HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOCC Staff Report6eizi/e/75 -
'9 - PPa 1r ®f /,‘/rte -
8:-- i Lk7r 2a� _g DLr4 `•� re://r4r,'a
_ /.200/,,e./*/".
,vee PA--1
/474,-4/a play! - 3/VF/
F- , .,1,o - - 3/7/9,
" - 44 SZr - 21/4,249
V- dP � - -)CjLr, 4*-14-4 27/ 97
LL7
- ze'46. a cAl4 - Lt, fl, r i- -5 0
- /V. - Age ,Szd/_ IK/e 9%
- 27zj/ff
L- - gee2 _ "ff. /O - Ge)424-.mac«//& /eforosrr i
/a a 4'
6‘-//-0/14i
,01/2-/.?"
,A0-i47 eP,// ,/12-5/99
641-7t- e-e--"6/24-eia..ae-ove
USS .
BOCC 4/26/99
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
PROJECT: Spring Valley Sanitation District Amended Service Plan
LOCATION: The proposed district is located in portions of Sections 14-16,
19-23, 26-35, T.6S., R88 W; portions of Sections 24, 25, 35
and 36, T6S, R89W; and portions of Sections 3-9, T7S,
R88W more practically described as an area known as the
south portion of Spring Valley off of County Roads 114 and
115.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Spring Valley Sanitation District is proposing to amend the existing district boundaries
established in July of 1979, to address regional wastewater treatment needs. The existing
district boundaries include 1787 acres of land that is made up of portions of the Los Amigos
Ranch PUD, CMC Campus, Auburn Ridge and Pinon Pines apartments. The proposed
district would add 10,726 acres of land that is made up of other portions of the Los Amigos
Ranch PUD, Spring Valley Ranch PUD, Lake Springs Ranch PUD, the Kendall Ranch and
other lands. The entire district would be 12,513 acres in size, if the amended service plan
is approved.
The existing district has 189.5 EQR's or an estimated Populations Equivalent of 664 people.
The proposed amended district would have a projected total of 1,571 EQR's and a
Population Equivalent (PE) of 5,499 people. All of the projections are based upon the
proposed plans of various property owners in the area and some estimations on other
properties. Also included in the projections are estimates of EQR's and a PE based upon
the proposed Comprehensive Plan densities. According to the applicants interpretation of
the Comprehensive Plan, there could be 4,057 EQR's and a PE of 14,201.
The existing wastewater treatment facility can treat up to 53,000 gpd or 189.5 EQR.
Additional service requests have come from property owners within the district and outside
the district boundaries. A wastewater collection system and a 550,000 gpd treatment facility
are being designed to meet the regional wastewater treatment needs of the area based upon
the anticipated density. The treatment facility will be designed to meet tertiary discharge
requirements. The existing wastewater is collected in a gravity sewer line system, but due
to topography, wastewater lift stations and associated forced mains will be needed to
-1-
accommodate much of the proposed new and expanded service area. The collection system
will be designed to accommodate additional flows from property to the north and west.
The estimated cost of the construction of the new plant and associated infrastructure
originally was $5,100,000, but after further analysis has been reduced to $4,100,000. (See
pgs. /3—/6 ) The 20 year operating and maintenance costs are estimated at $1,800,000.
Several property owners in the District service area will make capital cost contributions to
fund construction of the plant and related infrastructure. Additional funding may come from
credit enhanced revenue bonds or a low-interest revenue -based loan from the Colorado Water
Resources and Power Development Authority. Tap fees and service charges will be used
to repay construction obligations and annual operation and maintenance of the facility.
II. ISSUES AND COMMENTS
A. Colorado Revised Statutes - C.R.S. 32-1-101, et. seq.
Within 30 days of the filing of a service plan with the County Clerk and Recorder,
the Clerk and Recorder is required to deliver the service plan to the Planning
Commission for review and recommendation. The Planning Commission is required
to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to take one of the
following actions:
1. Approve, without condition or modification, the service plan.
2. Disapprove the service plan.
3. Conditionally approve the service plan subject to additional information
being submitted or the modification of the proposed service plan.
The Board of County Commissioners "shall disapprove the service plan unless
evidence satisfactory to the Board of each of the following is presented":
1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the
area to be serviced by the proposed special district.
2. The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district
is inadequate for present and projected needs.
3. The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and
sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries.
4. The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the
fmancial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
-2-
The Board of County Commissioners may disapprove the plan if evidence
satisfactory to the Board of any of the following, at the discretion of the Board, is not
presented:
1. Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the
County or other existing municipal or quasi -municipal corporations,
including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a
comparable basis.
2. The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are
compatible with the facility and service standards of each County within
which the proposed special district is to be located and each municipality
which is an interested party under Section 32-1-204(1).
3. The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted
pursuant to Section 30-28-108, C.R.S..
4. The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional or state
long-range water quality management plan for the area.
5. The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the
area proposed to be served.
The following are responses to the statutory criteria:
1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the
area to be serviced by the proposed special district.
The Spring Valley area has a number of already approved developments
requiring sewage treatment. Los Amigos Ranch PUD, Filings 6-10 was
approved with the requirement that a central sewage disposal system be
developed for the project. Other older developments (Lake Springs Ranch
PUD, Spring Valley Ranch PUD) are being revised and will require central
sewage disposal facilities as envisioned. Any other property proposed for
inclusion in the district would need central sewage disposal, if they are
developed, given the need to protect the Spring Valley aquifer.
2. The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district
is inadequate for present and projected needs.
The present system is inadequate to meet the immediate and near future
demands for sewage treatment for the existing development in the area. The
present system is at capacity and there are other property owners within the
existing district boundaries wanting service. The other properties to be
included in the district would increase the sewage treatment demands by a
ten -fold factor and would far exceed any capabilities of the existing
treatment capabilities.
-3-
3. The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and
sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries.
The proposed district will need to invest an estimated $4.1 million to build
all of the infrastructure to meet the proposed demand for service. Of that
cost, $2,937,566 will be the cost of the new treatment facility. The remaining
portions of the cost will be for lift stations and force mains.
Bob Szrot, County Engineer reviewed the original application and
supplemental material submitted and concluded that there are still questniaas
about the method and cost of treatment facilities. (See letters pgs.20 )
He posed a number of questions related to the District's ability to provide
sufficient and economic service to the area. He questioned the District's
demonstration of the ability to meet the discharge standards and the
sufficiency of the service, given the proposed design.
At the Planning Commission meeting additional information was submitted
was submitted by the District representatives in response to the staff's
concerns. ( See pgs. 2.71 ) Staff reviewed the information submitted
subsequent to the meeting and still had some questions regarding the
district's ability to provide economical and sufficient servi e, given the
uncertainty of the discharge parameters. (See memo pgs.% rf) It appears
that the District's ability to meet the present effluent standards are tied to
their ability to get approval for land application. There is a possibility that
the standards may be changed, based upon the redesignation of Landis Creek
in terms of water quality standards. But, the change cannot be proposed
until later in the year, when the Colorado Water Quality Commission will
consider requests for this drainage.
Staff also does not understand why it would cost $9.00/gal. to build a plant
at the Roaring Fork Sanitation District that has to meet lesser discharge
standards than the SVSD/Landis Creek standards. The same size plant is
only $5.35/gal. as proposed for the Spring Valley site. There is still the
assumption in the figures for connecting to the Roaring Fork Sanitation
District that all of the costs for extending the interceptor sewer/lift station
will have to be absorbed by the SVSD. Staff would also wonder why the out
of district tap fees would be applicable, since it would seem to logical to
annex to the district for economic and political reasons.
-4-
4. The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the
financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable
basis.
The district has commitments from a number of the proposed landowners to
pay for the cost of the capital improvements, along with proposed loans.
Included isanAlysis by Blake Jordan, bond counsel for the County. (See
letter pgs. 2411// ) Mr. Jordan has provided some suggested language
for inclusion in the Service Plan that has been used by other Counties in the
approval of a Service Plan. The Planning Commission recommended that
the language be included as a part of the final Service Plan amendments.
The following discussion addresses the reasons the Board of County Commissioners
may deny a service plan:
1. Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the
County or other existing municipal or quasi -municipal corporations,
including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a
comparable basis.
The District has provided additional documentation to support the statement
that the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District is not a viable alternative
for the provision of sewage treatment service to the area. There is a letter
inthis supplementary documentation from the RFWSD legal counsel stating
that the district is not capable of handling the sewage disposal needs of the
SVSD. The initial response was based upon the RFWSD having a 600,000
gpd maximum capacity identified in their service plan and number of existing
commiments to other properties in their service area and expanded service
area. Staff questioned these numbers based upon representations made
during the Cattle Creek Ranch PUD application that the RFWSD could grow
to up to 1.2 mgd. The District's additional information submitted at the
Planning Commission meeting expanded on that issue. If the SVSD is only
developed to the projected 1571 EQR's or 550,000 gpd, the RFWSD has the
potential to accomodate the projected growth, but the argument is that the
plant must be capable of handling the maximum projected by the
Comprehensive Plan. If this is the arguement, the applicant's have not
demonstrated that they can deal with the 1.5 million gpd, with the potential
worst case effluent limitations. Air' ,4G XIV" 1 1 Ver //G47 p /Q n 's'
The initial supplemental documentation submitted for the application stated
that it will cost $8.1 million to connect into the Roaring Fork Sanitation
District (See attached pgs. 9�' /q ). The construction cost of the
-5-
infrastructure to connect the Spring Valley area to the RFSD facilities was
projected to be $1,987,897, with $6,126,900 in tap fees. As noted previously
if appears that the projected connection costs are being totally attributed to
the Spring Valley Sanitation District. When it is more than likely the costs
will be shared by other property owners needing to connect with the RFSD.
The actual cost to the Spring Valley Sanitation District would probably be at
least 25% less than projected.
As noted in the County Engineer's original memo, the Colorado Water
Quality Control Commission recently instituted a new policy regarding the
consolidation of facilities. The policy requires a financial feasibility analysis
of connecting to facilities within a five (5) mile radius of a proposed new or
upgraded plant as a part of the site application process. Even with the
additional documentation submitted with this application, there are still
questions regarding the consolidation issue.
2. The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are
compatible with the facility and service standards of each County within
which the proposed special district is to be located and each municipality
which is an interested party under Section 32-1-204(1).
As noted previously, the CDPHE has established Preliminary Effluent
Standards for the Spring Valley Sanitation District. It is staff's understanding
that these standards are not changed in a significant manner for the approval
of a site application for a sewage disposal facility. The District has stated
that they will meet the standards imposed by the State. It has not been
demonstrated to staff that the district can meet the effluent standards being
imposed The standards to be imposed are very difficult to meet and the
plans submitted leave a lot of questions about the proposed treatment facility
being able to meet the limits.. Particullarly, if the district has to plan for a
1.5 million gpd plant, with land application necessary to meet standards and
no ground water discharge in the winter.
3. The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted
pursuant to Section 30-28-108, C.R.S..
The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, Study Area I notes three different
designations on the Proposed Land Use Districts Map. The majority of the
proposed new service area is identified as being Medium Density Residential
(6 to less than 10 ac/du), with a smaller areas identified as Low Density
Residential (10 and greater ac/du) or Existing Subdivision. The present
district is located in an area identified as Existing Subdivision and Public
Institution. The projected densities do not appear to be inconsistent with the
-6-
Comprehensive Plan designations.
The Water and Sewer Services Goal states the following:
To ensure the provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost effective and
environmentally sound sewer and water services for new development.
The following objectives are relevant to the proposed service plan :
7.1 Development located adjacent to municipalities or sanitation districts
with available capacity in their central water/sewer systems will be
strongly encouraged to tie into these systems.
7.4 Development will be required to mitigate the impact of the proposed
project on existing water and sewer systems.
7.5 Garfield County will strongly discourage the proliferation of private
water and sewer systems.
The following policies are relevant to the proposed service plan :
7.1 All development proposals in rural areas without existing central
water or sewer systems will be required to show that legal, adequate,
dependable and environmentally sound water and sewage disposal
facilities can be provided before project approval.
7.2 Where logical, legal and economic extension of service lines from an
existing water and/or sewage system can occur, the County will
require development adjacent to or within a reasonable distance, to
enter into the appropriate agreements to receive service. The burden
of proof regarding logical, legal and economic constraints will be on
the developer.
The proposed service plan amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan in terms of developing a central sewage disposal system for an area.
4. The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional or
state long-range water quality management plan for the area.
The Water Quality Management Plan for Region 11(208 Plan) identifies a
need for an analysis of the Spring Valley area populations, consolidation of
facilities and treatment requirements prior to the approval of any additional
site applications. (See pg. 97.-- ) Subsequent approval of the SVSD site
-7-
application has occurred, but without the analysis identified. The present
application has provided additional analysis of these issues, but as noted
previously, is not convincing to staff, in the arguments for the preferred
alternative.
S. The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the
area proposed to be served.
If development is to occur in the proposed service area, a central sewage
disposal system is appropriate and is in the interest of the area to be served.
The primary question is still whether or not SVSD should expand or try to
connect to the RFWSD.
III. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission reviewed the application and recommended approval of the
proposed service plan amendment with the following condition of approval:
1. That the District add the language to the service plan recommended by Blake
Jordan, Sherman and Howard L.L.C., in his February 23, 1999 letter.
Staff does not support the approval of the proposed service plan amendments based upon
the lack of satisfactory evidence that the district can provide economical and sufficient
service without knowing that they can design a plant in the Spring Valley area that can meet
standards and that there is the possibility that service could be provided by the Roaring Fork
Water and Sanitation District if the worst case scenario is not used. The following are the
criteria that could be used as a basis for not approving the proposed service plan
amendment.:
1. The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and
sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries.
2. Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the
County or other existing municipal or quasi -municipal corporations,
including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a
comparable basis.
-8-
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
CYNTHIA C. TESTER
GREGORY J. HALL
DAVID H. McCONAUGHY
KELLY D. CAVE
DAVID A. MEISINGER*
TOM KINNEY
*Admitted in Wisconsin only
Don DeFord, Esq.
Garfield County Attorney
109 Eighth Street, Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RECEIVED MAR 1 1 1999
March 11, 1999
1011 GRAND AVENUE
P. O. DRAWER 2030
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2261
FAX: (970) 945-7336
ltlaw@sopris.net
Re: Spring Valley Sanitation District Amended Service Plan,
Dear Don:
Per your request, the Spring Valley Sanitation District ("District") hereby submits
supplemental information for the District's Amended Service Plan filed with the Garfield County
Clerk & Recorder's Office on February 5, 1999. This letter also confirms the District's
agreement to postpone the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission hearing for such
Amended Service Plan to March 24, 1999.
As a point of clarification, the District is submitting the Amended Service Plan and the
enclosed supplemental information pursuant to C.R.S. §32-1-207(2), which requires approval by
the Board of County Commissioners of material modifications to the service plan as originally
approved. A resolution of approval by the Board,of County Commissioners under the statute is
to be adopted in substantially the same manner as is provided for the approval of an original
service plan; therefore, the District has submitted its service plan and supplemental information
with the intent to satisfy the criteria for "service plans" contained in C.R.S. §32-1-203. If your
interpretation of the statutory provision differs from the District's, please inform me at your
earliest convenience.
Enclosed is a letter from Dean Gordon, P.E., the District Engineer, which addresses
review comments contained in the February 22, 1999 staff memo to the District from Bob Szrot,
P.E., County Engineer. We anticipate that the clarifications contained in Mr. Gordon's letter will
allow the County Engineer to confirm his recommendation of approval of the District's Amended
Service Plan.
Also enclosed is a letter from the District Engineer addressing information and
clarifications you requested in our telephone conversation at the end of February. The District
Engineer's letter includes a breakdown of capital costs, and please note that the District's estimate
of capital cost for construction of a new regional wastewater treatment facility has decreased from
F:119991Letiers-Memos\SVSD-DeFord-ltr- l.wpd
9 ...... .....
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Don DeFord, Esq.
Page 2
March 11, 1999
the total cost identified in the Amended Service Plan. The letter also contains confirmation of the
District's ability to meet preliminary discharge parameters established by the State. I must
emphasize that, pending the State's final determination on the discharge parameters, the District
will proceed with alternative discharge options, including direct discharge to Landis Creek and
land application in the Spring Valley area. Finally, the District Engineer has detailed the costs
required to transport effluent from entities requesting central sewer service in the Spring Valley
area to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District site located near the Aspen Glen
Subdivision. As you can see, the costs associated with infrastructure and transportation to the
Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District are prohibitive (approximately $3 Million more than
the District option). In addition, the enclosed letter from the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation
District confirms that such District is unable and unwilling to accept and treat sewage from the
Spring Valley area.
I trust the enclosed information will provide a comprehensive supplement to the District's
Amended Service Plan, and we look forward to meeting with the Garfield County Planning and
Zoning Commission on March 24, 1999 to further discuss the District's Amended Service Plan.
Should you need any additional information or clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact me
at your convenience.
LEL:bsl
Enclosure
cc w/enc.: SVSD Board of Directors
Anne J. Castle, Esq.
John R. Schenk, Esq.
Lawrence R. Green, Esq.
Glenn D. Chadwick, Esq.
Kevin L. Patrick, Esq.
John A. Thulson, Esq.
Dean Gordon, P.E.
William Gibson
Hayden Rader
F: \ 1999\Letters-Memos\SV SD-DeFord-kr-l. wpd
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
L
(970) 945-1004
FAX (970) 945-5948
SGM
SCHMUESER
GORDON MEYER
ENGINEERS
SURVEYORS
118 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
March 9, 1999
Mr. Bob Szrot, P.E., County Engineer
Garfield County
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
RE: Spring Valley Sanitation District
Amended Service Plan
Dear Bob:
The purpose of this letter is to respond directly to your February 22, 1999, staff memo with
review comments. That memo has been forwarded on to me.
Referencing your memo, please consider the following:
1. Consistently throughout the Amended Service Plan, we have used the equivalency
of 1 EQR = 350 gpd. We have further assumed that an EQR is equivalent to a
residential occupancy of 3.5 persons with a daily per capita use of 100 gpd.
2. I felt the easiest way to address your request for additional mapping was to use a
colored map for clarification. I have included that map with this correspondence.
We would be able to reproduce additional copies of this as needed for hearings
before the Planning & Zoning Commission and/or County Commissioners.
Those areas indicated as "unallocated" are best explained by referring to the table
on Page 1 1 . Item D, Unallocated - Expanded District Service Area, indicates the
EQR and population equivalent densities assumed for the unallocated area. All the
areas EXCEPT the unallocated areas have been identified in the Amended Service
Plan as having an existing or planned development associated with them. The
balance of the properties, referred to as unallocated properties, do not have specific
development plans and, therefore, were dealt with in the aggregate as shown on
Page 11. The last columns indicate what the EQR and population equivalent would
be if the Comprehensive Plan approved densities were strictly followed. The middle
two columns indicate the density assumed for this Amended Service Plan. All the
unallocated areas are included within the proposed service area.
3. With respect to the anticipated facilities to be constructed, attached is a drawing
of the treatment facility site showing both existing and proposed facilities. A
conceptual sizing of facilities is also shown based on preliminary information from
equipment manufacturers. The approximate footprint shown is 2.5 acres. Note
that the existing facilities will be abandoned.
Alternately, I would like to address your comment by noting the following
treatment plant facilities in the area, their size and the approximate area dedicated
to wastewater treatment:
March 9, 1999
Mr. Bob Szrot, P.E.
Page 2
TREATMENT FACILITY
DESIGN CAPACITY
ACREAGE
City of Glenwood Springs
2.3 MGD
4
Town of Carbondale
1.5 MGD
3.5
Roaring Fork Sanitation District (Aspen Glen)
1.2 MGD
5
Mid Valley Metropolitan District
1.2 MGD
4
Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District
2.4 MGD
7
I have attempted to bracket the Amended Service Plan capacity for the SVSD
facility as well as the potential for expansion to 1 .5 MGD. You will note there
is a wide variation in the acreage devoted to wastewater treatment in all of
these situations. That is because the acreage is dependent upon the type of
wastewater process utilized and the extent to which the various treatment
components are separated from each other which, obviously, in turn is
dependent upon the amount of acreage available in the first place.
As you will note for the anticipated service needs is 0.55 MGD, an acreage in
the amount of 2 to 3 acres is sufficient. Even at a Comprehensive Plan
maximum service requirement of 1.5 MGD, 5 acres is sufficient for any
anticipated needs.
4. Please see discussion in No. 3 above.
In anticipation of the upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission hearing, I would like to discuss
both your memo and this response well in advance so that we might have a complete packet
of information available at that meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
Dean W.
President
DWG:Iec/1503a 1 1
Enclosure
cc: Greg Boecker, Chairman
Lee Leavenworth, Esq.
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC
(970) 945-1004
FAX (970) 945-5948
SGM
SCHMUESER
GORDON MEYER
ENGINEERS
SURVEYORS
118 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
March 11, 1999
Lee Leavenworth, Esq.
Leavenworth & Tester, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
P.O. Drawer 2030
Glenwood Springs CO 81602
RE: Spring Valley Sanitation District
Amended Service Plan
Dear Lee:
At your request, I am providing additional information with respect to the Amended Service
Plan submitted on behalf of Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD). My understanding is this
request for additional information comes from County staff during their review of the plan.
Breakdown of Costs
Attached hereto are several tables which indicate the breakdown of the estimated capital
costs. There are four components to the capital cost figure, the tertiary treatment itself and
three different interceptor sewerlines consisting of a pump station and force main for each
installation.
Please note that, at the time the Amended Service Plan was done last month, the estimated
costs for the tertiary treatment plant were $3,971,000. The attached breakdown represents
additional work we have done in the interim period on estimating of costs for plant facility.
We have had a chance to get further information from potential equipment manufacturers as
well as contractors who specialize in the type of work required. The breakdown indicates a
total estimated plant cost of $2,937,566. Therefore, this would decrease the total estimated
capital costs for the service plan from $5.1 million to $4.1 million.
Connection to Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District (RFSD)
Also attached hereto is a table indicating the estimated costs for connection to the RFSD,
formerly known as the Aspen Glen Water & Sanitation District. Those costs are estimated
at $8.1 million. Please note, however, that RFSD has indicated that treatment of waste from
Spring Valley is not an option they are able to consider. Therefore, these costs should be
considered for comparison purposes only and not representative of a viable alternative for
treatment of wastes from Spring Valley.
Preliminary Effluent Limitations
We have received a letter from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE) concerning preliminary effluent limitations. The ammonia limitation is the only
effluent parameter which is not readily obtainable by existing wastewater treatment
March 11, 1999
Lee Leavenworth, Esq.
Page 2
technology. The ammonia limitations given will require that the effluent from the facility be
land applied rather than direct discharges to a receiving stream. As you know, discussions
have been held with landowners within the district and we believe there are more potential
users for effluent than there is effluent available so that using land application will not be a
restraint to treatment.
I should also point out that we have ongoing discussions with the CDPHE concerning the
classification of the receiving stream in Spring Valley, assumed by the State to be Landis
Creek. We anticipate that under any reclassification considered, tertiary treatment would still
be required, but that tertiary treatment technology exists that would allow direct discharge
to the receiving environment.
I trust the above addresses the request for additional information from County staff. I would
remain available to provide whatever additional information is required.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
Dea
Preside
DWG:Iec/1503a1 1 .2
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Greg Boecker, Chairman, SVSD
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC
SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
CONNECTION TO ROARING FOR SANITATION DISTRICT
Opinion of Probable Cost
March, 1999
No.
Item/Description
Estimated
Quantity
Units
Unit
Price
Total
Price
1
Gravity Sewer
16,300
LF
$ 30
$489,000
2
Force Main
14,700
LF
$ 25
$367,500
3
Highway 82 Bore
150
LF
$ 400
$ 60,000
4
River Crossing
250
LF
$ 400
$100,000
5
Manholes
51
EA
$ 2,500
$127,500
6
Air Release Valve
1
EA
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
7
Force Main Cleanouts
27
EA
$ 2,500
$ 67,500
8
Lift Station
2
LS
$125,000
$250,000
9
Connection to Existing System
4
EA
$ 2,500
$ 10,000
10
Seeding
12.40
AC
$ 2,178
$ 27,015
11
Gravel Restoration
325
Ton
$ 20
$ 6,500
12
Aspahlt Restoration
3,627
Ton
$ 50
$181,350
Subtotal
$1,691,365
Engineering, 7%
$ 118,396
Contingency, 10%
$ 169,137
TOTAL
$1,987,897
Tap Fees
TOTAL
tables\ 1 503a11
1,571
$ 3,900
$6,1 26,900
$8,1 14,797
SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
VALLEY LIFT STATION/FORCE MAIN - Opinion of Probable Coat
March, 1999
No.
Item/Description
Estimated
Quantity
Units
Unit
Price
Total
Price
1
Mobilization/Demobilization
1
LS
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
2
Lift Station
1
LS
$ 125,000
$125,000
3
Force Main
11,000
LF
$ 15
$165,000
4
Cleanouts
44
LF
$ 250
$ 11,000
5
Power
1
LS
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
Subtotal
$ 331,000
Engineering, 7%
$ 23,170
Contingency, 10%
$ 33,100
TOTAL
$387,270
EFFLUENT LIFT STATION/FORCE MAIN - Opinion of Probable Cost
March, 1999
No.
Item/Description
Estimated
Quantity
Units
Unit
Price
Total
Price
1
Mobilization/Demobilization
1
LS
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
2
Lift Station
1
LS
$125,000
$125,000
3
Force Main
11,000
LF
$ 15
$165,000
4
Cleanouts
44
LF
$ 250
$ 11,000
Subtotal
S306,000
Engineering, 7%
$ 21,420
Contingency, 10%
$ 30,600
TOTAL
$358,000
LOWER BENCH LIFT STATION/FORCE MAIN - Opinion of Probable Cost
MarcI01999
No.
Item/Description
Estimated
Quantity
Units
Unit
Price
Total
Price
2
Force Main
6,100
LF
$ 25
$152.000
6
Air Release Valve
1
EA
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
7
Force Main Cleanouts
9 '
EA
$ 2,500
$ 22.500
8
Lift Station
1
LS
$125,000
$125,000
9
Connection to Existing System
1
EA
$ 2,500
$ 2,500
10
Seeding
4.06
AC
$ 2.178
$ 8,850
12
Asphalt Restoration
10
Ton
$ 50
S 500
Subtotal
$316,850
Engineering, 7%
$ 22,180
Contingency, 10%
$ 31,685
TOTAL
$370,715
tabies\1503A1 1
/, /4z, 9E4
NO.
17 A/DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE
SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACIUTY
OXYDATION DITCH
550,000 gpd capacity
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER
CALCULATED: LOM
FILE SVSD
dab february 22, 1999
PRETREATMENT BLDG
EXCAVATION
800 CY
57 1 $4.200
CONCRETE
125 CY
5400
550.000
BUILDING
1295 SF
5100
5129.500
FLUME
1 LS
51.500
51.500
MISC GRATING
1 LS
58.000 58.000
MECHANICAL BAR SCREEN
1 LS
550,000 $50.000
PLANT PIPING
300 LF
520
58.000
FLOW MEASUREMENT
1 LS
54.000
54.000
GRIT EQUIPMENT
1 LS 1 545.000
545,000
MISC BAFFLES, WEIRS CHANNEL GATES
1 LS
52,500
52,500
MISC FITTINGS AND VALVES
1 LS
1500
51,500
MANUAL BAR SCREEN
1 LS
2500
52.500
ODOR CONTROL
1 LS
20000
520000
TOTAL
5322.700
2
CONTROL BUILDING
EXCAVATION
500 CY
57
53.500
CONCRETE
80 CY
$400
532.000
BUILDING
1200 SF
5100
5120.000
ELECTRIC
938 SF
525
$23.400
RAS PUMPS
2 EA
515.000
530.000
WAS PUMP
2 EA
515.000 I 530.000
SCUM PUMP
1 EA
510.000 510,000
RAS,WAS METERS
2 EA
53.000
56.000
PIPING, VALVES AND FITTINGS
1 LS
515.000
515.000
BLOWER FOR DIGESTOR AND GRIT
1 LS
550.000
550,000
LAB EQUIPMENT
1 LS
520.000 I 520000
-
{TOTAL
S339900
3
AERATION BASINS 2
EXCAVATION
12,278 CY
57
585.944
CONCRETE
482 CY
5400
5192,800
FOUR (41 HIGH SPEED AERATORS
1 LS
5165.000
5185,000
TWO (2) 3 HP SUBMERGED TURBINE MIXERS 1 LS
540.000
540.000
MISC PIPING WALKWAYS, RAILS ECT 1 LS
520.000 $20,000
ELECTRIC 1 LS
530.000
530.000
ENCLOSURE (pone 0 SF
540
50
TOTAL 1
5533.744
4
DIGESTOR
EXCAVATION
1388.89 CY
57
59,772
CONCRETE
250.00 CY
5400
5100,000
DIFUSSERS
2500.00 SF
58
520.000
MISC PIPING
1.00 LS
510.000
510.000
HATCHES, WEIRS. GRATING ECT
1.00 LS
54.000
$4.000
BUILDING
2500.00 SF
580
$230,030
SLUDGE DEWATERING
1.00 LS
5100,000
5100000
ODOR CONTROL
1.00 LS 520,000
529,000
TOTAL
5463.722
SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACIUTY
OXYDATION DITCH
550,000 gpd capacity
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER
CALCULATED: LOM
FILE SVSD
dab february 22, 1999
s
CLARIFIERS 2
EXCAVATION
1395.56
CY
$7
$9,769
CONCRETE
180
CY
$600
$108,000
SLUDGE COLLECTION EQUIPMENT
2
LS
$50,000
$100,000
ENCLOSURE
2034.72
SF
$50
$101,738
ELECTRIC
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
MISC PIPING/SCUM EQUIP
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
TOTAL
5309,736
6
SITE WORK
YARD PIPING
400
LF
$50
$20,000
SITE GRADING
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
YARD VALVES
8
EA
$500
$4.000
SPLITTER BOX
3
EA
$5,000
$15 000
MANHOLES
5
EA
$1 500
$7 500
DEWATERING
1
LS
$0
$0
GRAVEL SURFACING
500
TONS
$18
$9,000
LANDSCAPING
1
LS
$15,000
$15,000
ELECTRIC SERVICE
1
LS
$25,000
$25.000
ACCESS ROAD
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
TEMP TOILET
1
LS
$5,000
55.000
CLEAR AND GRUB
1
LS
$7,500
57,500
TEMP OFFICE
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
SITE ELECTRIC
200
LF
$15
$3.000
MOB/DEMOB
1
LS
$50.000
$50,000
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
1
LS
$30,000
$30.000
TOTAL
$266,000
7
CHLORINE CONTACT/DECHLORINATION
EXCAVATION
250
CY
$7
51,750
CONCRETE
70
CY
$500
$35,000
WIERS AND GATES
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
SCUM SKIMMER
1
LS
$10.000
$10,000
GRATING
1
LS
$5,000
$5.000
RAILS
1
LS
52.500
$2.500
EFFLUENT METER
1
LS
$5.000
$5,000
GAS CHLORINATION
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
SULFUR DIOXIDE
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
GATES
2
EA
52.500
$5,000
MISC PIPING
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
TOTAL
$1141250
PLANT TOTAL
$2,350,053
25% CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
$ PER GAL PER DAY
$587,513
$2,937,566
5.3410287878788
March 17, 1999
Memorandum
To: File
Re: Spring Valley Sanitation District —
Amended Service Plan — Addendum
ROBERT B. SZROT, County Engineer
This memo is intended to compliment the previous February 22, 1999 memo
pertaining to my review of the February, 1999 Amended Service Plan. 1 had
previously discussed several minor concerns relating to correlation of EQR's,
defining unallocated areas, and general descriptions of the facilities to be built.
Since this memo, I have received a copy of the February 4, 1999 letter pertaining
to Preliminary Effluent Limits; Spring Valley Sanitation District addressed to Mr.
Dean Gordon. This letter has raised some concerns about the ability of the
proposed Spring Valley wastewater treatment facility to be able to meet effluent
discharge standards and the cost economics and process sizing involved in
meeting the proposed standards.
I must insist that a more in-depth analysis be conducted to demonstrate how the
proposed processes will meet the Total Ammonia discharge limitations for the
stated values. II would like to see detailed descriptions of anticipated influent and
effluent values for each process parameter. Of primary concern is the discharge
limits to the adjacent tributary of Landis creek. Initially this creek was credited
with a dilution flow rate of .1 cfs. The assumption was made that the existing
dilution flow was primarily pure water. Subsequent discussions have raised
question to the existing quality of this water and its ability to dilute the proposed
effluent flows.
The listed discharge limitations for Total Ammonia for November (.35mg/1),
December (.35mg/I), and January (.09mg/I) reinforce the requirement to have
better documentation of the proposed plant processes and their respective
removal rates. From discussion with several industry professionals and literature
review, it appears that Total Ammonia (as N) is typically present in discharge
effluent at rates in excess of 1.0mg/I in even the most advanced systems. This
rate would be out of compliance for all months except February.
1
109 8th Street, Suite 300, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3363 (970) 945-5004 FAX (970) 945-7785
Comment was heard that there might be plans for an effluent storage facility that
would hold the discharge waters until a time that they would be able to achieve
discharge into the Landis tributary, I have not seen any plans for this scenario.
A final note is the question of economics. I would like to see if the process costs
have changed with this new information. In addition, there has been a rejection of
the possibility to pipe wastewater to the Aspen Glen facility as being cost
prohibitive, yet the majority of this cost is based on $6M in tap fees. 1 would like
to see a more representative breakdown of capital structure costs with the piping
option. I have also been advised that the upcoming State regulations will
examine more closely these economics if a treatment facility is within 5 miles to
the area of need.
I still support tertiary wastewater treatment in a regionalized setting, however, I
must withdraw my support until more clarification is documented in light of
seemingly unattainable effluent limitations for this proposed facility.
Robert B. Szro°t, P.E.
Garfield County Engineer
February 22, 1999
Memorandum
To: File
Re: Spring Valley Sanitation District —
Amended Service Plan
ROBERT B. SZROT, County Engineer
I have reviewed the February, 1999 Amended Service Plan document and have the
following comments.
I feel that it is a well -needed concept to provide centralized regional solutions for
wastewater treatment. The expansion of the sanitary district, increasing waste treatment
to tertiary standards, and the planned reuse of effluent flows are logical remedies for
this service area.
I have several minor issues that I would like to see addressed prior to adoption of this
document.
1) Page 6 — I would like to see a correlation included that specifically relates EQR's to
gpd flows. For the purpose of this report — approximately how many gpd's = 1 EQR?
I have seen several definitions in the industry and would like clarification to this
question.
2) Ill -A, 111-B — I would like to see one map (in addition to those presented) that overlays
the existing service area with the future intended service. area. This would help relate
visually the proportionality of the geographic dimension changes. I also would like to
know why some areas are "unallocated" and the specific meaning of this concept as
it relates to this report. Does this term represent non-inclusion of these areas into the
service area?
3) Section IV. General Description of Facilities to Be Constructed — I would like to see a
conceptual sketch of the anticipated future treatment facility with the associated
anticipated processes. Please show the anticipated process flow for achieving
tertiary treatment and approximate sizes of process units. Although this does not
need to be a "formal" presentation, I would like to know anticipated tank sizes,
22-
109 8th Street, Suite 300, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3363 (970) 945-5004 FAX (970) 945-7785
digester size, sludge processes, and see how the footprint of these processes are
anticipated to occupy the existing plant site.
4) In relation to Comment 3 — The future planned waste treatment plant will process
.5MGD flow rates. The Comprehensive Plan figures would anticipate maximum
density flows of 1.5MGD. With the consideration of the existing plant site at 9.8
acres — contractually expandable to 25 acres and the anticipation of reusing effluent
water within the service area, I would like to see the following question addressed in
conceptual forrn: Could the current site accommodate an expansion of the future
.5MGD plant to 1.5MGD and will the future plant be designed (and have room) to
add parallel processes to facilitate an expansion from .5MGD to 1.5MGD.
I would have no expectations nor requirements to have any kind of documentation
for this 1.5MGD expansion — at this time, but feel that a little forethought might be in
order and would like a brief conceptual comment included as to the possibility of this
scenario.
In conclusion, I was pleased to see the concept of regionalized tertiary wastewater
treatment being brought forward in such a cooperative manner. Aside from several
clarification issues and foresight concerns, I would support this Amended Service Plan
for the Spring Valley Sanitation District.
RECErvEo Fa3 1 7tca, STATE OF COLORAD
Bill Owens, Governor
Jane E. Norton, Executive Director
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory and Radiation Services Division
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd.
Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver CO 80220-6928
Located in Glendale, Colorado (303) 692-3090
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us
February 4, 1999
Colorado Department
of Public Health
and Environment
Mr. Dean W. Gordon, P.E.
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.
118 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Subject: Preliminary Effluent Limits; Spring Valley Sanitation District
Dear Mr. Gordon,
face
This letter provides preliminary effluent limits for a ser would aeero atear ae newas
requested in your letter of October 16, 1998. This discharge
Landis Creek, do stream
treatment facility adjacent to a small unnamed tributarer Colorado River Basin. The
y ofsegment 3 of the Roaring Fork River Sub -Basin of the Upp
discharge flow used for this evaluation was 0.45 MGD, which is assumed to be the 20 year
design flow from the facility.
This streamsegment is classified for the following uses: aquatic life, class 1 cold;
acute
class 1 recreation;
reation; drinking water; and agriculture. The annlnd chronic ow
flows utilized in this evaluation are 0.1 cfs and 0.1 cfs,respectively.
aters,
these
Because the stream segment is ot c assure classified
thathis tedischarge or tdoesdnot Wresult in a
limits have been establishedto
significant degradation of the water quality as related to adopted narrative and numeric
standards.
Under regulations criteria the proposed discharge will not result in a significant
degradation due to the limits being capped at a 15% of the assilative capacity of the
stream.
Background concentrations for the parameters evaluated, with the exception of nearthe
residual chlorine (TRC), were assumed to be zero because the discharge is veryyeneartthe
of the collection area for the receiving stream and there are no p
ed
toppoint. Allowable instream total ammonia
dischargers above this proposed discharge g tem erture data
concentrations were evaluated using the Colorado Ammonia Model and p / P
for a similar stream.
Metals limits may be considered at the time the permit is written.
Under these conditions, the limits as noted -on the following page would apply.
Mr.Dean W. Gordon, P.E., Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.
Page 2 of 2
February 4, 1999
Parameter
BODS, mg/1
TSS, mg/1
Total Coliform,
#/100 ml
Oil and Grease
Total Residual Chlorine, mg/1
Total Ammonia (as N), mg/1
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Limitation,
Rationale
30/45 a State Effluent
30/45 a State Effluent
34/68 e
10 b
0.002/0.003 f
State Effluent
State Effluent
Water Quality
0.09 d Water Quality
1.19 d Water Quality
0.96 d Water Quality
0.53 d Water Quality
0.21 d Water Quality
0.21 d Water Quality
0.36 d Water Quality
0.23 d Water Quality
0.71 d Water Quality
0.51 d Water Quality
0.35 d Water Quality
0.35 d Water Quality
•a 30 -day avg./7-day avg. (geometric mean for fecal coliform)
b daily maximum c minimum -maximum d 30 -day average
e 7 -day avg./daily maximum f 30 -day average/daily maximum
If you have any questions please call me at 303-692-3615.
Sincerel
Regulations
Regulations
Regulations
Regulations
Standards
Standards
Standards
Standards
Standards
Standards
Standards
Standards
Standards
Standards
Standards
Standards
Standards
Lynn Kimble, P.E.
Water Quality Control Division, Permits and Enforcement Section
XC:
Phil Hegeman, Permits Unit, WQCD
Duane Watson, D.H., Field Support, WQCD
Tom Bennett, Groundwater and Standards, WQCD
'-Garfield ' county' lnoira®ental ^ H.alth
MS -3 file
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
CYNTHIA C. TESTER
GREGORY J. HALL
DAVID H. McCONAUGHY
KELLY D. CAVE
DAVID A. MEISINGER*
TOM KINNEY
*Admitted in Wisconsin only
c,d
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
March 16, 1999
Mark Bean, Director
Garfield County Regulatory Office & Personnel
Department of Development
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs., CO 81601
1011 GRAND AVENUE
P. O. DRAWER 2030
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2261
FAX: (970) 945-7336
Itlaw@sopris.net
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Re: Spring Valley Sanitation District Amended Service Plan
Dear Mark:
Enclosed please find a letter to our office from Larry Green on behalf of the Roaring Fork
Water and Sanitation District ("RFWSD"), in response to a request by the Spring Valley
Sanitation District ("SVSD") as to whether RFWSD would be willing and able to provide
wastewater treatment services to existing and future SVSD users.
This letter is submitted to you as supplemental information for the SVSD Amended Service
Plan, which includes an analysis of cost and feasibility of obtaining wastewater treatment services
from RFWSD. SVSD examined the possibility of consolidation with RFWSD in 1998 as part of
its proposed plant facility upgrade and expansion. RFWSD indicated its existing site is sufficient
for a tertiary treatment facility which could serve its Service Area and Expanded Service Area,
but could not provide service to the Spring Valley area. The contents of Mr. Green's letter
confirms this conclusion, which was reached by the RFWSD Board in November, 1998.
The enclosed letter is intended to supplement the SVSD Amended Service Plan; as such,
please include copies of the letter with the materials to be considered at the Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing on Wednesday, March 24, 1999.
F: \ 1999\Letters-Memos \SVSD-Bean-Itr-1. wpd
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Page 2
March 16, 1999
Thank you for your assistance in this matter, and please do not hesitate to contact me if
you have any questions.
GJH:lln
Enclosure
cc: SVSD Board of Directors, w/enc.
Lawrence R. Green, Esq., w/enc.
Anne J. Castle, Esq., w/enc.
John R. Schenk, Esq., w/enc.
Glenn D. Chadwick, Esq., w/enc.
Kevin L. Patrick, Esq., w/enc.
John A. Thulson, Esq., w/enc.
William Gibson, w/enc.
Hayden Rader, w/enc.
Dean Gordon, P.E., w/enc.
F: \ 1999\Letters-Memos \SVSD-Bean-itr-1. wpd
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
H
JOHN A. THULSON
EDWARD MULHALL, JR.
SCOTT BALCOMB
LAWRENCE R. GREEN
TIMOTHY A. THULSON
LORI J.M. SATTERFIELD
EDWARD B. OLSZEWSKI
DAVID SANDOVAL
DENDY M.HEISEL
CHRISTOPHER L. COYLE
BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(FORMERLY DELANEY & BALCOMB, P.C.)
P. 0. DRAWER 790
818 COLORADO AVENUE
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
VIA HAND DELIVERY TO:
Loyal E. Leavenworth, Esq.
Leavenworth & Tester, P.C.
P.O. Drawer 2030
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Dear Lee:
Telephone: 970.945.6546
Facsimile: 970.945.9769
February 25, 1999
OF COUNSEL:
KENNETH BALCOMB
Re: Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District/Spring Valley Sanitation District
I am writing on behalf of the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District (the "Roaring Fork
District"), formerly known as the Aspen Glen Water & Sanitation District. As you will recall, by letter
dated October 19, 1998, Greg Hall of your office inquired whether or not the Roaring Fork District
would be willing and able to provide wastewater treatment services to the present and future users of
the Spring Valley Sanitation District.
Since that letter, the Board of Directors of the Roaring Fork District has had a number of
discussions on this issue, most particularly at its meetings on October 28, 1998 and November 25, 1998.
Throughout these discussions, it has been the unanimous and consistent conclusion of the Board that the
Roaring Fork District is unable to provide sewer service to the Spring Valley area. I have advised you
and the Spring Valley Sanitation District Board of this conclusion on a number of occasions, but, as a
result of a request by Garfield County, you have now asked that I offer a written explanation of the
Roaring Fork District's decision.
The Service Plan for the Roaring Fork District was approved by Garfield County after a lengthy
series of public hearings on January 31, 1994 by Resolution No. 94-008. A major part of the foundation
of the Service Plan was a study commissioned by Aspen Glen Golf Partners at the request of the
Colorado Department ofHealth entitled "Wastewater Management Study, Lower Roaring Fork Planning
Area" (the "Wastewater Management Study"). The purpose of the Wastewater Management Study was
to determine the most cost effective and appropriate wastewater treatment facility for the proposed
Aspen Glen development and the surrounding area. The Wastewater Management Study, and hence the
Service Plan, identified a "Service Area" and an "Expanded Service Area" which could potentially
receive wastewater treatment service from a facility located at the proposed site of the Roaring Fork
District's facility. The Wastewater Management Study also considered the Spring Valley area and
concluded that it would not be appropriate for the Roaring Fork District and its proposed site to provide
service to the Spring Valley area because it would be prohibitively expensive and the proposed site
would be inadequate. The Wastewater Management Study concluded: "If it is necessary for Spring
Valley to upgrade their system, the most feasible approach will be to provide improvements to the
existing treatment plant at Spring Valley rather than extend an interceptor line to the nearest regional
treatment plant."
The Service Plan thus proposed that the Roaring Fork District be conveyed a site of
approximately 6.5 acres, which would be large enough to accommodate a tertiary treatment facility
which could provide service to the Roaring Fork District's Service Area and Expanded Service Area as
identified in the Service Plan. As submitted, the initial draft of the Service Plan proposed that such
facility would be constructed to a maximum capacity of 320,000 gallons per day. However, during the
public hearing process, and as a result of Out -of -District Service Contracts approved by Garfield County
as part of the Service Plan, the proposed Service Plan was amended to provide that the Roaring Fork
District's site would be the site for a regionalized wastewater treatment plant which would have an
ultimate treatment capacity of 600,000 gallons per day, the estimated total capacity need for the Roaring
Fork District's Service Area and Expanded Service Area.
Consistent with the terms and conditions of the approved Service Plan, and the underlying
Wastewater Management Study, the Roaring Fork District now owns a site of 6.5 acres. It owns and
operates a tertiary wastewater treatment plant having a constructed and operating capacity of 107,000
gallons per day, with preliminary designs for expansion to an ultimate capacity of 600,000 gallons per
day. The Roaring Fork District believes that if it were to provide service to the Spring Valley area it
would be unable to provide service to its own Service Area and Expanded Service Area as identified in
its Service Plan. The District has concluded that its first responsibility is to satisfy the present and future
needs of property owners within its own Service Area and Expanded Service Area. Its treatment plant
and site are designed to enable the District to satisfy that responsibility. The Roaring Fork District has
thus concluded that it is not able to provide wastewater treatment service to the Spring Valley area.
A portion of the minutes from the Roaring Fork District's Board meeting of October 28, 1998
setting forth this conclusion is attached.
. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions in regard to this matter.
Very truly yours,
BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C.
LRG/bc
Encls
xc: David Burden
Ian Hause
Louis Meyer
Greg Boecker
Nov -23-98 03:31P Joey Fetzko 19709634538 P.03
ROARING FORK WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT
9929 HIGHWAY 82 • CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
PHONE (970) 963-6277 • FAx (970) 963-4538
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
OCTOBER 28,1998
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 a.m.
Roll Call
Board members present included David Burden, Mark Norris and Dale McKay.
Also present were Ian. Hause, District Administrator, Larry Green, Attorney for the District; Louis Meyer,
District Engineer, Scott Leslie, District Operator, Joey Fetzko, District Secretary and Stephanie Swan,
Designated Election (Official
Approval of the September 23,1998 Minutes
MIS/C Mark Norris and Dale McKay to approve the September 23, 1998 Minutes
Attorney's Report
Spring Valley Sanitation — Larry will send letter stating our service piaci_ site and facility is designed per
the original study which excluded the Spring Valley area Louis will review letter. Board authorizes
president to sign letter. MIS/C Dale McKay and Mark Norris to authorize.
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
CYNTHIA C. TESTER
GREGORY J. HALL
DAVID H. McCONAUGHY
KELLY D. CAVE
DAVID A. MEISINGER*
TOM KINNEY
*Admitted in Wisconsin only
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
March 24, 1999
Planning and Zoning Commission
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
1011 GRAND AVENUE
P. 0. DRAWER 2030
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2261
FAX: (970) 945-7336
ltlaw@sopris.net
Re: Spring Valley Sanitation District Amended Service Plant
Dear Commission Members:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to the Staff Report and provide you with additional
information regarding the potential of connecting the Spring Valley area to the Roaring Fork
Water and Sanitation District ("Roaring Fork District") wastewater treatment plant facility.
Although perhaps not evident from a reading of the Amended Service Plan, the Spring Valley
Sanitation District Board of Directors has, in conjunction with those property owners requesting
service, analyzed the various options available in some detail over a lengthy period of time, and
at considerable expense. The purpose of this letter is to outline several relevant factors of which
the Commission should be aware as it evaluates this issue. We believe that, after a review of this
additional information, the Commission will find that the Roaring Fork District does not represent
a viable option, both legally or economically, nor is it consistent with the review criteria under
which a service plan is to be evaluated.
1. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Approved Service Plan.
At the time the Aspen Glen PUD development was proceeding through the County land
use review process, the County made it clear that it wanted a Title 32 Special District, such as a
water and sanitation district, to be in charge of the provision of water and sewer services, and that
sewer service, at best, should be available on a regional basis. (See, Condition No. 25 of
Resolution No. 92-056, approving PUD zoning for Aspen Glen, which resolution directed that
the developer of the Aspen Glen PUD organize a special district "for the construction,
maintenance and operation of a regional wastewater treatment facility.")
F:\1999\Letters-Memos\SVSD-Garfield Commissioners-Itr.wpd
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
Page 2
March 24, 1999
As a result, a report entitled "Wastewater Management Study of the Lower Roaring Fork
Planning Area," dated April 23, 1993, was prepared by WestWater Engineering. Relevant
portions of this study are attached as Exhibit A. The purpose of this study "was to determine the
most feasible wastewater treatment disposal plan to serve existing and future development in the
Lower Roaring Fork Wastewater Planning Area." "The method of analysis and format for the
study resemble a condensed version of an EPA facility plan (201 plan)." See, Cover Letter,
Exhibit A.
As is evident from a review of selected pages of the study, the inclusion of the Spring
Valley area was specifically considered and rejected as a non-viable option. At page 6-29, the
report concludes "upgrading the existing Spring Valley WWTP is considerably less expensive
than connecting to a regional system, in part because of the considerable length of outfall line
required." The report looked at a potential pipeline to Cattle Creek as well as along the County
Road 114 right-of-way. See, Page 6-28, Exhibit A. The conclusion of the report regarding the
Spring Valley area set forth on Page 2 of the Cover Letter reads as follows:
It is not cost effective to connect the Spring Valley/CMC plant and the Carbondale
plants to a regional system at this time.
We believe the same conclusion is true today.
Based on that study, the Service Plan for the Aspen Glen Water and Sanitation District
dated November 1993 was submitted. The service plan identifies an initial service area and an
expanded service area. A copy of relevant portions of the Aspen Glen Water and Sanitation
District service plan is attached as Exhibit B. It is clear from the map outlining the service area
and a review of the selected pages that, based on the Wastewater Management Study prepared by
West Water Engineering, the Service Plan for the Roaring Fork District does not include the
Spring Valley area. Further, the Roaring Fork District Service Plan was expressly approved by
Garfield County under the same review criteria by which the Commission is to evaluate the Spring
Valley Sanitation District Amended Service Plan. Thus, the County has already fully considered
this issue and has determined that the Roaring Fork District WWTP facility should not serve the
Spring Valley area.
Finally, it is important to note that the Roaring Fork District has already acted upon an
inquiry as to the availability of service and has rejected the concept. See, Letter from Lawrence
R. Green to Leavenworth & Tester, P.C., on behalf of the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation
District, dated February 25, 1999, attached hereto as Exhibit C. Moreover, other potential users
F:\1999\Letters-Memos\SVSD-Garfield Commissioners-ltr.wpd
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
Page 3
March 24, 1999
of the Roaring Fork District WWTP facility are objecting to the concept of connecting the Spring
Valley area to the Roaring Fork District's plant on the grounds of infeasibility and interference
with service to existing service area customers. See, Letter from James S. Lochhead, Esq. to Don
Deford, Esq., on behalf of Sanders Ranch Holdings, LLC, dated March 18, 1999, attached hereto
as Exhibit D.
In light of the existing approved Service Plan for the Roaring Fork District, the Roaring
Fork District is not under any legal obligation whatsoever to extend service to the Spring Valley
area. Nor is there any mechanism that can be utilized to "force" the Roaring Fork District to
accept service from the Spring Valley area. Furthermore, the Roaring Fork District would be
required to amend its service plan to allow for such service, just as the Spring Valley Sanitation
District is requesting approval of an Amended Service Plan to significantly expand its service
areas.
2. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment ("CDPHE") Site Application
Regulations.
The Staff Report references certain policies and requirements of CDPHE regarding site
applications. Clearly, it is the policy of the state to "encourage the consolidation of wastewater
treatment facilities whenever feasible." C.R.S. §25-8-702(2)(c). Attached hereto as Exhibit E
is a copy of a portion the regulations for the site application process promulgated by the CDPHE
through the Water Quality Control Commission. The Regulations make it clear that, in evaluating
consolidation the factors that need to be examined are more than technical feasibility. Section
22.3(1)(c) provides that the division shall:
Encourage the consolidation of wastewater treatment works whenever feasible with
consideration for such issues as water conservation, water rights utilization, stream
flow, water quality, and economics.
First, we would point out that the Amended Service Plan proposes to provide a regional
wastewater treatment plant facility for over 12,000 acres in the Spring Valley area, and results
in the consolidation of wastewater treatment works for numerous developments. It is important
to note that the policy of the State is to encourage consolidation when feasible; it is not a
requirement. Moreover, in analyzing consolidation that there are numerous factors to be
considered before consolidation is appropriate. As will be demonstrated throughout this letter,
these considerations indicate that consolidation with the Roaring Fork District is not appropriate
under the circumstances.
F:\1999\Letters-Memos\SVSD-Garfield Commissioners-Itr.wpd
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
Page 4
March 24, 1999
3. History of Examination of Roaring Fork District Alternative.
As early as 1995, the Colorado Mountain College District has commenced an independent
review of the viability of that alternative. See, Feasibility Study for Colorado Mountain College,
Sanitary Sewer Connection to Aspen Glen Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, prepared by
Meurer & Associates, dated October, 1995, attached hereto as Exhibit F. In late 1995, the cost
of an 8 -inch interceptor line necessary to connect the facilities to the Roaring Fork District plant
was estimated to be $1,685,923. That number obviously has escalated since 1995.
As indicated in the Amended Service Plan, following the decision by the District in 1997
that expansion of its secondary area lagoon facilities was inappropriate, and upon the request for
service from the owners of the Lake Springs Ranch PUD and the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
properties, the District immediately commenced a review and analysis of the treatment facility
options available to it. One of these options was an extensive re-examination of the connection
to the Roaring Fork District.
Dean Gordon, of Schmueser Gordon Meyer, the District's consulting engineer, has also,
over the two-year period, addressed the issues associated with the connection of the Spring Valley
area to the Roaring Fork District. Mr. Gordon will testify at the hearing concerning this work.
Greg Boecker, the President of the District, will also testify to numerous meetings held by the
Board of Directors, in conjunction with property owners in the Spring Valley area, regarding this
issue. In sum, this issue has been thoroughly analyzed and discussed for at least six years, since
the Wastewater Management Study was prepared. At no time has anyone ever concluded that
connection of the Spring Valley area to the Roaring Fork District is feasible, either from a timing
or economic standpoint.
4. Adequacy of Roaring Fork District Site.
The Roaring Fork District's plant site is presently designed to accommodate an ultimate
plant capacity of 0.6 m.g.d. as envisioned by that District's service plan. Notwithstanding that
design, in other proceedings before Garfield County a preliminary opinion has been rendered that
the Roaring Fork District's site might be redesigned to accommodate a plat of approximately 1.0
to 1.2 m.g.d.
For purposes of this discussion, we will assume an expanded 1.2 m.g.d. wastewater
treatment plant facility could be constructed on the existing site. According to the Roaring Fork
District's 1993 Service Plan, the needs of the primary service area will require 0.32 m.g.d. The
F:\1999\Letters-Memos\SVSD-Garfield Commissioners-Ir.wpd
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
Page 5
March 24, 1999
needs of the expanded service area for the Roaring Fork District were assumed in 1993 to be an
additional 0.32 m.g.d., for a total of 0.64 m.g.d. These estimates may be low --Louis Meyer, the
Roaring Fork District's consulting engineer, estimates that 0.75 m.g.d. is a more appropriate
assumption for the ultimate plant capacity. See, Exhibit G, a memorandum from Louis Meyer,
P.E. to the Aspen Glen Water and Sanitation District, dated March 16, 1998. As required by
state statute, the Spring Valley District's Amended Service Plan (although it contemplates an
anticipated density of 1,571 EQR, with a resulting 0.55 m.g.d. plant) provides for the density
approved pursuant to the existing Garfield County comprehensive plan, totaling 4,057 EQR,
which results in a 1.5 m.g.d. plant. There is simply no way that the Roaring Fork District site
can accommodate the potential2.25 m.g.d. needs of the expanded Roaring Fork District's service
area (0.75 m.g.d.) and the potential comprehensive plan densities of the Spring Valley area (1.5
m.g.d.). In addition, the Roaring Fork District's site is inadequate for its expanded service area
and the more realistic lower density contemplated by the Spring Valley District (for a total
Roaring Fork District plant size of 1.3 m.g.d.).
Of course, if the line to connect to the Roaring Fork District went down into Cattle Creek
(as opposed to down the County Road right-of-way), the potential for further extensions up Cattle
Creek clearly exist. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a Memorandum from Land Design
Partnership, dated March 24, 1999, which estimates that the Cattle Creek area, based on
comprehensive plan densities, could add an additional 690 units, or an additional 0.24 m.g.d. of
need at the Roaring Fork District facility. I believe that the concept of encouraging consolidation
should not be pushed to the point of absurdity.
5. The Effect on Water Re -use Within the Spring Valley Area.
Although only mentioned briefly in the Amended Service Plan, one of the primary
considerations taken into account by the Board of Directors, as well as the other owners within
the Spring Valley area, was the availability of effluent from a plant at the CMC site for re -use for
irrigation purposes by the property owners. As currently proposed, and depending on the
outcome of the ammonia standard at issue, land treatment will not be required and is not proposed
as an integral component of the wastewater treatment plant process. However, all of the owners
within the Spring Valley area recognize the importance of water re -use to prevent unnecessary
demands on the Spring Valley aquifer. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is an engineering letter report
prepared by Wright Water Engineers analyzing the water that can be saved due to re -use of
effluent from the District's proposed new plant at the CMC site, as opposed to the quantity of
water that will be exported from the Spring Valley basin. The report concludes that the amount
of water that will be exported from the Spring Valley aquifer as a result of the Roaring Fork
F:\1999\Letters-Memos\SVSD-Garfield Commissioners-ltr.wpd
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
Page 6
March 24, 1999
District option varies between 616 acre-feet and 1,680 acre-feet per year, depending upon the
plant size, or between approximately 31,000 and 84,000 acre-feet over a 50 -year period. This
quantity compares with the amount of water savings that occurs as a result of effluent re -use
within the Spring Valley area under the Amended Service Plan option between 370 and 1,000
acre-feet per year, or 18,500 and 50,400 acre-feet per year. This amount of water is significant
and the benefits of water re -use should not be ignored.
Again, it is also very important to remember that the CDPHE's regulations regarding a
review of site applications specifically provides for consideration of issues of water conservation
and stream flow as an integral part of a review of the issue of consolidation of wastewater
treatment facilities. We believe that the attached report demonstrates that, from a water
conservation and stream flow standpoint, locating the plant as proposed to allow effluent re -use,
and preventing an equal quantity of ground water withdrawals, is an important consideration in
locating the plant in the Spring Valley area.
6. Economics of Connection to Roaring Fork District.
Attached hereto as Exhibit J is information prepared by Dean Gordon analyzing the
economic impacts and costs of connection to the Roaring Fork District versus construction of a
treatment plant at the CMC site in the Spring Valley area. Mr. Gordon will elaborate on this
issue in his testimony in greater detail.
7. Impact on Existing Users.
Pursuant to a policy decision made by the Spring Valley District Board of Directors, the
cost for service for existing in -District users within the District will be approximately fifty percent
(50%) of actual construction costs on a per EQR basis. The difference will be paid for on a pro
rata basis by all new taps sold within the District with the money being provided on the front end
by the owners of properties proposed for development. This would add approximately $40.00
to each tap sold within the District. The Board's policy is premised upon its perception that the
existing users have provided the site for the proposed facility in an existing ongoing District, with
corresponding cost savings to all other users. The Board also determined as a matter of policy
that all existing users, including the in -District users, would receive the benefit of financing
through a low interest revenue loan through the Colorado Water Resources and Power
Development Authority ("Water and Power"). Therefore, the existing District users, such as
Auburn Ridge Apartments (Bill and Pamela Gibson), Pinon Pines Apartments (Colorado Pinon
Pines Ltd.) and the existing lot owners will be able to pay their share of the cost of plant
F:\1999\Letters-Memos\SVSD-Garfield Commissioners-Itr.wpd
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
Page 7
March 24, 1999
construction by a monthly surcharge of approximately $20.00 per month per EQR and $10.00 per
month per EQR for the in -district lot owners. In other words, none of the existing users will be
required to advance the cost of plant construction up front because of financing. Finally, the
owners of properties proposed for development have, for the most part, indicated a willingness
to provide such financing in the event the District is unable to provide a Water and Power loan.
It is unknown whether a low interest loan will be available from the Water and Power for
connection to the Roaring Fork facility. It is my general understanding that Water and Power
does not typically finance the payment of tap fees_for connection to another district. Moreover,
it is uncertain as to what policy might be adopted, and how it could be financed if it was adopted,
regarding the existing lot owners and existing users regarding the increased cost of connection to
the Roaring Fork District and how the money for the Roaring Fork District alternative would be
provided for initial construction. Therefore, the impact on the existing in -District property
owners and existing contract users could be extremely adverse under the connection to the
Roaring Fork District alternative.
8. Timing.
It is important for Garfield County to understand the immediate need for plant expansion
within the Spring Valley area. The entire capacity of the existing facility is in use or reserved by
existing lot owners and contract users. Colorado Mountain College has an immediate need for
capacity for its constructed dorms. Moreover, the District's existing users within the District's
existing service area (i.e., Los Amigos Ranch Partnership and CMC) have both requested the
need for additional service in the immediate future. Los Amigos Ranch Partnership has an
approved preliminary plat for 170 units which Garfield County mandated be served with central
sewer. The owners of the Lake Springs Ranch PUD and Spring Valley Ranch PUD have both
requested a desire to have service in the year 2000. The Commission may have read recent news
articles concerning the proposed construction by Colorado Animal Rescue, Inc. ("CARE") of a
six thousand (6,000) square foot animal shelter facility in the Spring Valley area on property
provided by CMC. At this time, the District does not have capacity to allow the connection of
this proposed facility to the District's wastewater treatment plant. Therefore, unless the County
is willing to allow the facility to be constructed with an individual sewage disposal system
("ISDS"), the construction of the facility will have to be deferred to the year 2000 when the
District's wastewater treatment plant is constructed.
9. Compliance With Statutory Criteria of Adequate Service "Within a Reasonable Time and
On a Comparable Basis".
F:\1999\Letters-Memos\SVSD-Garfield Commissioners-Itr.wpd
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
Page 8
March 24, 1999
It appears that the provisions of C.R.S. §32-1-203(2.5)(a) provides the basis upon which
the staff is recommended denial based upon inadequate analysis of the potential for connection to
the Roaring Fork District. This provision provides:
"The Board of County Commissioners may disapprove the service plan if evidence
satisfactory to the Board of any of the following, at the discretion of the Board, is
not presented:
a. Adequate service is not or will not be available to the area through
the County or other existing municipal or quasi -municipal
corporations, including the existing special districts, within a
reasonable time and on a comparable basis."
(Emphasis added).
I would note that this criteria is discretionary and does not require evidence satisfactory
on this issue in any event. Nonetheless, we believe that the foregoing information demonstrates
that the Roaring Fork District is not a viable alternative for the Spring Valley area. A primary
consideration is the criteria that service by an existing district be provided "within a reasonable
time and on a comparable basis".
First, we do not believe that there are any contributors currently available for this purpose.
Therefore, although cost recovery of a portion of the costs of the interceptor line may be available
in the future, the entire cost will need to be paid on the front end by users within the Spring
Valley area. Even assuming contribution, however, the service is clearly not "on a comparable
basis" since the cost per EQR of the District's proposal is $3,548 per EQR, and connection to the
Roaring Fork District is $5,165 per EQR, forty-five percent (45% higher than the District's
alternative). Moreover, as discussed above, the impact on the existing users of the District's
facilities is extremely adverse and hardly "comparable." Finally, we do not believe that service
can be provided by the Roaring Fork District within a reasonable period of time. As discussed
above, the District's needs for service are immediate. To require connection to the Roaring Fork
District would entail significant delays associated with a complete renegotiation of existing
agreements between the Spring Valley District and the property owners proposed for inclusion,
the amendment of the Roaring Fork District Service Plan, potential easement acquisition, and/or
condemnation negotiations with other property owners in the CMC turn-off and/or Cattle Creek
(Sanders Ranch) areas, a new Spring Valley Sanitation District Amended Service Plan, etc.
F:\1999\Letters-Memos\SVSD-Garfield Commissioners-ltr.wpd
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
Page 9
March 24, 1999
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please do not
hesitate to give me a call.
LEL:11n
Enclosure
cc: SVSD Board of Directors, w/enc.
Don Deford, Esq., Garfield County Attorney, w/enc.
Mark Bean, Director of Community Development, w/enc.
Bob Szrot, Garfield County Engineer, w/enc.
Anne J. Castle, Esq., w/enc.
John R. Schenk, Esq., w/enc.
Lawrence R. Green, Esq., w/enc.
Glenn D. Chadwick, Esq., w/enc.
John A. Thulson, Esq., w/enc.
Dean Gordon, P.E., w/enc.
Ron Liston, w/enc.
William Gibson, w/enc.
Hayden Rader, w/enc.
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
F:\1999\Letters-Memos\SVSD-Geld Commissioners-ltr.wpd
39-
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
STUDY
LOWER ROARING FORK
PLANNING AREA
APRIL 23, 1993
_' WestWater Engineering
Consulting Engineers
502 WEST EIGHTH ST.
11
P.O. BOX 1470 - P/LIADE. COLORADO 81526 (303) 464-5134
6
Ar‘ WestWater . Engineering
Consulting Engineers
502 WEST EIGHTH ST.
April 26, 1993
P.O. BOX 1470 -PALISADE, COLORADO 81526 (303) 4645134
Ms. Terri Hart
Aspen Glen Co.
555 East Durant, Suite 4A
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Wastewater Management Plan for the Lower Roaring Fork Area
Dear Ms. Hart,
WestWater Engineering is pleased to submit the attached
report entitled, Wastewater Management Study, Lower Roaring
Fork Planning Area. The purpose of the study was to determine
the most feasible wastewater treatment and disposal plan to
serve existing and future development in the Lower Roaring Fork
Wastewater Planning Area. The method of analysis and format
for the study resemble a condensed version of an EPA Facility
Plan (201 Plan). The study was initiated at the request of the
Colorado Department of Health, whose representatives requested
an 'alternatives study' to evaluate all wastewater treatment
options for the area prior to providing approval for the Aspen
Glen PUD treatment facilities. Included in the report is a
description of the planning area, population and wastewater
discharge projections, a comprehensive water quality assessment
for the area, and a detailed evaluation of regional wastewater
plant sites and treatment processes.
The report arrived at the following conclusions:
1. The most feasible location for a new regional
treatment plant is on a river terrace located
approximately 1/2 mile south of the mouth of Cattle
Creek, at the north end of the Aspen Glen PUD
property.
2. The recommended treatment process is either an
oxidation ditch or standard extended aeration process
for secondary treatment, followed by sand filters for
tertiary treatment.
3. A regional wastewater treatment plant located in the
vicinity of WestBank Subdivision is not feasible at
this time. Under the present pattern of development,
the most appropriate wastewater treatment plan for
that area is continued use of ISDS systems, or tying
-4/-
WATER WORKS AND SEWERAGE FACILITIES • DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS • WATER DUALITY STUDIES
April 26, 1993
Page 2
into the Glenwood Springs treatment plant as
referenced in the Glenwood Springs 201 Plan - Addendum
#2.
4. It is not cost effective to connect the Spring Valley/
CMC plant and the Carbondale plants to a regional
system at this time.
5. The use of the Glenwood Springs plant to serve the
Planning Area is not feasible at this time due to
limited capacity of interceptor lines through the
City. However, an engineering study has been
commissioned by the City to determine feasibility of
expanding the interceptor, which could modify this
conclusion.
All of the above decisions were arrived at by using a
Qualitative Evaluation Matrix, in accordance with EPA
guidelines. A major deciding factor in the decisions regarding
location of the plants and interconnection of existing and
future plants was public opinion. WestBank residents strongly
opposed a plant near that development. However, WestBank is
not unique in this respect. The Lower Roaring Fork Planning
Area is made up of a large number of political entities and
separate communities, and obtaining a consensus for a regional
plan can be difficult. Each entity tends to be primarily
concerned with effects on their local environment and on the
costs they must carry for the regional system.
Chapter 8 provides a summary review of the existing
wastewater systems and outlines the selected alternatives and
recommendations. For those readers interested in a more
concise, condensed version of the proposed wastewater
management plan, we refer them to that chapter.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with the Aspen Glen
Company on this project, and are available to discuss the
project with you and representatives of the various political
entities and regulatory agencies.
Since ely,
William D. Hamann, P.E.
WDH/sc
encl.
6.6 OPTIONS FOR EXISTING NON -REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
6.6.1 General.
The previous sections provided recommendations for the Roaring
Fork Valley sub -area; however, that does not address problems
at the outlying plants. Of four existing wastewater treatment
plants in the planning area, the Spring Valley/CMC and
Carbondale treatment plants are the two plants which may need
to upgrade and possibly expand its system in the foreseeable
future. Because of the plants' location, neither could serve
as a regional plant for the rest of the development in the
planning area; however, either could be connected into a
regional system. A detailed evaluation was made to compare
the pros and cons of utilization of the existing plant with
connection of the plant and/or existing collection system to a
regional system.
6.6.2 Spring Valley WWTP. •
Present and Existing Wastewater Loads. No flow records are
available for wastewater discharge into the existing plant.
Using the data developed in Chapter 3, the existing equivalent
population is estimated to be about 506 people (169 equiv.
d.u.'s). Future population is estimated to be 1116 people
(572 eq. d.u.'s). The following table shows estimated present
and future flows for the Spring Valley area:
PER CAPITA
CRITERIA FLOW
Maximum Day 100 gpcd
PRESENT.
FLOWS
FUTURE
FLOWS
50,600 gpd 171,600 gpd
Connection to Regional System. If the Spring Valley/CMC area
is connected to a regional system, the existing plant could
either be left in place to provide primary treatment, or raw
sewage could be discharged directly down the new outfall lines
to the regional system. If the existing plant is kept in
place, there would be continued O&M costs, plus a liner would
have to be placed in the two earthen basins to prevent
groundwater contamination; both could be fairly expensive.
Possible advantages to primary treatment are a possible
reduction in outfall pipe size, and reduced maintanenance
since it would be carrying a clear liquid, and lower final
treatment costs. Since these advantages are very problematic,
it will be assumed that the outfall line will be standard 8
inch pipeline and the existing plant will be decommissioned
and bypassed.
There are two alternative routes for an outfall line to
connect to a regional system in the Roaring Fork Valley.
Option A would extend cross-country down the south valley wall
of Cattle Creek to the county road, then west along the county
road to the intersection of the county road with State Highway
82. From this point, the sewerline would extend under Highway
82 and the railroad, through existing tunnels or under
trestles and across the farmland presently belonging to
Unocal. For purposes of this analysis, it will be assumed
that the sewerline would tie into Site B1 since that is the
recommended site for a regional plant. Although there is
approximately 20 feet of elevation drop between the county
road and site B1; there are intervening ridges; therefore, it
will be assumed that a pump station with force main will be
required to prevent deep trenches. The sewerline will also
have to be extended across the Roaring Fork River. Option B
for the sewerline outfall would extend westward from the
existing treatment plant. Because of the terrain, the route
is somewhat sinuous: it would follow the existing access road
in several locations, but would cut across switchbacks where
feasible, to save sewerline length. Comparative quantities
for the two options are as follows:
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
8 in. gravity pipeline
4 ft. diameter manholes
4 in. force main
OPTION A
15,500 ft.
52 ea.
2000 ft.
OPTION B
14,800 ft.
49 ea.
2000 ft.
The sewerline quantities required is approximately the same
for both options. Option A, the Cattle Creek route, will be
evaluated since it will serve more development, and may
possibly be easier to construct due to less rugged terrain.
The cost for the intercepter line is shown in Table 6-E.
Treatment costs are based on a proportionate share of the
treatment plant costs at Plant Site Bi. For this purpose, a
typical plant investment fee of $2000 per dwelling unit was
assumed. There are 572 equivalent d.u.'s, for a treatment
cost of $1,144,000.
TABLE 6-E
COST ESTIMATE
CONSTRUCTION OF OUTFALL PIPE - CMC LAGOONS TO SITE B1
ALTERNATE A
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT
QTY. UNIT COST AMOUNT
INTERCEPTOR PIPELINE - THROUGH CATTLE CREEK
1. Sewer Line: 6-10 ft. deep 15,500 L.F. 17 $263,500
2. Manholes 52 Ea. 1600 83,200
3. Surface Restoration - Pavement 0 L.F. 3 -0-
4. River Xing, Pipe Bores 400 L.F. 200 80,000
5. Extra Depth, 10'-20' 200 L.F. 12 2,400
6. R -O -W Acquisition 2500 L.F. 2 5,000
7. Pump Station 1 L.S. 40,000 40,000
8. Force Main 2000 L.F.• 15 30.000
Subtotal: $504,100
30% Contingency & Engineering: 151.300
Interceptor Total: $655,400
ALTERNATE .B .. .
INTERCEPTOR_ PIPELINE PARALLEL 12 ACCESS ROAD,`
1. Sewer Line: 6-10 ft. deep,
8" Dia. 14,800 L.F. 17 $251,600
2. Manholes 49 Ea. 1600 78,400
3. Surface Restoration - Pavement 400 L.F. 3 1,200
4. River Xing, Pipe Bores 400 L.F. 200 80,000
5. Extra Depth, 10'-20' 500 L.F. 12 6,000
6. R -O -W Acquisition 15,000 L.F. 2 30,000
7. Pump Station 1 L.S. 40,000 40,000
8. Force Main 2000 L.F. 15 30.000
Subtotal: $517,200
30% Contingency & Engineering: 155.200
Interceptor Total: $672,400
On -Site Treatment. If the existing plant is continued in-
place, it will have to be upgraded and improved to meet future
CDH regulations, and may also have to be expanded to handle
flows from future populations. A Service Plan was prepared
for the Spring Valley Sanitation District in July 1979 by
Wright McLaughlin Engineers. The proposed plan for upgrading
the existing plant and estimated costs are based upon the 1979
report which recommended the following two expansions wich are
applicable to the present situation:
First Phase - Convert existing ponds to aerated lagoons with
capacity of 52,000 gpd. Estimated cost -
$129,500. (This has been completed; a Site
Application was recently filed to add a second
percolation pond.)
Second Phase - Add an activated sludge plant and expand
capacity to 100,000 gpd. Convert existing
ponds to a polishing pond and a percolation
basin. Provide a system for spray irrigation,
a laboratory and a sludge hauling truck.
Estimated cost - $278,000.
Third Phase - Expands system to 200,000 gpd. Includes
secondary clarifier, aerobic digester, spray
irrigation system, rapid infiltration basin.
Estimated cost -$250,000.
An Engineering News Record Cost Construction Index ratio of
2.0 was used to update the 1979 costs to 1992. The estimated
cost to expand the plant is as follows: 2.0 x (278,000 +
250,000) = $1,056,000. An estimated cost of $50,000 will be
added for the present improvements.
Comparative Costs. Unit costs for the two alternatives are as
follows:
Total
Alt. A - Connection to Regional Plant:
Interceptor Line $ 623,700
Plant Investment Fee $1,144,000
Total $1,767,700
Alt. B - On -Site System $1,106,000
Conclusions. Upgrading the existing Spring Valley WWTP is
considerably less expensive than connection to a regional
system, in part because of the considerable length of outfall
line required. Also, since growth is slow, the plant will be
upgraded in phases, whereas the sewer line is for ultimate
development. A complete evaluation of all non -monetary
factors which determine ranking of each option is beyond the
scope of this report, since it will not affect location of the
regional plant.
6.6.3 Options, for Carbondale Wastewater Plant.
Estimated Wastewater Flows. At the present time, Carbondale
has a population of about 3,000 people, an average daily flow
of about 240,000 gpd, and a maximum day flow of about 400,000
gpd. Per capita average daily flow is 80 gpd, and maximum day
flow is 130 gpd. The 208 Plan projects population of 3500
people in Carbondale by the year 2005. Adding the Rocky
Mountain School equivalent population of 100 would result in a
total P.E. of 3600 and a maximum day flow of 468,000 gpd. The
1987 Discharge Permit. states that the rated capacity of the
Carbondale plant is 740,000 gpd. Therefore, this figure will
be used as the future estimated wastewater discharge from the
Town of Carbondale; however, it is probably a conservative
number unless substantial unanticipated growth occurs.
Options for Connection to Downstream Regional Plant. Since
Carbondale has a existing treatment plant, it has available
the same two options for connecting to a regional plant as
Spring Valley, i.e., 1) decommission the existing plant and
discharge raw wastewater downstream, or 2) convert the
existing plant to a primary treatment process and discharge
primary effluent to the regional plant. Using the same logic
as for Spring Valley, it appears more practical to discharge
raw wastewater rather than operate the plant.
Option A - Connection to Regional System.
Design of Outfall Sewer. An outfall sewer would be
extended from the existing Carbondale plant to Site B1.
The new outfall would tie into the existing town
interceptor sewer above the existing treatment plant to
avoid a drop in elevation. The new outfall would then
continue west along the top of the bluff bordering the
Roaring Fork River. It would cross the Crystal River
channel on a trestle to avoid a large pump station, and
would tie into the Aspen Glen interceptor.
Criteria for sewerline diameter was the same as described
in Para. 6.4.2. A pipe diameter of 18 inches will be
needed to carry the ultimate flow.
The total length of the sewerline will be 19,000 feet, of
which 12,000 feet will be on Aspen Glen property and 7,000
feet will be additional pipeline. In calculating costs,
the incremental difference between a 12 inch pipeline
(size needed for Aspen Glen alone) and an 18 inch pipeline
for the Aspen Glen part of the interceptor) will be
determined.
1
a
1
3 ,,,
!,,
3
ASPEN GLEN WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT
SERVICE PLAN
November, 1993
Prepared by:
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc
Delaney & Balcomb, P.C.
Hanifen-Imhoff, Inc.
9
WASTEWATER UTILITY SYSTEM
1. Regionalization of Wastewater Treatment
In its initial zoning application, Aspen Glen Golf Partners, Ltd. proposed
constructing a wastewater utility system that would serve the needs of only the Aspen
Glen PUD. However, during the land use process both Garfield County and CDOH
suggested that any wastewater treatment facility to be constructed to serve the Aspen
Glen PUD be designed to serve as a regional wastewater treatment facility, i.e., a
facility that can ultimately provide wastewater service to an area larger than the
Aspen Glen PUD.
At the request of CDOH Aspen Glen commissioned a study entitled
"Wastewater Management Study, Lower Roaring Fork Planning Area", (hereinafter
Wastewater Management Study) which was completed by West Water Engineering
in April of 1993. The purpose of that study was to determine the most cost effective
and appropriate wastewater treatment facility for the AGWSD and surrounding area.
The Roaring Fork Valley, from Carbondale to Glenwood Springs has been the
subject of several reports in the past:
• A 303 study entitled, "The Roaring Fork River - Basic Water Quality
Management Plan", completed March, 1974.
• A 208 plan entitled, "Water Quality Management Plan Regional 11 -
Garfield, Mesa, Moffat, Rio Blanco Counties", completed 1979 and
updated 1986.
• A 201 plan entitled, "Carbondale 201 Plan", completed in 1978.
• A 201 plan entitled, "Glenwood 201 Plan", completed in 1976.
The Wastewater Management Study reviewed the contents and conclusions of each
of those reports during the course of this analysis. The Wastewater Management Study
concludes that a site within the Aspen Glen PUD boundary is the most appropriate site for
a regional wastewater treatment facility within the study area. The report also identifies a
"service area" larger than the Aspen Glen PUD (and hence larger than the initial boundary
of the AGWSD) that can be served by a regional wastewater treatment facility located at
the site within the Aspen Glen PUD. The "service area" identified in the Wastewater
99-
8
Management Study can generally be described as the Crystal River Ranch presently
undeveloped and lying southwesterly of the Aspen Glen PUD; the CoryeIl Ranch, owned
by Unocal, which is undeveloped and lies generally to the south of the Aspen Glen PUD;
and the Burry property, also undeveloped, lying generally to the east of the Aspen Glen
PUD.
In addition to the "service area" identified in the Wastewater Management Study, the
proposed site for the Aspen Glen Wastewater Treatment Facility has the potential to
provide wastewater treatment to an "expanded service area". Such "expanded service area"
is generally defined as the presently undeveloped land lying to the north of the Aspen Glen
PUD now owned by James L. Rose; the Sanders Ranch, undeveloped and lying to the east
of the Aspen Glen PUD presently owned by Unocal; and the developed property lying to
the north and east of the Aspen Glen PUD identified as "mid-way" in the Wastewater
Management Study and generally being within an approximate one-half mile radius of the
southerly intersection of Colorado State Highway 82 and Garfield County Road 154. A
map depicting the above described "service area" and "expanded service area" is presented
herewith as Figure II-1.
Aspen Glen Golf Partners, Ltd. agrees that the Aspen Glen Wastewater Treatment
Facility should be envisioned as a regional treatment facility. However, of all the property
discussed herein, the only existing development proposal is the Aspen Glen PUD. The
remainder of the property is either partially developed with existing operational wastewater
treatment systems of some type, or completely undeveloped with no present or foreseeable
development plan.
The initial boundaries of the AGWSD will therefore only include the Aspen Glen
PUD. The proponent also suggests, however, that by this Service Plan, the "service area"
of the Wastewater Management Study and the "expanded service area", both as described
above and as depicted on Figure II-1, all be identified as "real property capable of being
served by the facilities of the District" as that phrase is used in C.R.S. 32-1-401, for purposes
of inclusion of real property within a special district.
In order to encourage all of the property depicted on Figure II-1 to seek wastewater
service from the Aspen Glen Wastewater Treatment Facility, the AGWSD will and does
hereby formulate the following annexation policy:
9
3
1
Annexation Policy of Aspen Glen Water and Sanitation District.
The property outlined on the map attached hereto as Figure II -1 is hereby identified
as real property capable of being served by the facilities of the District as that phrase
is used in C.R.S. 32-1-401. Such property includes, without limitation:
a. The Rose Property;
b. Two parcels of real property owned by Unocal, one lying generally to
the east of the Aspen Glen PUD and the other lying generally to the
south of the Aspen Glen PUD; and
c. The presently developed property in the approximate radius of one-
half mile from the southerly intersection of Colorado State Highway
82 and Garfield County Road 154.
The foregoing properties, as well as any other property which may be capable of
being served by the facilities of the District, are hereby defined as the Service Area
of the District.
The District encourages any or all of its Service Area to become a part of the
District. The addition of territory into a special district is presently regulated by Part
4, Article 1, Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Subject to the provisions of
said Part, as the same may now exist or hereafter be amended, the District shall
grant a petition for inclusion of any of the Service Area properties into the District
upon satisfaction of the following:
i. The District and the Petitioner for inclusion shall agree upon
the number of EQRs which will require service from the District within the
property proposed for inclusion.
ii. Based upon the agreed number of EQRs, the engineers .of the
District, in consultation with the Petitioner, shall make a determination
regarding the capacity of the then existing waste water treatment facility to
provide service to such number of EQRs. In the event the plant's capacity
needs to be expanded, Petitioner shall bear the cost of such necessary plant
expansion, subject to the right of cost recovery as set forth herein. In the
event that the plant's capacity is adequate to provide service to the number
of EQRs, because of plant construction or expansion previously funded by
others, the Petitioner shall agree to pay his proportionate cost of the plant
capacity available to him. In such event the District shall be obligated to
insure that appropriate treatment capacity is available to all parties that have
funded plant construction. f
iii. The Petitioner for inclusion shall bear the cost of installation of
any necessary sewer trunk line from the property seeking inclusion to the
AGWWTF provided, however, the District shall bear the expense of installing
10
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
that portion of any sewer trunk line which makes use of the District's
easement through the Teller Springs Subdivision. The District may require
a Petitioner for inclusion to oversize the trunk line at the time of installation
to provide for additional anticipated users to be served by or from such trunk
line. The additional cost of oversizing such line shall either be paid for by the
District, or paid for by the Petitioner, subject to a cost recovery agreement as
set forth herein.
iv. Upon satisfaction of the foregoing requirements. the District shall
provide service to the number of EQRs previously agreed upon within the
property included without the payment to the District of any portion of any
tap fee or system improvement fee which is charged by the District and which
is attributable to plant expansion or system enlargement; provided, however,
the District shall have the ability to enter into contractual agreements with
Petitioners who pay for plant or system expansion which generally provide
that such Petitioners may recover all or a portion of their expansion costs by
designating such costs as "pre -paid tap rights" which such Petitioners may then
transfer to the ultimate service users. In the event additional EQRs within
such property request service, the District shall only provide service thereto
in the event the capacity is available within the system and subject to the
District's regularly scheduled system improvement fees.
v. In the event a Petitioner for inclusion is required to pay for either
plant or trunk line capacity in excess of the number of EQRs to be served on
his property, the District and such Petitioner may enter into a cost recovery
agreement which provides that any future user who will make use of either
the excess plant capacity or oversized trunk line paid for by such Petitioner
shall pay a fee to such Petitioner for each EQR seeking such service. The
amount of the fee shall be determined on an EQR basis, by dividing the cost
of the excess plant capacity and/or oversized trunk line paid for by such
Petitioner by the total number of EQRs capable of being served by the
subject excess plant capacity and/or oversized trunk line. The Petitioner's
right to recover costs as set forth in such Agreement shall be limited to the
total amount he has paid for plant or line capacity in excess of the needs of
the property originally included within the District by such Petitioner.
vi. The District shall require that all internal collection lines within
an area sought to be included in the District shall be installed to the
satisfaction of and dedicated to the District.
vii. Any property included within the District pursuant to this
annexation policy shall, from and after the time of inclusion, be subject to all
of the District's fees and charges, including applicable property taxes, except
as expressly set forth herein.
vies. As part of the Annexation Agreement, the District. shall, upon
request of the Petitioner, agree to forebear from objecting to any water right
11
....... .• ••••• •••cirl
•
• • if a
•••
N •
z
.SCALE: /" = 2000'
LEGEND
ASPEN GLEN
6600^
WASTE -WATER MANAGEMENT
wrAlrally:".-Av:"21 STUDY SERV/CE AREA
EXTENDED SERV/CE
MI MINI INN MI IN AREA
0
lo 1,1\
—•.-yr4-3#1/-')r
A
JOHN A. THULSON
EDWARD MULHALL, JR.
SCOTT BALCOMB
LAWRENCE R. GREEN
TIMOTHY A. THULSON
LORI J.M. SATTERFIELD
EDWARD B. OLSZEWSKI
BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(FORMERLY DELANEY S. BALCOMB, P.C.)
P. 0. DRAWER 790
818 COLORADO AVENUE
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
DAVID SANOOVAL
DENDY M.HEISEL
CHRISTOPHER L. COYLE
VIA HAND DELIVERY TO:
Loyal E. Leavenworth, Esq.
Leavenworth & Tester, P.C.
P.O. Drawer 2030
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Dear Lee:
Telephone: 970.945.6546
Facsimile: 970.945.9769
February 25, 1999
OF COUNSEL:
KENNETH BALCOMB
Re: Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District/Spring Valley Sanitation District
I am writing on behalf of the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District (the "Roaring Fork
District"), formerly known as the Aspen Glen Water & Sanitation District. As you will recall, by letter
dated October 19, 1998, Greg Hall of your office inquired whether or not the Roaring Fork District
would be willing and able to provide wastewater treatment services to the present and future users of
the Spring Valley Sanitation District.
Since that letter, the Board of Directors of the Roaring Fork District has had a number of
discussions on this issue, most particularly at its meetings on October 28, 1998 and November 25, 1998.
Throughout these discussions, it has been the unanimous and consistent conclusion of the Board that the
Roaring Fork District is unable to provide sewer service to the Spring Valley area. I have advised you
and the Spring Valley Sanitation District Board of this conclusion on a number of occasions, but, as a
result of a request by Garfield County, you have now asked that I offer a written explanation of the
Roaring Fork District's decision.
The Service Plan for the Roaring Fork District was approved by Garfield County after a lengthy
series of public hearings on January 31, 1994 by Resolution No. 94-008. A major part of the foundation
of the Service Plan was a study commissioned by Aspen Glen Golf Partners at the request of the
Colorado Department ofHealth entitled "Wastewater Management Study, Lower Roaring Fork Planning
Area" (the "Wastewater Management Study"). The purpose of the Wastewater Management Study was
to determine the most cost effective and appropriate wastewater treatment facility for the proposed
Aspen Glen development and the surrounding area. The Wastewater Management Study, and hence the
Service Plan, identified a "Service Area" and an "Expanded Service Area" which could potentially
receive wastewater treatment service from a facility located at the proposed site of the Roaring Fork
District's facility. The Wastewater Management Study also considered the Spring Valley area and
concluded that it would not be appropriate for the Roaring Fork District and its proposed site to provide
service to the Spring Valley area because it would be prohibitively expensive and the proposed site
would be inadequate. The Wastewater Management Study concluded: "If it is necessary for Spring
Valley to upgrade their system, the most feasible approach will be to provide improvements to the
existing treatment plant at Spring Valley rather than extend an interceptor line to the nearest regional
treatment plant."
The Service Plan thus proposed that the Roaring Fork District be conveyed a site of
approximately 6.5 acres, which would be large enough to accommodate a tertiary treatment facility
which could provide service to the Roaring Fork District's Service Area and Expanded Service Area as
identified in the Service Plan. As submitted, the initial draft of the Service Plan proposed that such
facility would be constructed to a maximum capacity of 320,000 gallons per day. However, during the
public hearing process, and as a result of Out -of -District Service Contracts approved by Garfield County
as part of the Service Plan, the proposed Service Plan was amended to provide that the Roaring Fork
District's site would be the site for a regionalized wastewater treatment plant which would have an
ultimate treatment capacity of 600,000 gallons per day, the estimated total capacity need for the Roaring
Fork District's Service Area and Expanded Service Area.
Consistent with the terms and conditions of the approved Service Plan, and the underlying
Wastewater Management Study, the Roaring Fork District now owns a site of 6.5 acres. It owns and
operates a tertiary wastewater treatment plant having a constructed and operating capacity of 107,000
gallons per day, with preliminary designs for expansion to an ultimate capacity of 600,000 gallons per
day. The Roaring Fork District believes that if it were to provide service to the Spring Valley area it
would be unable to provide service to its own Service Area and Expanded Service Area as identified in
its Service Plan. The District has concluded that its first responsibility is to satisfy the present and future
needs of property owners within its own Service Area and Expanded Service Area. Its treatment plant
and site are designed to enable the District to satisfy that responsibility. The Roaring Fork District has
thus concluded that it is not able to provide wastewater treatment service to the Spring Valley area.
A portion of the minutes from the Roaring Fork District's Board meeting of October 28, 1998
setting forth this conclusion is attached.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions in regard to this matter.
Very truly yours,
BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C.
LRG/bc
Encls
xc: David Burden
Ian Hause
Louis Meyer
Greg Boecker
'3-
GLENWOOD SPRINGS OFFICE
JAMES S. LOCHHEAD
P.O. BOX 357
715 GRAND AVENUE. SUITE C
GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81602-0357
Phone (970) 945-5302
Mobile (970) 818-3810
FAX (970) 945-4921
EMAIL: )lochheadebhfs.com
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER & STRICKLAND, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
410 SEVENTEENTH STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-4437
(303) 534-6335
FAX (303) 623-1956
March 18, 1999
Mr. Don DeFord, Esq.
County Attorney
Garfield County
109 8h Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Spring Valley Sanitation District Service Plan Amendment
Dear Don:
D
WASHINGTON OFFICE
601 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. N.W.
SUITE 900
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004
(202) 434-8377
FAX (202) 393-7864
I am writing on behalf of Sanders Ranch Holdings, LLC, owners of the Sanders Ranch
located west of Highway 82 at Cattle Creek. I understand that the Spring Valley Sanitation
District has filed for an amendment to its service plan, and one of the issues that has come up is
whether or not the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District (formerly the Aspen Glen Water &
Sanitation District) would be willing and able to provide wastewater treatment services to the
present and future users of the Spring Valley Sanitation District. I understand that the Roaring
Fork District has formally advised the Spring Valley District that it is not able to provide such
service, in part because of the commitments it has to provide service to properties within its
service area and expanded service area. I am writing to support the position of the Roaring Fork
District in this regard. I request that this letter be made a part of the record in the County's
consideration of the service plan amendment for the Spring Valley Sanitation District.
The Sanders Ranch property is included in the expanded service area of the Roaring Fork
District, as identified in the service plan for the District approved by Garfield County. In
addition, the Roaring Fork District is under a contractual obligation to provide wastewater
treatment services to the Sanders Ranch property, in accordance with the Out -of -District Service
Agreement which is also part of the approved service plan. The ultimate capacity of the Roaring
Fork District plant was calculated specifically in contemplation of service to Sanders Ranch in
accordance with the agreement.
Sanders Ranch has the right to service from and access to that capacity. No service may
be provided by the Roaring Fork District, and no obligation may be imposed by Garfield County
or the state of Colorado by virtue of service plan or other approvals, which would impair the
contractual rights of Sanders Ranch for service. It would be inappropriate, and Sanders Ranch
r.
4
Mr. Don DeFord
March 18, 1999
Page 2
would oppose, any attempt by the County or the state to deny service plan amendments, or deny
or condition approvals sought by the Spring Valley Sanitation District that would impair the
contractual rights of Sanders Ranch. In short, any service by the Roaring Fork District to Spring
Valley would be subject and subordinate to the rights of Sanders Ranch. The Roaring Fork
District's position, and the service plan for the Roaring Fork District make clear, that capacity
does not exist to provide such service.
If you have any questions concerning the position of Sanders Ranch, please give me a
call.
cc: George Hanlon
Larry Green
Lee Leavenworth
Very truly yours,
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER
& STRICKLAND, P.C.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
.A
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION
REGULATIONS FOR THE SITE APPLICATION PROCESS
5 CCR 1002-22
EDITOR'S NOTES*
Authority Cited:
See page 1.
History and Amendments:
Pp. 1-14 adopted 7/14/97, EFFECTIVE 8/30/97, 20 CR 8.
(See back of this sheet for prior history and amendments)
Pp. 1-20 adopted 3/10/98 -EFFECTIVE 4130/98, 21 CR 4r"�
A. G. Opinions:
20 AG 235; 21 AG 123
Annotations:
'This Title Page does not constitute an official part of any regulation. Information contained on the Title Page is provided by
the Publisher from sources deemed reliable and is solely for informational and historical purposes. See cautionary note in
Introductory Materials, How to Use the CCR.
O 1998 THE PUBLIC RECORD CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. (303)292-2575
• Page 4
22.3 DECLARATION OF POLICY FOR CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION QFDOMEST —
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS
(1) In evaluating the suitability of a proposal to construct or expand a domestic
wastewater treatment works, the Division shall:
(a) consider the local long-range comprehensive plan,or the area as it.effects water
quality and any approved wa(terquality management plan;
(b)z determine that the proposed domestic wastewater treatment works can be
managed-tominimize the,potegtial.adverse impactor water:quality-and irtt,,.
accordance with the appropriately issued discharge permit, where applicable; and
(c1 encourage the consolidatior of waste}ivater`;treatme'cit wo s whenever feasible
wtthcconsiderationjcL,such issues as water conservation,water nghts:utillzation,,,
stream flow, water quality, and economics.
(2) Each site application for domestic wastewater treatment works shall be reviewed to
insure:
(a) that the existing treatment works is not overloaded when connecting new lift
stations or interceptors subject to site application requirements of 22.6
(b) that the proposed treatment works is developed considering the local Tong -range
comprehensive plan for the area as it affects water quality and the approved water
quality management plan(s) for the area;
(c) that the proposed treatment works can protect water supplies by meeting its
discharge permit (where applicable) which is based on water quality standards
and/or appropriate waste Toad allocation;
(d) that the proposed treatment works has been properly reviewed by all
appropriate local, state, and federal govemment agencies and planning agencies;
(e) that the proposed location will have no foreseeable adverse effects on the public
health, welfare, and safety;
(f) that the applicant is capable of providing for adequate operational management,
including legal authority and financial capabilities, to meet its proposed effluent
limitations, where applicable, and minimize potential adverse impacts on water
quality on a long-term basis; •
(g) that the proposed treatment works be so located that it is not unnecessarily
endangered by natural hazards; and
(h) that the objectives of other water quality regulations will not be adversely
affected.
5 CCR 1002-22
THE CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS
b
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Sanitary Sewer Connection
to Aspenglen Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Job No. 2812
COLORADO
MOUNTAIN COLLEGE
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
October, 1995
1
1
1
1
1
-2-
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Feasibility Study has been prepared for the Colorado Mountain College by Meurer
& Associates, Inc., to identify the pertinent issues relative to connecting to the
Aspenglen Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. The issues, information and costs
for the sewer connection are as follows:
Aspenglen Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (ARWWTP)
Phase I of the ARWWTP is scheduled to be complete in January, 1996, and will
initially serve the Aspenglen Development. The defined service area for the ARWWTP
does not include the Colorado Mountain College (CMC). However, since the ARWWTP
is a regional plant, users outside the service area will not be excluded from service if
the Plant has the capacity to serve them. Service to CMC will require that the service
area be amended to include the College. CMC will need to work with Aspenglen to
amend the service area. Tap fees for connection to the Plant will need to be
negotiated.
The capacity of Phase I will be 0.107 million gallons per day (mgd) which can serve
approximately 305 equivalent single family residential units (EQR's). Ultimate Capacity
of the ARWWTP can be as high as 0.6 mgd (1,715 EQR's). The ARWWTP has the
capacity to serve CMC if CMC connects to the Plant prior to the Plant reaching its
ultimate capacity. CMC needs to connect to the ARWWTP before it reaches ultimate
capacity.
Sewer Line Alignment
The general alignment of the sewer line extends from the existing wastewater lagoons
south to County Road No. 113, then west in the County Road to approximately one
half mile east of Highway 82, then southwesterly to Cattle Creek and west to
Highway 82. From this point, the sewer line extends under Highway 82 and the
railroad and across the Union Oil Company of California (Unocal) Property, then across
the Roaring Fork River to the ARWWTP. A conceptual plan of the sewer line is in the
Appendices.
The total length of the sewer line is approximately 16,050 feet. The size of the sewer
line is 8 -inches in diameter. A lift station, located east of Highway 82, is needed to
pump sewage across Highway 82 and the railroad tracks. The force main from the lift
station is 6 -inches in diameter and extends under the Highway and the railroad tracks.
Easements are needed where the sewer line is within private property and Bureau of
Land Management Property. Acquisition of easements from property owners will
require negotiations with landowners. Depending on the landowner, easement
acquisition can be time consuming. The Bureau of Land Management estimates that
obtaining an easement from them can take as long as one year.
Wetlands
Wetlands exist in the vicinity of sewer line alignment in three locations: along a portion
of the unnamed drainage channel above County Road No. 1 13, along the Cattle Creek
channel and the wet meadow north of Cattle Creek, and along the Roaring Fork River.
Wetland impacts for this sewer line can be permitted under Section 404 Nationwide
Permit #12. In areas where wetlands are disturbed, the wetlands topsoil and
vegetation need to be replaced following construction. The project schedule should not
be impacted by wetland permitting requirements.
Future Users
The alignment of the sewer line is such that other areas will have the ability to
connect to the sewer line and be served by the ARWWTP. Potential future users
identified along the alignment are as follows:
M • The Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD), which includes the Los Amigos
Subdivision, Los Amigos Ranch, the Auburn Ridge Apartments and a future
elementary school. The SVSD is identified as a future user because the existing
lagoons may not be permitted by the CDOH if the SVSD can be served by the
ARWWTP.
• The Cattle Creek basin, which includes the properties along County Road No. 113.
• Unocal Property — Development on the Unocal property will be served by the
ARWWTP. The Unocal property is within the service area of the ARWWTP.
Construction •
Construction methods and requirements will vary along the alignment of the sewer
line. The topography along the alignment includes steep slopes, rock, wetlands, river
and highway crossings, and pavement removal and replacement. Each of these
conditions present additional costs for construction of the sewer line.
Some of the construction methods and requirements that will add cost to the project
consist of the following: rock excavation may have to be accomplished by blasting;
steep slopes present difficulties for trenching and pipe installation; traffic control on
County Road No. 113 will require full-time flaggers during construction; creek
crossings need to be installed in a steel casing pipe for erosion protection; highway
and railroad crossings need to be bored and a steel casing pipe inserted; wetland areas
need to be returned to there original condition following construction.
Estimate of Probable Costs
The estimate of probable cost includes estimates for connection to the ARWWTP,
construction, engineering, and easement acquisition. These estimates are based on
the available information at the time the Study was prepared. The estimate of
probable costs are summarized below.
Connection to ARWWTP (not including tap fee) $506,000
Construction $1,466,000
Engineering $220,000
Easement Acquisition $36,000
Estimate of Probable Costs for Project $2,228,000
i
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST
FOR CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING
Project: Colorado Mountain College Sanitary Sewer Connection to the ARWWTP
Prepared By: GSS
Item
No.
Item Description
Approx.
Quantity
Unit
Unit
Cost
Item
Amount
Sta. 0+00 to 20+93
1
8 -inch PVC Pipe
2100
LF
$32
$67,200
2
4 foot diameter Manhole
6
EA
1,500
9,000
3
20 -inch Steel Casing at River Crossing
200
LF
300
60,000
4
Connect to ARWWTP Inlet
1
EA
2,000
2,000
Sta. 20+93 to 42+04
5
8 -inch PVC Pipe
1610
LF
35
56,350
6
4 foot diameter Manhole
4
EA
1,500
6,000
7
20 -inch Steel Casing at Cattle Creek
50
LF
75
3,750
8
16 -inch Steel Casing under Highway and RR
500
LF
200
100,000
9
6 -inch PVC Force Main
500
LF
30
15,000
10
Lift Station
1
LS
42,000
42,000
11
Emergency Generator
1
LS
20,000
20,000
12
Electrical
1
LS
16,000
16,000
13
SCADA
1
LS
15,000
15,000
14
Telephone for SCADA
1
LS
5,000
5,000
Sta. 42+04 to 110+99
15
8 -inch PVC Pipe
6900
LF
35
241,500
16
4 foot diameter Manhole
16
EA
1,500
24,000
17
Asphalt Pavement Removal & Replacement
6200
SY
25
155,000
18
Asphalt Rotomill and Overlay
18000
SY
4
72,000
19
Traffic Control
1
LS
20,000
20,000
Sta. 110+99 to 162+52
20
8 -inch PVC Pipe
5200
LF
50
260,000
21
4 foot diameter Manhole
12
EA
2,000
24,000
22
Connect to Exist. Sewer Line at Lagoons
1
EA
1,000
1,000
23
Rock Excavation
1200
CY
50
60,000
Subtotal
$ 1,274,800
Contingencies @ 15%
$191,220
Subtotal
$1,466,020
Engineering @ 15%
$219,903
TOTAL
$1,685,923
Notes
Assumes Garfield County will require County Road to be milled and overlayed.
Assumes no rock excavation needed In County Road.
Meurer and Associates, Inc.
-63 -
10/16/95
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
`t) moi
CATTLE CREEK CROSSING
Figure 1. Colorado Moun ' Co ge Sewer Pipeline Alignment (nts).
....ow -....
03/24/99 15:29 %2970 945 9789 LARRY GREEN
.(870) 945.1004
FAX (970) 945-5946
INCI rIOIxs
au»vsrona
V10o1
SCAULIESER
CORDON
M E O
DATE: March 16, 1998
TO: Aspen Glen Water & Sanitation District Board
FROM: Louis Meyer, P.E.
RE: Ultimate Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity
At the last Board meeting, f was directed to determine the ultimate flow capacity in gallons
per day (gpd) of the current Aspen Glen Water & Sanitation District treatment site. This
memo addresses that issue.
This' memo will first discuss the historical background that established the capacity of the
wastewater treatment facility. Secondly, 1 will address the ultimate available capacity for this
site.
By way of history, the document which best summarizes the planning that went into the
WWTF site is the Service Plan. The Service Plan formalized the terms and conditions and
conditions of the formation of the District, Specifically, I am attaching pages 8 and 9 of the
Services Plan which discusses the service area for the District. The Wastewater Management
Study Service Area defined in the Service Plan posed flow contributions of approximately
320,000 gpd. The Service Plan did not specifically discuss the proposed flow contribution
from the extended service area. Upon completion of the Service Plan during the negotiation
stage with Unocal, a figure of 600,000 gpd for the extended service area was used.
Recently,,the District has received requests from the Rose Ranch and Sanders Ranch for
wastewater service. Both the Rose Ranch and Sanders Ranch are included in the extended
service area and are covered by an Out -of -District Sewer Service Agreement between the
District and what was formerly the Union 011 Company. The enclosed table shows the
proposed EQR's for Aspen Glen, the remainder of the primary service area, which included the
Burry property, the Coryell Ranch and the Crystal River Ranch along with the proposed EQR's
for Cattle Creek Landing (Sanders Ranch) and the Rose Ranch. This total 2075 EQR's. 2075
EQR's, using the state criteria of 100 gpcd and 3.5 persons per unit, results in a flow of
726,250 gpd.
What i3 the ultimate capacity in flow far the District's current site? Attached is the plat
showirg the dedicated site to the Water & Sanitation District. That site totals 6.06 acres.
I have also enclosed a drawing showing the current plant overlaid with the boundary.
By maximizing the useable land on this 6.06 acres, 1 have determined a plant size of between
1 and 1 .2 MGD is feasible. This assumes that virtually the entire site will be taken up with
footprints for processes, buildings, etc. Land on both the east and west end of the property
has bean left undeveloped to accommodate future processes that may be imposed by the
03/24/99 15:30 %2970 945 9769
LARRY GREEN X002
March le, 1998
Memo to Aspen Glen Water & Wastewater Board
Page 2
Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment. In addition, I have allowed space for
future ammonia removal processes.. In order to accommodate a 1 MGD plant, the spacing
between processes and buildings becomes much smaller which will ultimately result En higher
construction costs. A 1 MGD plant is capable of serving 2857 EC.R's.
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP
918 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-945-2246 / Fax 970-945-4066
FAX MEMO / TRANSMITTAL
Date: 3/24/99
TO: Leie Leavenworth
Wx #: 945-7336
40m: Rdri. Liston
%f'oject: Spririg Valley Ranch
Job #: 9414
Number r3& sheets transmitted including this cover sheet: 1
teeHBcI n:
Comp Peri siiliimft'y for Cattle Creek to County Line including Coulter Creek:
Mediurh Deity - 1 DU/6-10 acres
3,2b0 acres 8 acres per unit = 275 units
Lo* Dtiisity - 1 DU/ 10 acres or more:
3,8ol acres @ 10 acres per unit = 380 units
ttxistuig Developments 35 units
690 UNITS
1(3.3'iova
S91. 541
I a
"IN
>-
I
0
0
z
co
LLI
w
r
r
Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
818 Colorado Ave.
P.O. Box 219
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
(970) 945-7755 TEL
(970( 945-9210 FAX
(303) 893-1608 DENVER DIRECT LINE
March 24, 1999
Lee Leavenworth, Esq.
Leavenworth & Tester, P.C.
P.O. Drawer 2030
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: Spring Val:cy: Sanitation District
Service Plan Amendment
Dear Lee:
At the request of our client, Aspen Springs Ranch, Inc., this letter outlines a significant water
resources issue related to the proposed Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD) Service Plan
Amendment. The issue for the Spring Valley basin is preserving and re -using water resources
within the basin versus exporting water from the basin in the form of wastewater to be treated
at the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District treatment plant located adjacent to the Roaring
Fork River.
It is our understanding that the currently proposed development projections for the Spring Valley
area would require a 0.55 million gallons per day (mgd) wastewater treatment facility and the
current Garfield Comprehensive Plan projections for ultimate buildout would require a 1.5 mgd
facility.
The export of water and savings of in -basin water is summarized in the table below. The values
expressed are in acre-feet and show the impacts and savings under both the proposed anticipated
density (the 0.55 mgd plant) and the existing comprehensive plan density (1.5 mgd plant). The
savings is related to water re -used for irrigation during the summer and a portion of the winter
discharge that would recharge the Spring Valley aquifer.
DENVER (303) 480-1700
BOULDER - (3031473-9500
Exported Water
Roaring Fork Water and
Sanitation District Option
Water Savings from In -Basin
Discharge
Spring Valley Sanitation
District Option
0.55 mgd
1.5 mgd
0.55 mgd
1.5 mgd
..
Annual Basis AO
616 AF
1,680 AF
370 AF
1,008 AF
Over a 20 -Year Period
12,320 AF
33,600 AF
7,400 AF
20,160 AF
Over a 50 -Year Period
30,800 AF
84,000 AF
18,500 AF
50,400 AF
DENVER (303) 480-1700
BOULDER - (3031473-9500
Lee Leavenworth, Esq.
Leavenworth & Tester, P.C.
March 24, 1999
Page 2
The effluent from the Spring Valley Sanitation District facility will be re -used for irrigation of
golf courses and open space at the Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D. and/or other developments in
the Spring Valley area such as the Kendall Ranch, Lake Springs Ranch, and Los Amigos Ranch.
The 0.55 mgd facility will irrigate approximately 150 acres and the 1.5 mgd facility could
irrigate approximately 420 acres based on a sprinkler system application of 2 acre-feet per acre.
The Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D. alone proposes approximately 400 acres of golf course and
open space irrigation and it is the developer's intent to re -use effluent from the SVSD.
Additionally, it is conservatively estimated that 20 percent of the winter effluent discharge would
infiltrate and recharge the Spring Valley aquifer and 80 percent would flow down Red Canyon
to the Roaring Fork River.
Please call if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.
By:
MJE/dlf
931-004.010
Michael J. E} on, P.E.
Water Reso�irces Engineer
cc: Anne Castle, Esq., Holland & Hart, L.L.P.
Chris Thorne, Esq., Holland & Hart, L.L.P.
Bill Sargis, Aspen Springs Ranch
James DeFrancia, Lowe Enterprises Community Development Corporation
Charles Fancher, Jr., Fancher Management Group, Inc.
cloA)\‘
V
7(
SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
CONNECTION TO ROARING FORK SANITATION DISTRICT
Cattle Creek
Routing
County Road 114
Routing
Valley Lift Station/Force Main
$387,270
$387,270
Lower Bench Lift Station/Force Main
$358,000
Not required
SVSD Interceptor:
1995 Estimate - Meurer & Associates
1999 Estimate - Schmueser Gordon Meyer
$1,685,923
---
---
$1,600,627
TOTALS
$2,443,908
$1,987,897
NOTE: 1. No third -party cost sharing assumed for either option.
2. Does not include easement acquisition.
F:11999\ Documents \SV SD-RFSD-costs-1. wpd
March 24, 1999
J
SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
TREATMENT FACILITY LOCATION OPTIONS
Roaring Fork
Sanitation District
Spring Valley
Sanitation District
A. Treatment Facility Costs
N/A'
$2,937,566
B. Interceptor Sewer/Lift Stations
$1,987,897
$1,115,985
C. Land Application
N/A
$1,300,000
D. Tap Fees:
1. Administrative
2. Capital Costs
3. Capital Recovery Costs
4. Total (Dollars Basis)
Total (EQR Basis)
N/A2
$3,900-$5,850/EQR3
N/A2
$8,114,215-$11,717,665
$5,165/EQR-$7,115/EQR
$100/EQR
$3,408/EQR
$40/EQR
$5,573,908
$3,548/EQR
E. Initial Costs (Dollar Basis)
Initial Costs (EQR Basis)
$8,114,215-$11,717,665
$5,165/EQR-$7,115/EQR
$5,573,908
$3,548/EQR
NOTE: If it were possible for SVSD to build a separate treatment facility at the RFSD
site, it is estimated the cost would be $9/GPD, or approximately $5.0 million.
The tap fee for such scenario would be $4,416/EQR.
llncluded in Tap Fees -Capital Costs, below.
llncluded in Tap Fees -Capital Costs, below.
3Out-of-district tap fees are $5,850/EQR, 1.5 times the in -district tap fee of $3,900/EQR.
F: \ 1999\Documents\S V SD -RFS D -costs -2. wpd
March 24, 1999
April 18, 1999
Memorandum
ROBERT B. SZROT, County Engineer
To: File
Re: Spring Valley, March 24th Leavenworth Document
1 have reviewed the March 24th, 1999 letter with attachments (Exhibits A -J) and
have the following comments.
This document strongly presented reasons why Spring Valley should not be
required to attach to the Roaring Fork waste treatment facility. This argument,
however, only addresses one of four possible scenarios to treat wastewater from
Spring Valley future developments. As I presented before the Planning and
Zoning Board meeting on March 24th, there are four possible solutions to treat
waste from the present and future Spring Valley community:
1) Don't treat waste in Spring Valley, pipe all discharges directly to
another facility — such as the Roaring Fork facility
2) Treat waste in Spring Valley and run a pipe for discharge directly to the
Roaring Fork River to get the dilution capacity to accommodate this
discharge flow.
3) Treat waste in Spring Valley and discharge to the Landis Creek
tributary.
4) Treat waste in Spring Valley and utilize land application/irrigation for
discharging.
The State of Colorado performed a discharge calculation on the Landis Creek
Tributary (Option 3) and found that ammonia standards for any plant discharge
would have to be below 1 mg/I most of the year. Modern plant technology will get
ammonia discharge to at or above 1 mg/I — so this option might not be technically
feasible under current regulations. In addition, I question the ultimate discharge
point of Landis Creek — will this also take treated discharge out of the Spring
Valley area?
V-
109 8th Street, Suite 300, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3363 (970) 945-5004 FAX (970) 945-7785
Options 1 & 2 were opposed by Spring Valley as it takes discharge water out of
the Spring Valley area. While this is true, these solutions are technically feasible,
however, economic and political issues might be driving factors.
Option 4, land use, is technically feasible and retains treated discharge in the
Spring Valley area.
I would support any option that complies with discharge regulations and best
industry practices. I also believe that any one of the four options would comply
with the spirit of "regionalized" waste treatment. With comprehensive plan build-
out for the Spring Valley area at around 1,500 houses, one could easily look
upon this area as its own region. Contrary to this, State policy supports
connection of new development to existing waste treatment facilities within 5
miles of each other.
At the Planning and Zoning meeting, no technology or designs were presented to
assure the Landis Creek discharge option would even work, and no plans or
storage locations were shown for the land use option. The presenters made clear
their objections to out -of -the -area discharge yet did not have the planning or
technical information to support in -area concepts.
I still believe that three of the four options would be feasible from a technical and
regulatory viewpoint at the present time (the Landis Creek option excluded),
however, until the presenters provide a detailed plan for the in -area options, I
cannot support approval of the Amended Service Plan.
A point of notation in Section 5 — Initially it is stated that "land treatment will not
be required and is not proposed as an integral component of the wastewater
treatment plant process". This is followed one paragraph later by "the benefits of
water re -use should not be ignored". If the presenters are so strongly in favor of
in -area discharge, I hope that they so state this and then support this option with
appropriate resources and technology.
Sherman & Howard L.L.c.
Board of County Commissioners
Garfield County
109 8th Street, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW
633 SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUITE 3000
DENVER, COLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE 303 297-2900
FAX 303 298-0940
OFFICES IN: COLORADO SPRINGS
RENO • LAS VEGAS
February 23, 1999
Re: Spring Valley Sanitation District Amended Service Plan
Ladies and Gentlemen:
FiTif‘-cf1999
A qAA
We are special counsel to the County with respect to the review of the above -
referenced Service Plan amendment, and this is in response to a request from the County Attorney's
office to review and comment on the financial provisions in such amendment.
It is our understanding that the District is an existing Title 32 sanitation district, and
that it is proposing an amendment to its Service Plan to deal with projected new development. The
section that we examined had to do only with the new debt or other financial obligations which the
District could incur under the amendment.
I. GENERAL STATE LAW RESTRICTIONS
First, it should be pointed out that the financial section does not limit in any material
way any kind of obligation the District could issue, whether that obligation is payable from ad
valorem taxes or system revenues. Thus, the only limitation which would apply would be those
under existing state law. Whether this is appropriate or not depends upon how the County views this
matter. As I discussed with the County Attorney, it has become somewhat common to place
restrictions in the Service Plan upon the issuance of obligations by a special district payable from
an ad valorem mill levy. On the other hand, Districts will ordinarily try to resist such limitations on
the theory that state law already puts restrictions on their abilities to incur financial obligations (e.g.,
TABOR, the Special District Act itself, and the original Article XI, Section 6, Colorado Constitution
limitations). It may also be true that limitations in the Service Plan on that ability will result in
increased borrowing costs. Consequently, the first suggestion I have is that the County evaluate
whether it feels any restrictions are necessary or appropriate in this case.
With respect to limitations inherent in state law now, the following is an excerpt from
the portion of the Special District Act (Section 32-1-1101, C.R.S.) which places restrictions on the
issuance of tax -supported bonds:
"(6) (a) The total principal amount of general obligation debt of a special
Sherman & Howard L.L.c.
Garfield County, Colorado
February 23, 1999
Page 2
district issued pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, which debt is issued on or
after July 1, 1991, shall not at the time of issuance exceed the greater of two million
dollars or fifty percent of the valuation for assessment of the taxable property in the
special district, as certified by the assessor, except for debt which is:
(I) Rated in one of the four highest investment grade rating categories by one
or more nationally recognized organizations which regularly rate such obligations;
(II) Determined by the board of any special district in which infrastructure
is in place to be necessary to construct or otherwise provide additional improvements
specifically ordered by a federal or state regulatory agency to bring the district into
compliance with applicable federal or state laws or regulations for the protection of
the public health or the environment if the proceeds raised as a result of such issue
are limited solely to the direct and indirect costs of the construction or improvements
mandated and are used solely for those purposes;
(III) Secured as to the payment of the principal and interest on the debt by
a letter of credit, line of credit, or other credit enhancement, any of which must be
irrevocable and unconditional, issued by a depository institution:
(A) With a net worth of not less than ten million dollars in excess of the
obligation created by the issuance of the letter of credit, line of credit, or other credit
enhancement;
(B) With the minimum regulatory capital as defined by the primary regulator
of such depository institution to meet such obligation; and
(C) Where the obligation does not exceed ten percent of the total capital and
surplus of the depository institution, as those terms are defined by the primary
regulator of such depository institution; or
(IV) Issued to financial institutions or institutional investors.
(b) Nothing in this title shall prohibit a special district from issuing general
obligation debt or other obligations which are either payable from a limited debt
service mill levy, which mill levy shall not exceed fifty mills, or which are
refundings or restructurings of outstanding obligations, or which are obligations
issued pursuant to part 14 of this article."
The primary restriction is in 6(a), which basically requires that the assessed valuation
of the District be twice the principal amount of any bonds, except for a de minimus exception of
$2,000,000. Note that limited mill levy obligations payable from a mill levy of 50 or less are
permitted by 6(b) regardless of amount (as are refundings which shouldn't be relevant here, since
the District has no outstanding debt). If the County feels that such restrictions are sufficient, then
it could (a) rely upon the state law restrictions, or (b) place such state law restrictions in the amended
Service Plan against the event that the above statute is changed in the future.
Obviously, the County could also choose to insert additional restrictions. For
example, I have seen Service Plans which do not permit the $2,000,000 de minimus exception on
Sherman & Howard L.L.c.
Garfield County, Colorado
February 23, 1999
Page 3
the theory that even that amount of debt might cause the mill levy to become too high.
With respect to revenue obligations (i.e., obligations not payable from ad valorem
taxes) Title 32 does not place restrictions upon such obligations. However, the Municipal Bond
Supervision Act does restrict those obligations, as well as obligations payable from taxes, and thus
the County could logically conclude that sufficient controls exist with respect to any type of such
obligation. The Municipal Bond Supervision Act provides that no obligations can be issued without
an exemption or registration. There has not to date been any registrations of any obligations, and
the conventional wisdom is that there probably will not be, because the exemption provisions
describe almost every transaction which could be marketed in any event. The exemptions are as
follows:
"(b) Any issue of general obligation bonds where the total obligation
represented by the issue together with any other general obligation of the district does
not at the time of issuance exceed the greater of two million dollars or fifty percent
of the valuation for assessment of the taxable property in the district as certified by
the assessor;
(c) Any issue of bonds that is rated in one of its four highest rating categories
by one or more nationally recognized organizations which regularly rate such
obligations;
(d) Any issue of bonds by a district in which infrastructure is in place which
has been determined by the board of such district to be necessary to construct or
otherwise provide additional improvements specifically ordered by a federal or state
regulatory agency to bring such district into compliance with applicable federal or
state laws or regulations for the protection of the public health or the environment if
the proceeds raised as a result of such issue are limited solely to the direct and
indirect costs of the construction or improvements mandated and are used solely for
those purposes;
(e) Any issue of bonds secured as to the payment of the principal and interest
on the debt by a letter of credit, line of credit, or other credit enhancement, any of
which must be irrevocable and unconditional, issued by a depository institution:
(I) With a net worth of not less than ten million dollars in excess of the
obligation created by the issuance of the letter of credit, line of credit, or other credit
enhancement;
(II) With the minimum regulatory capital as defined by the primary regulator
of such depository institution to meet such obligation; and
(III) Where the obligation does not exceed ten percent of the total capital and
surplus of the depository institution, as those terms are defined by the primary
regulator of such depository institution;
(f) Any issue of bonds insured as to the payment of the principal and interest
on the debt by a policy of insurance issued by an insurance company authorized to
Sherman & Howard L.L.c.
Garfield County, Colorado
February 23, 1999
Page 4
do business as an insurance company in this state and authorized for such risk by the
insurance commissioner appointed pursuant to section 10-1-104, C.R.S.;
(g) Any issue of bonds not involving a public offering made exclusively to
accredited investors, as that term is defined under sections 3(b) and (4)(2) of the
federal "Securities Act of 1933" by regulation adopted thereunder by the securities
and exchange commission;
(h) Any issue of bonds made pursuant to an order of a court of competent
j urisdiction;
(i) Any issue of bonds by a district which has principal amounts payable
from moneys other than the proceeds of an ad valorem tax, where the total of such
obligations represented by the issue, together with other such bonds of the district,
does not at the time of the issuance exceed two million dollars;
(j) Any issue of bonds of the district issued to the Colorado water resources
and power development authority which evidences a loan from said authority to the
district; and
(k) Any issue of bonds by a district that contains territory subject to an
intergovernmental annexation agreement between the city and county of Denver and
Adams county dated April 21, 1988, made pursuant to section 30-6-109.5, C.R.S."
Again, the above provisions apply to both general obligations and revenue
obligations, and you will notice certain similarities between the limitations in this statute and those
in the Title 32 statute. Again, if the County determines that these restrictions are sufficient and that
the chances that they will be changed later is slight, it could logically determine that no further
restrictions need to be placed in the Service Plan amendment.
II. POSSIBLE ADDITIONS TO THE SERVICE PLAN
In the event the County determines that there is a risk that an inordinate amount of
bonds could be issued by the District, and wishes to restrict those issuances, I have prepared the
following provisions which could be inserted into the Service Plan. Similar provisions have been
included in various other service plans on which I have worked in the past, and while they do place
material restrictions upon the ability of the District to issue obligations, they are also something
which should not unduly limit the District or make its obligations unmarketable. In most instances,
they are simply a restatement of the above laws with certain changes (such as the removal of the
$2,000,000 de minimus exception), and thus there would be no danger that future changes in those
laws would unduly expand the District's authority to issue obligations.
FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS
The District may authorize, issue, sell, and deliver such bonds, notes,
contracts, reimbursement agreements, or other obligations evidencing or securing a
Sherman & Howard L.L.c.
Garfield County, Colorado
February 23, 1999
Page 5
borrowing (collectively, "Bonds") as are permitted by law; provided that, without the
prior written consent of the County, the following limitations shall apply:
1. All Bonds, regardless of whether the District has promised to impose an ad
valorem mill levy for their payment, shall be exempt from registration under the
Colorado Municipal Bond Supervision Act, or shall be registered under such Act.
2. The principal amount of any issue of Bonds for the payment of which the
District promises to impose an ad valorem property tax ("General Obligation
Bonds"), together with any other outstanding issue of General Obligation Bonds of
the District, may not at the time of issuance exceed fifty percent (50%) of the
valuation for assessment of the taxable property in the District, as certified by the
assessor, except that the foregoing shall not apply to any of the following issues:
(a) an issue of General Obligation Bonds for the payment of
which the District has covenanted to impose a maximum mill levy of not
more than 50 mills (a mill being equal to 1/10 of 1¢) per annum; provided
that, such General Obligation Bonds may also provide that in the event the
method of calculating assessed valuation is changed after the date of approval
of this Service Plan by any change in law, change in method of calculation,
or change in the percentage of actual valuation used to determine assessed
valuation, the 50 mill levy limitation herein provided may be increased or
decreased to reflect such changes, such increases or decreases to be
determined by the Board in good faith (such determination to be binding and
final) so that to the extent possible, the actual tax revenues generated by the
mill levy, as adjusted, are neither diminished nor enhanced as a result of such
changes;
(b) an issue of General Obligation Bonds that is rated in one of
the four highest rating categories by one or more nationally recognized
organizations which regularly rate such obligations;
(c) an issue of General Obligation Bonds secured as to the
payment of the principal and interest by an irrevocable and unconditional
letter of credit, line of credit, or other credit enhancement issued by a
depository institution qualified as defined in section 11-59-110(1)(e), C.R.S.;
(d) an issue of General Obligation Bonds insured as to payment
of the principal and interest by a policy of insurance issued by an insurance
company qualified as defined in section 11-59-110(1)(f), C.R.S.
-1 9
Sherman & Howard L.L.c.
Garfield County, Colorado
February 23, 1999
Page 6
(e) an issue of General Obligation Bonds not involving a public
offering made exclusively to "accredited investors" as defined under
Regulation D promulgated by the federal Securities and Exchange
Commission;
(f) an issue of General Obligation Bonds made pursuant to an
order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(g) an issue of General Obligation Bonds issued to the Colorado
Water Resources and Power Development Authority which evidences a loan
from said authority to the District; or
(h) an issue of General Obligation Bonds which are originally
issued in denominations of not less than $500,000 each, in integral multiples
above $500,000 of not less than $1,000 each.
As you can see, the above restrictions eliminate the $2,000,000 exception discussed
above, and also remove some of the other exemptions in the statutes that counties have objected to
in the past on transactions I have worked on. At the same time, these provisions allow the District
to do typical issues which have adequate security or which have other protections for the taxpayers
(such as private placements to accredited investors, who are presumably more able to bear the risk
of an investment).
It should be noted that the typical exemption for issues sold to the Colorado Water
and Power Authority is still present in the above formulation. I have discussed this with the County
Attorney, and this financing program is one which is often used by issuers to obtain a lower interest
rate since the program offered by the Authority basically uses federal money to secure the
obligations. The Authority itself has a stringent evaluation program to make sure the issuer is able
to repay the obligations, and thus both the Special District Act and the Municipal Bond Supervision
Act contain exemptions for such obligations.
III. CONCLUSION
It is up to the County whether it feels in this circumstance that the normal state law
restrictions should be relied upon (with the possibility that such statutes could be changed in the
future) or whether a version of those restrictions should be placed in the Service Plan, thus insulating
the County from changes in law and allowing it to make specific changes in those statutes. For
Districts for which there is little possibility that it will issue more obligations than it can reasonably
pay, some additional restrictions in the Service Plan are appropriate. The above suggestions are
based upon the presumption that this District does require such provisions, which may or may not
Sherman & Howard L.L.C.
Garfield County, Colorado
February 23, 1999
Page 7
be the case. In the end, it is a judgment call by the County based upon all the facts and
circumstances.
Sincerely,
SHERMAN & HOWARD L.L.C.
Blake T. Jordan
w ee 61.641./Ty
Point Sources in Garfield County
Municipal Point Sources
Municipally owned wastewater facilities are in generally good condition in
Garfield County. During the late 1970s and through the early 1980s concern
for projected growth emanating from the energy industry led to expansion or
construction of new wastewater facilities in most municipalities. As a result
most wastewater facilities are fairly new and in good operating condition.
The following municipalities have completed construction for new facilities in
the past five years: Glenwood Springs, New Castle, Silt, Rifle, and Rifle
South Metropolitan District. The Town of Parachute receives treatment through
the Battlement Mesa Incorporated facility which has also been constructed in
the past five years. Adequate capacity for treatment of future growth exists
in all of these facilities.
S'''''Th
The most critical municipal point source needs in Garfield County relate to
planning needs for the Spring Valley area. This area, to the southeast of
Glenwood Springs, has several proposed developments and sanitation districts.
The Lake Valley Sanitation District and the Landis Sanitation District should
work in conjunction with Garfield County, and other local developers to
determine the scope of development concerns, and the best means of sewage
treatment and disposal in the Spring Valley area. This planning effort should
analyze populations, consolidation of facilities and treatment requirements
for the Spring Valley area. This plan recommends that facility siting efforts
should be delayed, and any site approvals withheld until such an analysis and
study is completed.
Non -municipal Point Sources. in Garfield County
Currently non -municipal point sources do not present a threat to water quality
in Garfield County. The Battlement Mesa Incorporated facility, which serves
the Town of Parachute, as well as the Battlement Mesa development, is
currently operating a lagoon treatment facility rather than the activated
sludge treatment facility constructed in 1982. This system is much less
complicated and less expensive to operate than the mechanical facility. The
H Lazy F Mobile Home Park facility has experienced some problems in the past;
improved operations have solved these problems. This facility is also located
in the bottom of the drainage that both the Colorado Mountain College facility
and proposed Spring Valley developments are located within. Inclusion of this
facility in any study efforts for the Spring Valley area would be wise.
r.'
Date
Manag
Opera
CDPS
Descr_
�?, gri t
beds
DischL
Strean
Strear
suer
Servic
paci
iow (.
lue:
04/26/99 08:37 FAX 3037595355 CDPHE HAZMAT
:;;?, )(,)
STATE OF COLOFADO
Bill Owens, Governor
Jane E. Norton, Acting Executive Director
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory and Radiation Services Division
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd,
Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver CO 80220-6928
Located in Glendale, Colorado (303) b92-3090
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us
April 23, 1999
Mr. David B. Mehan
Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
2490 West 26th Avenue, Suite 100A
Denver, CO 80211
Subject: Memorandum to the Spring Valley Sanitation District Dated April 22, 1999
Colorado Department
of Public Health
and Environment
Dear Mr. Mehan,
We have received a copy of an April 22, 1999, memorandum which you sent to Greg Boeker, Chairman of the Spring Valley
Sanitation District. The Division cannot support points #1 and #4 of your memo for the following reasons.
In your memorandum, you stated that the preliminary effluent limits which were presented in the Division's letter of February 4,
1999 were incorrect and would not have to be met. Although the Division is willing to refine preliminary limits based on new
information, such as a site-specific analysis of expected effluent pH values for the proposed treatment facility, the limits presented
in our letter are within the range of limits to be expected for a discharge to Landis Creek under its current classification as a class
1 cold water aquatic life strewn. We agree that the limits could change once a use attainability analysis (UAA) is completed,
however, your statement regarding preliminary calculations of ammonia limits for a class 2 designation is not correct. If the UAA
is completed, and it supports a class 2 designation for Landis Creek, and if the Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) agrees
to downgrade the segment to a class 2 designation without a numeric standard for unionized ammonia, then no limit for ammonia
would be required. If, on the other hand, a UAA does not support redesignation or the WQCC decides to change the designation
to class 2 but leaves the current numeric standards in place, then the limits will be substantially the same as those presented in our
February 4, 1999 letter.
In summary, unless a site-specific pH analysis is completed or the WQCC revises the classification for Landis Creek and removes
the numeric standard for unionized ammonia, preliminary effluent limits for the proposed Spring Valley wastewater treatment
facility will not be substantially revised.
If you have any questions please call me at 303-692-3591.
Sincerely,
David A. Akers, Manger
Water Quality Protection Section
Water Quality Control Division
xc: Greg Boeker, Spring Valley Sanitation District
Dean Gordon, Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.
Dwain Watson, District Engineer, WQCD
Mark Bean, Garfield County Building and Planning
Greg Parsons, Watershed Section Manager, WQCD
Sarah Johnson, Assessment Unit Manager, WQCD
MS -3 file
■
APR. 22. 1999 3:06PR1
I.OYAL C. LEAVENWOR'IH
c'YNI HIA C. TESTER
GRFGORY 1, HALL
DAVIT') H. McC'ONAUGHY
KELLY n. ('AvC
13;1VID :A ME1S1NHLR*
TOM KINNEY
' A 1 liiud in Wisconsin only
To:
LEAVENEPTH TESTER.
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Na 9460
1011 GRAND AVENUE
P. O. DRAWER 2030
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81002
TELEPHONE (070 9-15-2261
FAX (970) 945-7330
Ittawsopris,nel
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Mark Bean, Director
Don DeFord, Esq.
Robert Szrot, County Engineer
Fax: 945-7785
From: Loyal E. Leavenworth
Number of pages to he transmitted:
Document Description: Letter w/enclosure
REMARKS:
Dale: April 22, 1999
Time: 4:05 PM
5 (including cover page)
NOTE: if you encounter any difficulty in receiving the total number of pages indicated
above, PLEASE CALL (970) 945-2261 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
F r, nda
Operator
ORIGINAL SENT BY U.S. MAIL X ORIGINAL NOT SENT
THIS FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION IS STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE
INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMEI) ABOVE. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED nus FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THIS OFFICE IMMEDIATELY AND RETURN THE 'TRANSMISSION TO US
AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. THANK YOU.
FA WW,kno1NVY).N.,,n,Ford-s.(44.1 wpd
APR. 22, 1999 3:77PM LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P,
LOYAL F. LEAVENWORTH
CYNTIIIA C. TESTER
GREGORY J. HALL
DAVIT) 14. McCONAUGIIY
KELLY D. CAVE
DAVID A. ME1:S1N[1ER*
TOM KCNNEY
*^ciuuucd ill Wisconsin only
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
April 22, 1999
Mark Bean, Director
Garfield County Regulatory Office & Personnel
Department of Development
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Don DeFord, Esq.
Garfield County Attorney
109 Eighth Street, Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Robert Szrot, County Engineer
Garfield County Administrator
109 Eighth Street, Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3363
NO, 9460
1011 GRAND .AVENUE
P. D. DRAWER 20:311
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2261
PAX: (970) 945-7:336
Itlaw(4 sopris.net
VIA FAX
VIA FAX
VIA FAX
Re: Spring Valley Sanitation District' Summary�f April 21. 1999 Meeting with
CoIuro Department of Public Health and Environment.
Dear Mark, Don, and Bob:
We just received the enclosed report from David Mehan at. Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
("Wright") regarding the stream re-classification of Landis Creek. Representatives from Wright
met with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment yesterday to discuss that
particular issue. We would like to have the report presented to the Garfield County Board of
Commissioners for the hearing on Monday, April 26, 1999.
If you have any questions or concerns in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact mc.
GJH:bsl
Enclosure
1l9 9'i.utters-Mcii \NVtil) lir:lnJ)t•1'urd Sztvi.lir•I.wittl
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWO TH & TEST
J H
APR. 02. 1999 3: 07P11 LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P. NO. 9460 P
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Mark Bean, Director
Don DeFord, Esq.
Robert Szrot, County Engineer
Page 2
April 22, 1999
cc wlenc.: SVSD Board of Directors
Anne J. Castle, Esq.
John R. Schenk, Esq.
Lawrence R. Green, Esq.
Glenn D. Chadwick, Esq.
Kevin L. Patrick, Esq.
John A. Thulson, Esq.
Dean Gordon, F.E.
William Gibson
Hayden Rader
F \I00Q1Lctter! Mcmn•aS'vSD-Ucao-Derurd-Szrnt-itr.I .wrd
APR, 22, 1999 3:07PM LEAVENWORTH . TESTER, P, C, NO, 9460 P, 4
Gdi1 'd
MEMORANDUM
To: Greg Boeker, Chairman
Spring Valley Sanitation District
From; Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
David B. Mehan
Date: April 22, 1999
Re: Summary of Meeting with Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment on April 21, 1999
This memorandum summarizes the meeting held with the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment (CDPRE) on April 21, 1999. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss: 1) the
implications of a change in the Class 1, Cold Water aquatic life use designation. and 2) the
proposed work plan for the use attainability study (UAS). In attendance at the meeting were
Dennis Anderson and Saran Johnson from the CDPHE, Dave Moon from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and David Mehan from Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
(V. WE),
The following summarizes the imponant points of the meeting
1. The CDPIIE indicated that the discharge limits for ammonia contained in their letter of
February 4, 1999 are not correct and do not have to be met. The final limits will be
determined pending completion of the UAS, (Preliminary calculations indicate that the
discharge limit for ammonia would be considerably higher: 5 to 20 mgtL of total ammonia,
using the state's input values and assuming a Class 2 designation.)
2 The CDPHE indicated that the Spring Valley drainage should likely be a Class 2 aquatic life
stream. Dennis indicated that the drainage is in the "all tributaries...." segment, the state did
not have any site-specific data when it was classified for Class 1 aquatic life. and that the
classification of other creeks has been changed based cn a site-specific analysis (e.g., Brush
Creek).
3. The CDPHE indicated that designation as Class 2 aquatic life would lead to segmentation,
and designation as a "use protected" sueam. Dennis indicated that it would make sense to
have the entire drainage (including Landis Creek. Spring Valley, and the Red Canyon) as a
new segment (e.g., Segment 3a). The use protected designation would mean that the
stringent antidegradation review process would not apply. The Class 2 designation also
wrrgnt Water Engineers, lr 74901N 26'" Avenue, Ste. 100A, Denver, CC 6071'
Tel 303/460.1700, Far 301480.1020. e-mail.krwrgtirgwrightwaler :err,
11aIll (18t '.Of13,L f1i Ni LH') b,M 9c:1]I Si1H111Yt)
APR. 22. 1999 3:07PM LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P. C. NO, 9460
Metnoratadum to Greg Boeker, Chairman
April, 22, 1999
Page 2
means that there is some flexibility as to the ammonia standard For example, a standard of
0.06 or 0.1 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of un -ionized anunonia may be found to be
appropriate.
4. The discharge limits for ammonia provided in rhe leiter of February 4, 1999 from thc state
are not correct. However, the state is not going to recalculate these numbers, pending
completion of the UAS.
5 The CDPHE and USEPA agree with the scope of the proposed work plan for thc UAS. Sara!-
Johnson suggested: 1) contacting the Division of Wildlife to gel any data r_hat they have ori
fish or aquatic resources in the Spring Creek drainage, and 2) looking al other comparative
creeks in the area. She also asked if Laurie Martin, biologist with the CDPHE. could attend
the field work.
6 The appropriateness of the current Recreation Class 1 designation was also discussed. Beth
the CDPHE and US)=PA agreed that this likely an inappropriate classification. The creek
should be changed to Class 2 Recreation.
7. Miscellaneous items discussed are as follows:
• There is no need to look at the Roaring Fork River due to the amount of dilution
provided.
• The use attainability study should include ar assessment of the aquatic life potential with
the effluent in thc creek_
• The state does not have any specific guidelines as to what constitutes "minimum
requirements" for Class 1 or Class 2 aquatic life uses.
• The schedule for the August hearing is as follows:
• Deadline to file for party status: early June.
■ Pre -hearing statements: =6/28,
■ Pre -hearing conference: ±7/14,
Rebuttal statements; ±7/28,
Hearing: 8/9.
cc: Dean Gordon
•%9Q I.0cli100uo'spnnpalley.dcc
Wriuhl Warr engineers . C., 2490 W. 26" Niel 118 Sir 100A. Denver. CO 8(1211
Tel 30/4M-1700; Fax. 303480-102 a•mal.' k•wrigh( wrighfwaler cram
0:0 l i8t 131. ?13! 141 1H`: ;'141 L2•01 (:1H11 h i