (minutes)
StaticWaterLevel=95.7ft.
Spring Valley Ranch Page 23 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
SECTION 4: WATER QUALITY RESULTS
Wells were sampled for a standard suite of parameters in accordance with CDPHE Regulation
No. 11 – Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Samples were analyzed by a State of
Colorado certified laboratory that follows accepted industry standards and quality
assurance/quality control procedures. The water quality results are tabulated in Table 2 and
Table 3. Overall, results indicate good water quality for potable consumption and use. The data
indicate the only likely treatment required for the well will be chlorine disinfection if the water will
be used for a community or non-community water system as defined by CDPHE.
ASR Well No. 16 and ASR Well No. 15 have elevated levels of iron and manganese. Results at
Well 36567-MH and ASR Well No. 14 also had elevated iron levels. Iron and manganese are
secondary parameters, so no treatment will be required by CDPHE. Although treatment will not
be required, removal of these contaminants from the water is recommended to maintain the
service life of the water mains and service lines and to provide water to the users without taste
and odor issues.
Toluene was detected in low levels, three and four orders of magnitude below the maximum
allowable amount of contaminant (MCL), in wells ASR Well No. 16, Well 36567-MH, ASR Well
No. 15, and ASR Well No. 14. Toluene is a volatile organic compound and is known to be toxic
for human consumption. LRE spoke with CDPHE about the presence of toluene and concluded
it was probably due to field contamination from the generator operating at the time sampling
occurred.
DI(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was also detected in wells ASR Well No. 16 and ASR Well No. 15. The
amount detected was three orders of magnitude below the MCL. DI(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is a
volatile organic compound which is widely used as a plasticizer in manufacturing of articles made
of PVC and also used as a hydraulic fluid. Based on a conversation with CDPHE, it is the opinion
of LRE that the presence of DI(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was also due to field contamination from
materials used by the pump contractor during testing; PVC piping was used during testing as well
as a hydraulic lift was used to place the pump and PVC piping into the well.
ASR Well No. 16 and Well 36596-MH are located approximately 110 ft and 20ft from Landis
Creek, respectively. It is anticipated that CDPHE will require a that a Groundwater Under the
Influence of Surface Water (GWUDI) evaluation be completed on both wells. The GWUDI occurs
over six months and consists of weekly sampling from both the wells and creek. CDPHE will
require additional treatment if the results of the evaluation indicate that Landis Creek has a direct
influence on the wells.
Spring Valley Ranch Page 24 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
Table 2: Regulated Water Quality Results
Regulation 11 Constituents
Name
SV Well
No. 1
ASR Well
No. 16 fka
Gamba 8 36567-MH
SVR Well
No. 20 fka
Gamba 1
ASR Well
No. 15
ASR Well
No. 14
Permit No.86630-F 86629-F 36567-MH 86628-F 36760 MH 66299-F
Parameter Unit MCL Result Result Result Result Result Result
Regulation 11 Constituents
Total Coliform Rule
Total Coliform --------------
E.coli MPN/100mL ------------
Nitrate and Nitrite Rule
Nitrate - N mg/L 10 0.84 ND 0.68 0.53 0.51 0.43
Nitrite - N mg/L 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Inorganics Rule
Antimony mg/L 0.006 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Arsenic mg/L 0.01 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Asbestos fibers/L 7 mil fibs/L ND ND ND ND ND ND
Barium mg/L 2 0.36 0.12 0.085 0.16 0.17 0.28
Beryllium mg/L 0.004 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Cadmium mg/L 0.005 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Chromium mg/L 0.1 ND ND 0.0072 ND ND ND
Cyanide mg/L 0.02 ND ND ND 0.0057 ND ND
Fluoride mg/L 4 0.14 ND ND ND ND ND
Mercury mg/L 0.002 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Nickel mg/L ND ND 0.0036 ND 0.002 0.003
Selenium mg/L 0.05 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Thallium mg/L 0.002 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Sodium mg/L 9.3 4.8
ND ND 4.2 5.5
Secondary Parameters Secondary MCL
Aluminum mg/L .05 - 0.2 ND ND 2.4 ND 0.09 ND
Chloride mg/L 250 ND ND ND ND 0.74 1.5
Iron mg/L 0.3 ND 12.1 1.6 0.3 2.1 0.8
Manganese mg/L 0.05 ND 0.18 0.011 0.002 0.087 0.003
pH 6.5-8.5 7.96 8.31 8.11 7.85 7.90 7.77
Silver mg/L 0.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Sulfate mg/L 250 4.6 ND 1.4 ND 7.1 2.6
TDS mg/L 500 331 115 248 204 229 266
Zinc mg/L 5 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Radionuclides
Gross Alpha pCi/L 15 ND ND ND ND ND
Gross Beta pCi/L 15 3.8 ND 1
ND 0.02
Combined Radium pCi/L 5 0.9 1 0.8
ND 0.5
SOCs and VOCs (only noting detected compounds)
Toluene mg/L 1 ND 0.004 0.007
ND 0.0003 0.0004
DI(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate mg/L 0.4 ND 0.0005 ND ND 0.0007 ND
Spring Valley Ranch Page 25 of 24
Physical Water Supply
March, 2023 – Project # 2167SVRD02
Table 3: Additional Water Quality Parameters
Name
SV Well
No. 1
ASR Well
No. 16 fka
Gamba 8 36567-MH
SVR Well
No. 20 fka
Gamba 1
ASR Well
No. 15
ASR Well
No. 14
Permit No.86630-F 86629-F 36567-MH 86628-F 36760 MH 66299-F
Parameter Unit MCL Result Result Result Result Result Result
Corrosivity and Hardness
Bicarbonate mg/L as CaCO3 253 91 151 176 185 233
Carbonate mg/L ND 5 ND ND ND ND
Hydroxide mg/L ND ND ND ND ND ND
Total Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 253 96 151 176 185 233
Total Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 66.7 137.0 140.0 152.0 198.0
Calcium mg/L 72.6 26.7 53.7 56.2 60.3 79.3
Magnesium mg/L 9.98 6.86 4.60 9.40 9.00 7.90
Additional WQ Paramters
Specific Conductance umhos/cm 520 201 310 355 360 464
Phosphate - Ortho (as P)mg/L as P
Phosphate - Ortho (as PO4)mg/L as PO4
Turbidity NTU 12.00 0.15 10.00
Sodium Adsoprtion Ratio Calc 4 0.271 0.215 0.105 0.146 0.138 0.137
Langelier Index --0.3 0.60 0.40 0.50 0.60
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
SV
W
e
l
l
No1
30
0g
p
m
AS
R
W
e
ll
N
o
.
1
4
10
gp
m
AS
R
W
e
l
l
N
o
.
1
3
AS
R
W
e
l
lN
o
.1
6
fka
G
a
m
b
a
8
54
g
pm
SV
R
W
e
l
l
N
o
.
2
AS
R
W
el
l
N
o
.
1
5
79
g
p
m
SV
R
We
l
l
No.
2
0
fk
aG
amb
a
1
52
g
p
m
SV
H
W
e
l
l
No.
1
0
11
gpm
SV
R
W
e
l
l
N
o
.
1
7
SV
R
W
e
l
l
N
o
.
2
1
SV
R
W
e
l
l
No.
3
36
59
6
-M
H
10
0
g
p
m
36
5
6
7
-
M
H
8
gp
m
La
n
d
i
s
C
r
e
e
k
La
n
d
i
s
C
r
e
e
k
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
We
l
l
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
M
a
p
Sp
r
i
n
g
V
a
l
l
e
y
H
o
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
L
L
C
®02
,0004,000
1,
0
0
0
Fe
e
t
Da
t
e
:
2
0
2
3
-
0
1
-
2
0
Fi
l
e
:
2
1
6
6
7
0
2
Dr
a
w
n
:
A
B
S
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
:
So
u
r
c
e
:
U
S
D
A
2
0
1
9
N
A
I
P
G
a
r
f
i
e
l
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
Sp
r
i
n
g
V
a
l
l
e
y
H
o
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
L
L
C
Ga
r
f
i
e
l
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
P
a
r
c
e
l
s
St
r
e
a
m
s
We
l
l
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
!.
GP
S
!.
Al
t
a
S
u
r
v
e
y
Appendix 2
GO
L
F
C
O
U
R
S
E
P
O
N
D
S
DE
S
I
G
N
C
O
N
S
I
D
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
:
1.
U
N
D
E
R
T
H
I
S
S
C
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
,
W
E
W
O
U
L
D
N
E
E
D
T
H
R
E
E
P
U
M
P
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
O
N
E
TH
A
T
I
S
J
U
S
T
A
B
O
O
S
T
E
R
P
U
M
P
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
W
H
I
C
H
M
O
V
E
S
W
A
T
E
R
T
O
HO
P
K
I
N
S
R
E
S
E
R
V
O
I
R
,
A
N
D
T
H
E
O
T
H
E
R
W
H
I
C
H
W
O
U
L
D
B
E
A
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
PU
M
P
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
T
T
H
E
L
O
W
P
O
I
N
T
I
N
T
H
E
S
Y
S
T
E
M
.
2.
T
H
E
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
P
U
M
P
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
W
I
L
L
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
A
S
T
R
A
I
N
E
R
T
O
T
R
E
A
T
WA
T
E
R
F
R
O
M
T
H
E
P
O
N
D
S
A
N
D
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
T
H
E
P
U
M
P
S
.
PU
M
P
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
1
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
:
7
0
0
0
F
T
PU
M
P
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
2
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
:
7
7
5
0
F
T
BO
O
S
T
E
R
P
U
M
P
S
T
O
HO
P
K
I
N
S
F
O
R
S
N
O
W
M
A
K
I
N
G
HO
P
K
I
N
S
R
E
S
E
R
V
O
I
R
ST
R
A
I
N
E
R
M
A
Y
N
E
E
D
T
O
B
E
A
D
D
E
D
DE
P
E
N
D
I
N
G
O
N
W
A
T
E
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
PU
M
P
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
3
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
:
7
6
0
0
F
T
GO
L
F
C
O
U
R
S
E
IR
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
SY
S
T
E
M
CH
E
C
K
E
D
B
Y
:
#DESCRIPTIONDATE DRAWN BY
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
DR
A
W
N
B
Y
:
JO
B
--
-
NO
T
F
O
R
ROARING FORK ENGINEERING
592 HIGHWAY 133
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
PH: (970) 340-4130
--
-
--
-
SPRING VALLEY PUD
GARFIELD COUNTY
Of
-
-
-
1
PR
O
C
E
S
S
F
L
O
W
D
I
A
G
R
A
M