HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050259.tiff ead Town of Mead
,-.- P.O.Box szs
441 Third Street
Mead•"A Little Town Mead, Colorado 80542-0626
With a BIB Future"
(970)535-4477
a
February 10, 2005
Weld County Board of
County Commissioners
915 Tenth Street
P. O. Box 758
Greeley CO 80632
Re: East 1-25 Sanitation District Proposed Service Plan
Dear Commissioners:
The Town of Mead appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the proposed service plan. In
this letter, I would like to first address the proposal and then to respond to comments made about the
Town at the Planning Commission meeting.
TOWN'S COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SERVICE PLAN:
The Town of Mead ("Town") shares the opinion of your Planning Staff as set forth in its
December 21, 2004 report, and recommends against the formation of the district. The proposal is
premature, and conflicts with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, the Town of Mead
Comprehensive Plan, and the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan adopted by the North Front
Range Water Quality Planning Association("NFRWQPA"). There is no existing need for wastewater
treatment services on any of the parcels, as all are presently zoned for agriculture and similar low
impact uses. Municipal sewer service from the Town of Mead is projected to he available to meet all
projected needs for this region, economically and on time.
The proposal fails to meet the requirements of the Special District Control Act: the proposed
service plan does not demonstrate a need for the services, does not demonstrate that the proposed
district can provide the services, does not accurately portray the Town's ability to serve the region, and
concedes that the district does not have the required financial ability, but must instead rely upon
receiving funding in the future from developers.
The Town has been the wastewater operator designated to serve this area for many years, and
in reliance on that designation has committed significant funds and made important policy decisions to
serve the area. If the proposed special district is approved, it will disrupt years of planning efforts for
this area, upon which neighboring governments and the general public rely. The Town recommends
that the proposal be denied.
'moms—cd* 9
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
February 10, 2005
Page 2
A. BACKGROUND
Over a decade ago, the Town of Mead was designated by NFRWQPA as the responsible
agency for wastewater treatment in this area, upon dissolution of the Mead Sanitation District. As
development occurred, the Town stepped up its planning efforts so that facilities and services would be
available to serve the area. hi 1992, the Town of Mead prepared a regional wastewater system
feasibility study. In so doing, the Town began a multi-year planning process to identify and construct
wastewater treatment services for the land that is to be included within the proposed district. In order
to perform this analysis, the Town has had to forecast population growth and development trends.
Subsequently, improvements were performed on the Town's lagoon system. In 2001, the Town of
Mead acquired the Lake Thomas Wastewater Treatment Plant and completed a Wastewater Feasibility
Study update. In 2003 the Town prepared updates for the NFRWQPA Areawide Water Quality
Management Plan (2003 Update) ("2003 Water Plan"). See, Exhibit A. In 2004, the Town completed
a thorough update of the Town's Comprehensive Plan, which included the provision of wastewater
treatment services to this area (designated as Planning Areas 8 and 9 in the Town's Comprehensive
Plan.) An excerpt of the Town's 2004 Comprehensive Plan is attached as Exhibit B.
The Town has also sought proposals for, hired, and paid for expensive and complicated
engineering and planning analyses to enable it to serve the area. The Town identified eleven
alternatives for wastewater treatment services, which were then narrowed down to five. The process
included a thorough evaluation of the geography and topography, and detailed engineering analyses
showing the construction issues and costs associated with serving these parcels. The work from 1999
to date was summarized in the Town's Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study, which was
recently adopted by the Town Board. See, Exhibit C. The Study anticipated wastewater collection
and treatment service to most of the area within the proposed district. The Town's planning has
proceeded to the point that the Town has selected two alternate sites for the proposed treatment plant,
and is actively pursuing acquisition of a preferred site at this time.
B. COORDINATED PLANNING POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
Coordinated planning has long been recognized as essential in the northern front range. The
County, the Town and area agencies have all enacted policies that strongly favor governmental actions
that are consistent with coordinated, long range planning efforts.
As shown below, the proposed district is in conflict with all comprehensive planning efforts for
this area. The proposal reflected in the service plan depends upon all of the following occurring:
• Rejection of annexation/rezoning proposals by the Town of Mead.
• Amendment of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, to move 95% of the property at issue
from agricultural designations to urban scale uses.
• Rezoning of all 3,052 acres of the proposed district from agricultural to urban scale uses.
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
February 10, 2005
Page 3
• Amendment of the NFRWQPA's 2003 Water Plan, over the objection of Longmont and Mead,
and, contrary to state regulations and policies, the designation of the new district as the
responsible agency for the east I-25 territory.'
• Reversal by the St. Vrain Sanitation District ("SVSD") of its long-standing policy to not accept
flows via force main.
• Negotiation of a contract with SVSD to accept the flows from the proposed district.
• District Court approval.
• Issuance of bonds despite a financial plan that understates costs and overstates revenue.
It is doubtful that any of these actions will occur, much less all of them. If the district is
approved, it will be unable to function unless and until all of these actions occur.
Weld County Comprehensive Plan:
Pursuant to §22-3-10 of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, the proposed service plan
should be denied. The Plan recognizes that the integration of services and land use planning offered by
the Town is the preferred means of serving the needs of the present and future citizens of this area:
E. Municipalities have the ability to coordinate the provision of adequate urban facilities and
services under powers granted by state statutes and the Constitution. The adopted urban
growth boundary areas are the most logical areas for urban development to occur.
Municipalities are designed to accommodate concentrations of development and are in a
position to plan the expansion of existing facilities and services, as well as to coordinate the
development of new facilities and services.
F. Alternative facilities and service systems (for example, special districts) may be used for
urban type development within the I-25 Mixed Use Development area, urban development
nodes or urban growth boundary areas, with certain restrictions. The alternative facility
and service systems must comply with the standards set forth in this Chapter and Chapters
23 and 24 of this Code. Systems that are proposed to be located within a municipality's
urban growth boundary area may be required to develop in such a manner that they are
compatible with the standards of the municipality most likely to phase services into the
area. They also may be required to meet state regulations and standards.
A. P.Policy 1. Promote efficient and cost-effective delivery of public facilities and
services.
i. P.Poliey 1.1. Consolidation of public facilities or services and coordination
between providers should be encouraged to avoid duplication of costs and
promote efficiency.
.-- See, e.g. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control
Commission Regulation No. 22, site location and design approval, §22.3 (Exhibit D); CWQCE, Policy
98-2 (Exhibit E).
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
February 10, 2005
Page 4
ii. P. Policy 2.1. Development that requires urban services and facilities should
be encouraged to locate within a municipality, urban growth boundary area,
I-25 Mixed Use Development Area or urban development nodes, or where
adequate services are currently available or reasonably obtainable.
Given these laudable policies, the development described by the service plan is best located
within the Town boundaries, where it will receive municipal services necessary to serve the property.
The County's Urban Growth Boundary policies also support rejection of the proposed service
plan:
C. UGB.Goal 3. The County and municipalities should coordinate land use planning in urban
growth boundary areas, including development policies and standards, zoning, street and
highway construction, open space, public infrastructure and other matters affecting efficient
development.
And, for those portions of the proposed district located within the MUD, the following
language from the Weld County Comprehensive Plan applies:
MUD.GOAL 4: Facilities and infrastructure which are included in this area should be
evaluated in order to minimize discrepancies, promote a better understanding of growth
dynamics in the area, avoid duplication of services, provide economies of scale and ensure
coordination of municipal, county, regional, state, and other growth policies and programs.
Town of Mead Comprehensive Planning Efforts:
The Town has been very active in preparing for the development of the lands east of I-25.
The 2003 Water Plan (Exhibit A) expressed the Town's commitment to serve the area and to
upgrade its facilities to meet the expected demand.
In 2004, the Town completed a lengthy comprehensive planning process, involving numerous
referrals and public meetings, and identified the lands involved in this proposed district as Planning
Areas 8 and 9. See, Exhibit B. The Town identified favorable land uses for these parcels, ranging
from high density commercial and residential uses to low density residential. In all cases, the land uses
available under the Town's new plan are higher value and permit more development than those
available pursuant to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The Town also reaffirmed its
commitment to fund and build the necessary sewer infrastructure for this area, in time to serve end
users.
In 2005, the Town concluded a lengthy planning and engineering study and adopted its new
Wastewater Treatment Plan Facilities Study (Exhibit C), identifying the infrastructure needed to serve
this area and outlining the steps to be taken to meet the future demand.
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
r- February 10, 2005
Page 5
II. SPECIAL DISTRICT CONTROL ACT.
Part 2 of Title 32 Article 1 is known as the Special District Control Act, which was enacted in
1981 to "prevent the unnecessary proliferation and fragmentation of local government and to avoid
excessive diffusion of local tax sources". C.R.S. §32-1-102(2). Part 2 contains the restrictions and
limitations that govern the County's and the Court's review of the proposal.
The language used in the Control Act sets a tone that is consistent with the legislative purpose
of limiting the proliferation of special districts. There are mandatory standards that the proposal must
satisfy in order for the Board to have the power to approve. The required criteria are set forth in
Subsection (2) of§32-1-203 and are: (1) that there is a need for the services proposed, (2) that existing
services are inadequate, (3) that the proposed district is capable of providing the needed services, and
(4) that the value of the land within the proposed district is high enough to pay the debt incurred to
provide the services. Subsection (2) states that "the Board of County Commissioners shall disapprove
the service plan" unless each of these criteria is proved to the satisfaction of the Board.
Subsection (2.5) of Section 203 authorizes disapproval for other reasons, even when the
required criteria have been satisfied. According to that subsection, the Board of County
Commissioners "may disapprove the service plan" if the applicant cannot prove that the services can't
be provided by other entities within a reasonable time and on comparable terms, or if the evidence
shows that the service plan is inconsistent with the County's master plan or the regional water quality
management plan, or not in the best interests of the residents of the proposed district. Notably, Section
203 does not require approval of service plans that meet all required criteria. Thus, Weld County is
fully authorized to deny service plans, even plans that are fully compliant with all required criteria.
The proposed service plan does not comply with C.R.S. §32-1-203(2) for the following
reasons:
A. EXISTING AND PROJECTED NEED. The district proponents admit that there is no
existing need for the service proposed by the district. The "projected need" they describe is not
probable and is nothing more than speculation. All of the Phase I parcels are zoned agricultural and all
but the Woods parcel are expected to stay agricultural while they remain in unincorporated Weld
County. Only a portion of the Woods parcel is in a planning district that permits urban level densities.
That parcel is eligible for annexation into the Town of Mead, where sewer and other municipal
services would be provided upon annexation. The property is eligible for higher value zoning in the
Town than it is in the County.
B. ADEQUACY OF EXISTING SERVICES FOR PRESENT AND PROJECTED
NEEDS. The proposal does not acknowledge the Town's most recent Wastewater Treatment Plant
Facilities Study, which was available in draft form at the time of the application and which has since
been adopted by the Town Board. There is no present need for sewer services for the Phase I parcels,
thus there can be no inadequacy in the existing services. Nor is there any inadequacy in the services
expected to serve the projected needs for these parcels. As identified above, the Town is ready, willing
and able to serve the Phase I parcels with sewer services upon annexation into the Town. Since the
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
A-- February 10, 2005
Page 6
Town's present and future facilities are adequate to serve the present and future need from the territory
included within the district, the service plan must be denied.
C. CAPABILITY OF PROPOSED DISTRICT TO PROVIDE SERVICES. The Town
asked JR Engineering in Fort Collins to evaluate the technical aspects of the proposed service plan.
That analysis is attached as Exhibit F, and demonstrates that the proposed district will not be able to
provide economical and sufficient service to the area. The engineering data provided fails to show
service to significant portions of the proposed district, fails to properly size the infrastructure, and
proposes methods of service that will guarantee high maintenance costs. In addition, the service plan
contains several computation errors, and significantly understates the true cost of providing services to
the district by failing to properly account for the true cost of infrastructure and by omitting a
potentially onerous tap fee which St. Vrain may charge in order to recoup the cost of its treatment
plant.
The proposal states that wastewater treatment services are expected to be provided by the St.
Vrain Sanitation District. C.R.S. §32-1-202(1)(g) requires that the service contract with St. Vrain be
provided if available, but no contract is included. Without a contract, or at least a firm commitment to
serve, the service plan cannot demonstrate that the proposed district can serve the area. And since St.
Vrain has not yet determined the amount of the plant investment/tap fee it will assess to provide these
services, the proposed district cannot commit to this Board that it will sign a contract with St. Vrain. A
contract is entirely speculative at this time.
In addition, all of the district properties are located within the wastewater treatment area
allocated to the Town of Mead pursuant to the Clean Water Act. Only the Town of Mead is authorized
to provide wastewater services in this area, which cannot be changed without Mead's consent. See,
Exhibit G. Finally, the district proponents readily admit that they cannot finance the necessary
infrastructure to provide even Phase I services, but must rely upon additional developer or landowner
financing. However, the service plan does not identify any commitments for this financing, nor any
information showing that interested parties have the ability to provide the necessary financing. hi
short, the service plan does nothing but describe an idea, and falls far short of demonstrating actual
capability to provide the services at all, much less showing that it can provide the services on an
economical and sufficient basis.
D. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF PROPOSED DISTRICT. The proposed service plan
does not come close to meeting the statutory requirement of demonstrating that the proposed district
has sufficient value to discharge the debt needed for the construction and operation of the necessary
facilities. The current assessed valuation of the district is approximately $1.7 Million [Service Plan,
Table 1, p. 4]. The total debt proposed for Phase I only is $7.5 Million—over four times the district
assessed valuation. Based upon the proposed service plan itself, the valuations in the proposed district
are inadequate to discharge the over $7,500,000.00 needed to begin services within the Phase I of the
district. Other concerns have been raised regarding the financial feasibility of the Plan (see, Exhibit
H), which is apparently premised on a document, "Mixed Use Market Analysis of the General Area",
which has not been available for review.
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
February 10, 2005
Page 7
III. TOWN'S RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Comments of St. Vrain Sanitation District [Planning Commission Exhibit 6]: Mr. Fleck, the
District's engineer, commented that Mead "does not appear to have the ability or the facilities to
provide treatment services at this time to the proposed district territory." This comment is not correct.
No facilities have been built yet because there are no users in place, nor are any users expected in the
near future in most of the proposed service area and there are no applications pending for development.
However, as detailed above, the Town has taken the necessary steps since January 1, 1993 to serve the
area. All necessary studies are completed and the funding needed to provide the services has been
identified. The Town is required to have a new plant in place by 2009, but is significantly ahead of
schedule. The Town has the ability to construct the facilities in time to meet projected needs for the
area.
Comments of Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment [Planning
Commission Exhibit 9]: The Town shares the Department's concerns about the lack of coordination
that will likely occur if the proposed district is approved. Instead of approving this service plan, the
better approach is to follow the guidance of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, the MUD Policies,
and the numerous other plans already in place for this area and continue to serve the area through
facilities planned by the Town of Mead.
Comments of John Berguson, engineer for the applicant [Planning Commission minutes p. 5]:
Mr. Berguson's comments implied that the NFRWQPA had told the applicant to apply for approval of
the district before asking the Association to evaluate the issues surrounding a possible change to the
"208 boundary". This is not correct. The Association (of which Mead, Weld County, the St. Vrain
Sanitation District and about 40 other governments are members) has not been consulted about a
proposal to change Mead's 208 boundary.2 The Association membership has not had the opportunity
to hear, consider and decide how this proposal should be handled. Sound planning principles suggest
that the proper procedure is that the matter first be brought to the Association. The Association's
action will then be known, and can be considered by the Board at the time the proposed district is
considered.
Comments of Gary Woods and James Rohn [Planning Commission minutes pp. 6, 8]: Several
comments at the Planning Commission hearing implied that Mead had rejected annexation of the
parcels now being included in the proposed district. This is not correct. One proposal involved the
School property and the Maass property. The owners of the School property withdrew their
application from consideration before any final action was taken by the Town of Mead. Exhibit I,
attached. The Maass property could not proceed without the contiguity supplied by the School
property, but was eligible for annexation via another route. Mr. Maass was encouraged by the Town
board to reapply using the other route, but has not yet done so. The second proposal was the Meadow
Ridge annexation submitted by Gary Woods. Mr. Woods withdrew the annexation proposal prior to
consideration by the Town, and elected to apply for sketch plan approval through Weld County.
2 While there apparently was at least one meeting between the District proponents and the executive
director of NFRQWA, the matter has not been brought to the NFRQWA Board.
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
February 10, 2005
Page 8
Exhibit J, attached. Nick Sekich, another property owner involved in the East I-25 Sanitation District
proposal, still has an active annexation petition pending with the Town. More generally, the Town has
recently approved a number of annexations.
IV. CONCLUSION
The district fails to meet the required criteria for eligibility for approval and the proposal must
be denied. In addition to these shortcomings, there are numerous errors and miscalculations in the
proposed service plan. The plan is premature, unnecessary, and in violation of the County's policies.
Approval would destroy almost a decade and a half of Mead's land use and wastewater planning
efforts. The proponents have not presented a compelling case for approval. For these reasons and
others, we recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny the proposal.
We also plan to appear at the hearing on February 14, 2005, and expect that we will need
between 1.5 and 2 hours for our comments and questions.
Sincerely,
TOWN OF 1I�
B-
,
Richard E. Kraemer, Mayor _...._M._
Or
Fa
iI
'" AREAWIDE
0
0 WATER QUALITY
.»
0 MANAGEMENT PLAN
"" 2003 UPDATE
i
1 "a
r
��. non
hz'} s S
,o i- 11v NNO
ww A' cY
y .7 a`• i w x 4,::
rA , tit „ sq
t 4'r r 1 r; * -• xV4 ell'.
a`^"P y ) . e d'3Hi t!I'.'ws:r ^�,
�.��'��{� y > JET ' lj � : «A / ,¢ 111A����J y� a•
NA k I trJ v f ,, yN/� j - 1':�. .L ij i ' (~ Y�J 1 �R i.YI{�.%
rf• W �,, a x44/1 :i
.-7.311-,;11,,r �� J'� .. kl Viz]
•
_ k .r. x t.3Vr /�
-
♦ ,---,:41-1-;.1!,',4.,t,.<
a .A C (n
ri. �.: • 1,: ) .✓.�'�y,y aFey + ,IYp ,I
fvf• '� v ) is
r/.
Y A —{ 1 J <# Jr d n..0 T
l.
NORTH FRONT RANGE
WATER QUALITY
ie
PLANNING ASSOCIATION
4
0
-
EXHIBIT A
4
•
The two areawide plans will be kept consistent for planning purposes, and
any planning information differences will be addressed through the
memorandum of understanding between the areawides on a case by case
basis.
4
A
Mead
■1
4 The Town of Mead assumed ownership and control of the wastewater
treatment facilities serving the Town upon the dissolution of the Mead
Sanitation District on January 1, 1993. Treatment is provided by a three cell
lagoon system with two aeration cells and one settling pond. In 1992 and
.� 1993,the District partially upgraded their system by placing an earthen berm
across the second of their two cell system, placed aeration into the second
et cell, changed the method of chlorination, and installed flow recording devices
on both the influent and effluent sides of the plant. Following a study of the
system by the Town's consulting engineer it was determined that sludge
needed to be removed from the first cell (original aeration cell) and that
detention time allowed algae to grow and be discharged in the effluent,
thereby exceeding the TSS for the plant. In 1995, the Town began
bypassing Cell 1 of the plant and drying it for sludge removal. Curtains were
placed across Cell 2 to create three cells, and the polishing cell was also
bypassed. This effectively cut the detention time and allowed the plant to
operate more efficiently. In July 1996 Cell 1 was cleaned out and 1.1 million
4 gallons of biosolids were removed. A new influent headworks structure was
M constructed in 1998. Four new 4,500 gallon chlorine contact vaults were
» added in 2000. These tanks are sized for a 30-minute detention at the peak
flow rate of 180,000 gallons per day.
0
0
M
N
II -30
i
4
4
4
A new permit, No. COG-582036, was issued on August 17, 1999, effective
September 1, 1999. The permit, good for a hydraulic loading of 140,000
4 gpd, is valid through July 31, 2004.
4
4 In 2001 the Town acquired the Lake Thomas Wastewater Treatment Plant.
4
The facility's permit No. COG-582017, is rated for a hydraulic loading of
12,000 gpd and is valid through July 31, 2004. The aerated lagoon facility
constructed in 1989, served the Country View Day Care Center. This facility
4 has been converted to a senior housing complex in 2001 and is now called
Lake Ridge Senior Condominiums. Currently the facility is not discharging
flows to Lake Thomas and serves approximately 3 families. A new inlet and
outlet structure, a new hypo-chloride contact chamber, and rehabilitation of
the lagoon were completed in December of 2001.
4
9 In 1992, the Town authorized a "wastewater system feasibility study"with the
6 intent of establishing a regional plan for the Town's urban growth area. The
1 study was prepared by RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants. The study
evaluated the long term needs of the Town for wastewater collection and
» treatment. The study as adopted by the Town provides that the existing
/ wastewater treatment plant will be used until growth immediately surrounding
1 the original town site dictates a move of the plant to the Lake Thomas site.At
• that time a new aerated lagoon treatment facility with a design life of 30
1 years will be constructed.
/
1 In August 2001, Jacobson Helgoth Consultants submitted the "Wastewater
1 Feasibility Study Update" final draft report to the Town. The purpose of the
1 study update was to revise the 1992 feasibility study. Information compiled
1 in the study includes service area delineation, population growth projections,
1 effluent limitations, trunk sewer routing, and treatment alternatives.
1
e
1
1 11 - 31
1
d
0
Currently the treatment plant treats 75,000 gallons per day and is serving an
estimated population of 1,000 people. The existing treatment plant Basins 1
and 2 can treat 180,000 gallons per day; however, improvements totaling
4 approximately $300,000 will be required. These improvements include
adding aerators, a baffle wall, and increasing the size of the interconnecting
01
piping between Basins 1 and 2. It is felt that with these improvements the
treatment plant will accommodate an additional 1,400 people or
W approximately 500 new homes. If Basin 1 were upgraded, the treatment
plant capacity could be increased to 320,000 gpd. Improvements to obtain
~ the additional 140,000-gpd capacity have been estimated to coast$600,000.
■1
Four alternatives were evaluated in the 2001 study for replacing the existing
treatment plant. The four alternatives considered three alternative sites
located in the Town's service area, and the fourth alternative includes
°1M pumping the flow to the St. Vrain Sanitation District.
4
The plant location and the cost of the treatment plant and out-fall sewers for
each alternative are indicated below:
4
Location Estimated Cost
4 1-25 at North Creek •
4 $5,746,000
4 North Creek above Lake Thomas $6,334,000
4 North Creek below Lake Thomas $6,344,000
4 St. Vrain San. Dist. $7,343,000
4
4 The consultant did not recommend an alternative. Some of the Town
4 Trustees prefer the site located below Lake Thomas due to being able to
4
serve the entire planning area without the need of adding pumping stations.
4 Four additional sites below Lake Thomas are being investigated. The report
recommended that a public hearing be conducted to obtain public input for
4 the study results. Appropriate user tap fees have been developed for future
expansions. User rates will be evaluated in 2004 to provide for additional
4
4 II -32
a
a
t
funds for replacement of sewer lines that have exceeded their design life
1 along with additional costs for operation and maintenance. The Town will be
reviewing the financial aspects for constructing a new one million gallon per
day treatment plant. In addition, the Town will need to determine when they
want to discontinue making improvements to the existing treatment plant and
1 move toward one of the new treatment plant alternatives.
The Town expects to have approximate 20 to 50 building permits issued
1 annually over the next few years due to completion of two major
development projects: Coyote Run (151 plus lots) and Margil Farms (187
lots). Since the 2001 update the Town has issued approximately 60 building
1 permits. Future building permits will dictate the implementation of wastewater
treatment improvement projects.
1
1
Saint Vrain Sanitation District
1 The St. Vrain Sanitation District was created in 1986 to serve the area near
the intersection of 1-25 and State Highway 119, commonly referred to as Del
Camino, and the surrounding areas. As of June 2003 there are about
11,500 acres included within the district boundaries. The District's potential
service area, as indicated in the 2001 208 Plan Update, includes about
1 43,000 acres. The District could readily serve additional areas upgradiant of
the service area with gravity sewers if development occurs. The District's
treatment plant is four miles downgradient from the Weld County Tri-Area
Sanitation District treatment works. The potential exists for future consolida-
tion, which would include treatment for a portion of the Dacono Sanitation
District (a collection system district). The City of Longmont projects that it
may need to construct additional treatment capacity after 2020 either at their
existing plant or a new plant downgradient of the existing Longmont plant
and within the St. Vrain Sanitation District Service Area. The District
presently serves a small portion of Longmont located in Weld County.
11-33
1
S
■{ The District's secondary sewage treatment plant was constructed in 1987,
along with a core collection system. This resulted in the elimination of 3
small treatment facilities in the Del Camino area. Five major line extensions
along with numerous sub-division collection systems have been
subsequently completed. Connections to the system through June 2003
include 2,551 residential taps, a 210-unit mobile home park, and 124 non-
residential taps, totaling 3,904 Single Family Equivalents. The District's
4 wastewater treatment plant has been converted from a 0.5 mgd aerated
lagoon system to a mechanical plant with two 1.5 mgd extended aeration
lagoon and clarifier modules, to provide a 3.0 mgd plant capacity. The new
plant became operational in April, 2002. The District's discharge permit was
renewed on February 1, 1998 and expired January 31, 2003. It will be
■1 renewed based on the completion of construction of the mechanical
"4 wastewater treatment plant.
14
CDH&E site approval included a third 1.5 mgd module, (not beingoil
constructed at this time). Should treatment requirements exceed 4.5 mgd,
each treatment module is designed for conversion to an activated sludge
process with 5.4 mgd capacity, or a potential of 16.2 mgd capacity with
conversion of all three modules. Area for future development at the plant
site remains. Additionally, the plant is surrounded by large lakes (formerly
gravel mines) and a no development easement.
Weld County Tri-Area Sanitation District
1
The Weld County Tri-Area Sanitation District serves the Towns of Firestone
and Frederick, the unincorporated area of Evanston, and the Town of
■1
Dacono through a contract with the Dacono Sanitation District. The
• combined service population of the four communities is approximately 8,700,
�1 and the District currently has a total of about 3,025 taps. The District's
w
4 II -34
MP .>. -a .a -a S a s a s S a a -s - - a A0
/ / / //
v//7/1' 17r € .
97/
3 31 2 3 e .1 34 •35 • ,• f� 3132 33
T4N \ T3N
BoNder Co T3N as . ; ` ..
1 as . 1 3� 6 5 4^ tx 3
6 5 4 I •0 �•`
I 1 n
1 II
i r
/ 7 klii 9 -\--'-',,_ :4k ' '°#11 12 0 4. i
1 i �\'
. � iB 17 \,/
15 %jI' 1
MEAD ll 4• �� , J I Mead
//11 t\ 23 \ eY...._.--
,� Berthoud
r � [ [! Johnstown
1f Lj Milliken
j ?� ey Ps ,a L. _1 5t. Vrain S. D.
\ ` \ o il z.o m'
r
iallissis e milees
S
S
Ki
•
•
•
Town of Mead
S
w
S
S
2004 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
S
S
S
S
I.
a
W
September 27, 2004
a
w
EXHIBIT B
i
w
A'^ Section I. Introduction
A. Background
ft
0
0 The Mead Comprehensive Plan(MCP) outlines a vision for how the community should develop
based on current and projected conditions. It provides a statement of policy for land use and growth
management decisions, as well as the provision of services to the Town's citizens. This 2004 MCP
0 is the culmination of efforts by the Town to re-examine issues related to changes in the community
0 and surrounding area, as well as circumstances that affect the Town,which have occurred since the
adoption of the Town's previous comprehensive plan in 1997.
According to State of Colorado Revised Statutes, a comprehensive or master plan is only an
advisory document (C.R.S. 31-23-206-(3)). The comprehensive plan thus should provide the
rationale which supports municipal ordinances, and be used in conjunction with such ordinances.
Courts increasingly look to a community's comprehensive plan to evaluate the relative merits and
validity of associated regulations, such as annexation review processes, zoning and subdivision
codes, and impact fees. With completion of this MCP, the Town should review and revise as
0 appropriate existing regulations to ensure that the objectives outlined in the MCP can be
implemented, and that consistency is maintained between these key planning and development
documents.
Accordingly, then, the MCP is a declaration of intent with policies, goals, and objectives or
strategies. It does not itself constitute a regulation. The exercise of legislative discretion regarding
specific land use decisions and specific properties is reserved for such proceedings as are authorized
A by state statutes governing annexations,zoning,subdivision,building,and other similar regulations.
4 All goals, objectives, and policies expressed herein are collectively the development policy and
philosophy of the Town of Mead.
Due to the unpredictable nature of future economic climates, market conditions, and development
patterns, and because ideas, philosophy, population composition, technology, and other factors
change over time, the MCP itself should be reviewed regularly, and confirmed or updated at least
once every five years to reflect circumstances that exist at that time.
The 2004 MCP covers all land within the Town's corporate limits and its planning area, except for
property that is already within the boundaries of other municipalities, or is subject to existing
M boundary agreements, or is in an area where there is a distance of 5 miles or less between
municipalities,in which case the jurisdictional boundary is split equidistantly between the Town and
the other municipality,as provided by C.R.S.31-23-212. This planning area will usually be referred
to hereafter as the "Mead Area of Influence" (MAI). This MAI is the Town's legal right to
influence development. The Town also has the prerogative of adopting an MAI that is less than its
legal rights, or waiving its influence if certain properties are beyond the limits of the anticipated or
desired growth of the Town. In some instances, it has done so in this MCP. The Town's planning
"jurisdiction" is not absolute. The Town's enforcement of its planning powers outside its
S
-7-
ft
i
r^ S
boundaries,for example,extends only to the elements of a"major street plan,"and not to all aspects
of development. This is what is commonly referred to as a 3-mile planning jurisdiction, which is
somewhat of a misnomer. Within its boundaries,and in the consideration of annexations,however,
the Town's planning powers and the policies and provisions of the MCP can be enforced. This point
is elaborated upon further in the MCP in Section VI - Transportation Plan, and Subsection B of 5
Section IX - Implementation Tools.
up
B. Historical Sketch of Mead
The Town of Mead originated in the 1870s in the Highlandlake settlement at what is now the
intersection of Weld County Roads 5 and 36. Highland Lake was created by damming North CreekID
at a large depressional area, and the resulting body of water still serves area agricultural interests as •
well as providing summer recreational activity. In the early 1900s, the Great Western Sugar r
Company began constructing sugar processing plants in cities in northern Colorado, including
up
Longmont,Loveland,and Greeley,concurrently with the rise of sugar beet cultivation. Sugar beets
were a crop that had been shown could be successfully grown in the area soils and climate. To01
connect the plants, the company started up a railroad, known as the Great Western Railway. The r
rail line between Longmont and Greeley ran a couple miles southeast of the Highlandlake area,close
to what is now the intersection of Weld County Roads 7 and 34.
ID
Paul Mead, a member of the founding family of Highlandlake, who owned land through which the
railroad went,decided to create a town in order to take advantage of the economic opportunities this 5
transportation link offered. Consequently, in 1906 the Town of Mead, named after the family of
course,was laid out. The plat was filed with Weld County on February 19, 1906, and the town was
formally incorporated on March 17, 1908. It originally consisted of 23 square blocks, of which one
was designated as a Town Park. The original "park block" was later subdivided and the present S
"park block" was purchased by the Town, honoring the original intention of Mr. Mead to provide S
a central park site. Not all 23 original blocks have yet been completely built out. The Town became
a farm-to-market center as well as one of the sugar beet "dumps" (i.e. shipping points) in the area
between Longmont and Johnstown. A small downtown was built up, along with other peripheral S
buildings that included a bank, general store, post office, hotel, blacksmith shop, and tavern. Two S
churches were begun, a Methodist congregation and a Catholic parish. Some buildings from
Highlandlake were moved to the new Town of Mead. (The Highlandlake Church, incidentally,
which was a member of the Congregational denomination, remained active until after the Great PIP
Depression. The building survives today and is now on the National Register of Historic Places. S
It was featured in the movie Die Hard II.)
The Town's population grew very slowly from 1906 to 1970. There were 114 people in Mead by
the time of the 1910 Federal census, which had risen to only 195 people in the 1970 census. In the
1970s,however,the town saw its first major growth,when 49 lots were created in 1976 on the west M
side of town and new homes started to be constructed. By the time of the 1980 census, the
population had increased to 356. By 1989, two new subdivisions had been annexed south of the
�.� original core of the town, and the 1990 census showed that the population had grown to 456. The /-
historical population growth of the Town is given in Table I. S
_8_
v
I
I
4
N
• Mead lies one mile west of Interstate 25, just two miles north of State Route 66, known as the
gateway to Rocky Mountain National Park, and about 9 miles from the center of Longmont. It was
inevitable with the general growth of the Front Range, induced by the easily accessible interstate
for work commutes, its proximity to recreational activities in the mountains, as well as the growth
of Longmont, that Mead would also begin to grow. In the 1990s, numerous subdivisions were
• annexed and constructed in the town to the north,east,and south of its original core,and by the time
of the 2000 census,Mead was now home to 2,017 people. During that decade,the town was known
as one of the fastest-growing municipalities in the State of Colorado.
Mead is still largely a residential community, although it has a small commercial sector with
industrial and business parks, including service stations, at I-25 and Highway 66, and some
surviving businesses in its downtown. Several subdivisions are under construction, and several
others have been approved or are applying for approval. The current estimated population in June
N 2004 is approximately 2,300.
a
A The Town is governed by a seven-member Town Board, consisting of a Mayor and six Trustees,
elected at-large on a non-partisan basis with staggered four-year terms. Day-to-day operations are
handled by seven full-time and several part-time or seasonal employees,including a Town Manager,
0 Town Clerk,and Public Works Department personnel. Numerous citizen volunteers also assist the
Town in providing services.
The Town's motto is "A Little Town with a Big Future."
C. The Planning Process in Mead
The Planning Commission is charged with the review of development proposals, planning
documents, development regulations, and similar tasks. It is a recommending body and reports its
findings and recommendations to the Town Board,which has the authority to make final decisions
for the Town. The commission is established according to State statutes. The Planning Commission
was the review body for the 2004 MCP.
M
The Town of Mead adopted its first comprehensive plan in 1981,which was very brief and included
only the area immediately surrounding the original town boundaries of 1906. It adopted its second
comprehensive plan in 1991,which was more expansive. The 1991 plan was superseded by a third
comprehensive plan adopted in 1997. That plan was adopted after considerable public input
4 following a series of annexations in the early 1990s that led to the construction of several
subdivisions in the mid-1990s. It also followed a successful citizens'initiative in 1995 that required
all subsequent annexation proposals to be subject to an election for approval by the'Citizens before
a property could be annexed. The fourth comprehensive plan,the current one of 2004,was adopted
0 because of changes in the development climate in the Mead, including continuing growth pressure
in the area, additional annexation and subdivision proposals and approvals, new transportation
studies, identification of economic development opportunities, and a variety of other planning and
social factors. Certain portions of text from the 1997 plan have been carried over to the 2004 plan,
WIC although usually in somewhat modified form.
0
y -9-
0
S
a
a
Municipalities engage in the process of adopting comprehensive plans not only because they are
statutorily required,but because they are useful exercises in self-evaluation and self-understanding
of how to guide the community's growth for the betterment of all its citizens — residents and
businesses alike. There are many possible ways to go about the process of writing or updating a
comprehensive plan,so that the municipality can visualize its future and be an active and pro-active
participant in shaping that future for the benefit of its citizens, rather than just reacting to change.
The planning process enables communities to map out their future and then to adopt regulations to G
ensure that such a future,or an even better one,comes to fruition. A well-prepared plan shows that
the community has thought out its direction and has put that direction on paper for all to see,in order
to create a well-planned community. Conversely, sometimes previous planning or land use r
decisions that later are perceived or judged to be mistakes must be taken into account in a new or
updated plan in order to mitigate their negative effects, or to help prevent new planning mistakes
from being made.
There are four major goals of a comprehensive planning process—predictability,balance,flexibility, 4
and implementation, as discussed below. It is the intent of the 2004 MCP to achieve each one of
these goals.
Predictability. When a community puts its aspirations and plans for the future on paper, it creates r
predictability for itself, its citizens, and developers. Predictability for the town comes about as a
result of knowing or projecting in advance what types of land uses, services, and utilities will be
•
appropriate or expected to be provided to a new area it might consider for annexation. Prospective
new residents and businesses gain predictability and can purchase houses or property with some
knowledge and assurance of what is planned to occur nearby,such as schools,parks,facilities,other
developments, and so forth. Developers have predictability in that they know what the town is
looking for before they submit their development proposal. Presumably,if their proposal is different
than what the town is anticipating in that location, they have the burden of proving that their •
proposal is superior.
Balance. Rarely can a community prosper when it contains only one land use, or too much of a
single type of use. The typical concept of a community is that it is a diversified social and economic
area where people can live,work,shop,enjoy recreation,and have access to essential services in one
defined geographical location without having to travel to other areas. There is a complex
relationship among the economic factors inherent in a community, and thus ultimately what its tax
base is in relation to the cost of providing services that are needed. A town may contain only
residences,for example,and if it is located in a metropolitan area,is known as a suburban"bedroom
community." However,because residential property has a high level of demand for services relative
to the tax revenue it generates, such a town is likely to have very high property taxes. Some
communities can accept and afford this (and the residents thus make conscious decisions to travel
elsewhere for shopping, service needs, and jobs, and to pay high property taxes), while others that
do not have a large commercial tax base, but have not consciously avoided it, cannot generate
-lo-
I
r
I
1
1
1 te--‘ enough revenue to pay for adequate public services. Most municipalities therefore seek a diversified
1 tax base by having diversified land uses in order to generate adequate revenue. Otherwise, they
4 simply do not provide many public services, or the level or quality of the services that are provided
is minimal.
1
1 The point is that the ideal is to strike a reasonable balance of land uses such that the town can
support a full array of services, provided both by government and by the private sector, consistent
with the needs and desires of its citizens. This means having adequate commercial, retail, office,
industrial, public, and quasi-public uses in addition to residential uses, such that the town can be
economically self-supporting and self-sustaining.
There is no magic formula for creating a land use balance. In fact, it is likely different for every
( community, based on each community's unique circumstances. Most municipalities have
0 approximately 75%of their land area in residential properties. For some towns, a formula of 50%
residential, 25% retail, and 25% employment (i.e. offices, industrial, etc.) land uses will work.
Other towns may seek to have these sectors be in some other proportion. Sometimes these
proportions are driven by factors such as proximity to regional highways and commercial corridors,
and are inevitable. The idea of balance comes, then, in what the relative contribution of each of
those sectors is to the community,rather than considering just land use percentages. Most retailers,
service providers, and other commercial interests have formulas for a certain amount of population
and disposable household income that must be present within a given distance or market area in
order for their business to be supportable before they will make a location-siting decision. A town
I that wants to have such services must have or be willing to permit enough residential density to be
built to attract those businesses. Employment opportunities are driven by many different factors,
including the labor market, transportation access, educational levels and training opportunities,
utility costs,overall tax burden, local amenities, the presence of other research facilities, suppliers,
or support businesses, housing availability and prices for the workforce, and the like. Sometimes
a town can affect these factors,and thus influence a location-siting decision by a business,but often
only slightly. It is clear, however, that if a community wants to have local jobs as well, it must be
aware of all these dynamics and the need for balance in order to be able to make good planning and
land use decisions.
Flexibility. No plan that has ever been drafted has been carried out to the last word. In addition,
no plan has ever been drafted that encompasses every situation that arises, addresses every aspect
of development proposals, or provides all the answers for decisions that have to be made. The
planning process is meant to produce documents that GUIDE decision-making,not dictate it. What
was a good idea several years ago and put into a plan may now not be workable or appropriate.
Furthermore, there is no such thing as perfect site plans -- otherwise all property would already be
developed. Inevitably,approval of development involves some form of compromise. Accordingly,
a plan cannot be absolutely rigid in its application and interpretation. A comprehensive plan must
also be amendable to accommodate new ideas and circumstances, and thus be maintained in a
constant state of currency.
1 r
-]1-
1
1
fr
Implementation. A comprehensive plan is only effective if it is implemented. Typical means of r
implementing a comprehensive plan are annexation regulations, zoning codes, subdivision codes,
impact fees, capital improvements programs, and other regulatory tools, as well as boundary
agreements or other types of intergovernmental agreements. These documents are more detailed flo
in their specific topical area than the Comprehensive Plan, and most are specifically intended to be
regulatory,i.e.to set requirements,rather than just to guide decision-making. These implementation r
tools are further described in Section IX - Implementation Tools. r
The text of this MCP in its entirety is therefore deemed to satisfy the statutory requirements for the V
purposes of a master or comprehensive plan as outlined in C.R.S. 31-23-207. 119
!1
V
r
r
V
r
V
r
V
�r
V
V
V
e
•
e
V
•
V
1 •
•
•
•
S
•
Sirs
The Town owns Red Deer Lake (also known as Green Lake Reservoir) in the Indian Peaks
A Wilderness Area. It was purchased in 1961 after having been leased for the Town's original water
' system for several decades. It yields 82 acre-feet, feeding the St. Vrain River basin. Its use as a
water right is limited, as it has junior rights and no longer helps supply water to the potable water
system.
0
C. Sewer
• A sewer system is considered a traditional utility — usually a public utility provided by a
• municipality or a unit of government that specializes in that service. A sewer system includes the
•
elements of wastewater collection, treatment, testing, and release.
A The Town of Mead provides sewer service to portions of the community. It owns a wastewater
• treatment plant at 15 Fairbaim Avenue which treats sewage from the original core of the town and
i several subdivisions west of I-25. This facility was formerly owned by a separate unit of
' government known as the Mead Sanitation District, which was dissolved in 1993 and merged into
the Town's assets. The Town's current sewer service area(also known as Section 208 boundaries)
is illustrated on a map in the Map Section.
Under the 208 plan,the Town serves as both the managing and the operating agency for wastewater
within its sewer boundaries. It must approve all sewer projects within its service area.
s
The Town also provides sewer service to the Lake Ridge Condominium development on WCR 32
. through use of a small treatment plant near Lake Thomas. This was formerly a private facility that
was acquired by the Town during the Lake Ridge annexation,and upgraded to municipal standards.
A Its expansion potential is limited. A new conventional wastewater treatment plant east of I-25 would
allow this plant to be dismantled.
A
Other portions of the Town are serviced by the St. Vrain Sanitation District (SVSD), which has a
wastewater treatment plant near WCR 24 and WCR 13, south of the St. Vrain River in
unincorporated Weld County. Generally speaking, its service area follows the ridge line that
roughly parallels State Highway 66. The Town has an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with
14 SVSD that allows them to treat the wastewater outside of their Section 208 boundaries from the
Sekich and Valley 66 Business Parks at the northeast corner of I-25 and SH 66 when sewer mains
are installed therein,as well as some land on the west side of I-25 north of SH 66. The Town would
own the mains for fifteen years, after which time the Town can elect that the entire collection
network there would become part of the SVSD system. Otherwise the SVSD has full.authority over
regulations,rates, use,construction, and capacity planning of its system. The Town cooperates and
4 coordinates with SVSD on approval of engineering plans that include sewer mains in the
construction of developments.
Some portions of the Town are not serviced by any sewer system,but rather are on individual septic
disposal systems (ISDS) on each lot. Such septic systems are presently regulated by the Weld
County Health Department,not the Town,although the Town should consider regulating them itself
a
-33-
a
A
4
OW
in the future. Not to have all subdivisions serviced by municipal sewer is a conscious land-use
decision by the Town. It may permit septic fields in large estate-lot subdivisions under appropriate
circumstances,and may require that septic systems be engineered. Lot sizes should be large enough
that there is suitable space to have an alternative septic field if the first one fails.
S.
The Town's policy is that it does not provide sewer service outside its boundaries. Properties must
annex in order to receive municipal sewer service.
Obviously the capacity planning and construction of sewer systems can have a significant effect on
the ability of a town to grow and service future customers. This is because sewer facilities are very «I
expensive and usually have to be provided by government in some fashion. Individual package
sewer treatment plants are not possible for each subdivision,soil conditions may not permit a parcel
to be developed using septic fields,and service boundaries are determined primarily by watersheds, Om
engineering technology, and operating philosophies of sewer system providers. Therefore sewer OP
service cannot be"hopscotched around"to accommodate particular developer desires. O1
OP
The Town must make both economic and policy decisions as to the extent and location of its sewer S.
service,complete a sewer system study including the siting of a new wastewater treatment plant,and
update that sewer system study from time to time. It must also do periodic rate studies so that user
charges are sufficient to pay both the operating costs of the system and build reserves for the costs «
of periodic repair and replacement of system components.
OP
D. Stormwater Management OP
Stormwater management is the current parlance for what used to be called merely"drainage." It has
not traditionally been thought of as a utility. However,because stormwater has regional impacts and f
needs to be "managed" to prevent flooding that leads to property damage, it has many of the OP
characteristics of a utility, and is now often considered as such. In addition,stormwater regulation w
used to be minimal to non-existent,and now it is considered as important an element of development
review as any other aspect. The general principle behind stormwater management and the approval
of developments is that water cannot leave a developed property at a rate any faster than it did before
it was developed. This is called"controlled release." Although the increased amount of impervious IP
surface on a developed parcel usually results in additional volume of water, since not as much of
it can now soak into the ground, the volume has to be held back in some fashion so that it is
gradually released downstream at a rate that existed prior to development. Thus subdivisions now OP
must include stormwater detention or retention basins, depending on the particular situation. f
The Town has commissioned drainage studies in the past and works on an ad hoc basis on various
stormwater management projects to correct past deficiencies (where, for example, there was no OP
stormwater detention facility provided). All new developments should have stormwater S
management facilities and plans consistent with current stormwater management practices.
S
a
-34-
w
•
S
S
a
0
I. Planning Area 8
0.4
Description
4
• Planning Area 8 is bounded by WCR 34 on the north,the St. Vrain River and WCR 17 on the east,
I-25 on the west, and SH 66 on the south.
Planning Area 8 consists of approximately 5,240.3 acres.
Existing Land Use
The planning area contains a variety of land uses. The Sekich and Valley 66 Business Parks are
located at the southwest corner of the planning area north of SH 66 and adjacent to I-25, and the
unincorporated I-25 Business Park is located directly north of the Sekich Business Park, also
adjacent to I-25. The large-lot Grandview Estates Subdivision lies at the northeast corner of SH 66
and WCR 13. The age-restricted senior condominium project known as Lake Ridge, occupying a
S thoroughly remodeled former care center for developmentally-disabled persons, lies on the north
• side of WCR 32 just south of Lake Thomas. There are a variety of large-lot unincorporated parcels
along section line roads or SH 66.
Transportation
The planning area contains a square grid of east-west county section line roads at WCR 32 and WCR
34,plus SH 66,as well as north-south county section line roads at WCR 11,WCR 13,WCR 15,and
WCR 17, although not all of them go completely through. Most are paved.
S
The same comments relative to SH 66 as were stated in Planning Area 4 apply here as well.
0 The same comments relative to WCR 13 as were stated in Planning Area 7 apply here as well.
The same comments relative to WCR 9 '/z as were stated in Planning Area 7 apply here as well,
O except that a portion of WCR 9 'A between SH 66 and WCR 32 has already been constructed in
2001, as a two-lane collector, not as an arterial.
The same comments relative to WCR 32 and WCR 34 as were stated in Planning Area 5 apply here
as well.
The transportation network assumes the future construction of collector streets and the
4� interconnection of subdivisions on the principles outlined in Planning Area 2. Potential challenges
to these assumptions are topographic problems associated with drainage draws and waterbodies in
the planning area, which would have to be crossed or worked around.
S
O
S
r1
!+
0
Parks, Open Space, and Environment
There is no park land in the approved subdivisions in this planning area. Grandview Estates does
have private open space in the form of a golf course intertwining through the center of the
subdivision. The golf course is available for use only to residents of the subdivision and their S
guests. Additional park land and open space should be provided in future subdivisions when they 5
are approved. At a minimum,each subdivision should have a neighborhood park. The area adjacent
to irrigation ditches, including tree preservation, and to watercourses, ultimately connecting to the
St. Vrain River, should also be treated as open space. These also provide potential trail corridor S
amenities. Additional community or regional parks may be possible in this planning area. WII
S
Public Facilities
The planning area is generally served by a potable water system. The area is not serviced by a 5
municipal or sanitation district sewer system. Plans are underway in 2004 for the extension of sewer S
service into the Sekich and Valley 66 Business Parks pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement
between the Town and the St. Vrain Sanitation District. The Grandview Estates Subdivision is on
septic fields. The planning area depicts two potential generalized sites for a future Town of Mead W
conventional sewer treatment plant that are presently being studied. Stormwater management w
varies;drainage generally flows by a system of roadside ditches and culverts downstream to the St.
Vrain River via its subwatersheds; there are no stormwater detention or retention ponds in existing
development. New subdivisions will be required to construct appropriate stormwater management
facilities. Future construction in the planning area will have to evaluate existing and potential public
facilities.
Future Land Use
IP
The MCP designates that the planning area will feather out densities from the high-intensity I-25
and SH 66 corridors to low-intensity land near the St. Vrain River and the eastern boundary of the
MAI. Business park land uses should be next to the interstate, with general commercial land uses
adjacent to SH 66 as identified in Planning Area 4, and to WCR 34 because it is an exit off of I-25 S
and therefore valuable for that purpose. Higher-density residential land uses should be adjacent to 5
business park and commercial areas in order to act as a buffer to lower-density residential uses
farther away from these two highways.
IP
Focus 5
The short-term focus for the planning area should be on the implementation of already-approved
ID
plans consistent with good planning and engineering principles, and the prevention of any
intensification of inappropriate uses. �1
The long-term focus for the planning area should be on approval of plans for unincorporated parcels
CID
that are proposed to be annexed consistent with good planning and engineering principles, as well
as opposition to any county plans that would be incompatible with the MCP.
el
-108-
`
M
r
r
a
a
S
r
a J. Planning Area 9
•
• Description
Planning Area 9 is bounded by WCR 40 on the north,WCR 17 on the east, WCR 34 on the south,
and I-25 on the west.
Planning Area 9 consists of approximately 7,644.2 acres.
S
• Existing Land Use
A
• The planning area is largely undeveloped and agricultural, although it contains the Raterink
(racetrack) annexation and the small Schulz annexation, both adjacent to I-25. The planning area
contains numerous large-lot unincorporated parcels or unincorporated estate-lot subdivisions along
section line roads.
0
• Transportation
•
Sir The planning area consists of a square grid of east-west county section line roads WCR 34, WCR
36, WCR 38, and WCR 40, as well as north-south county section line roads at WCR 11,WCR 13,
WCR 15, and WCR 17, although not all of them go completely through. Most of the grid of county
0 section line roads is presently unpaved.
S
The same comments relative to WCR 13 as were stated in Planning Area 7 apply here as well.
The same comments relative to WCR 9 '/z as were stated in Planning Area 7 apply here as well.
The same comments relative to WCR 34 as were stated in Planning Area 5 apply here as well.
The same comments relative to WCR 36 and WCR 38 as were stated in Planning Area 2 apply here
as well.
h
M The transportation network assumes the future construction of collector streets and the
interconnection of subdivisions on the principles outlined in Planning Area 2. Potential challenges
0 to these assumptions are the presence of the Great Western Railway tracks and topographic
N problems associated with drainage draws and waterbodies in the planning area,both of which would
have to be crossed or worked around.
M
1
y` -109-
0
0
S
OPP
4101
0.
Parks, Open Space, and Environment 11.
There is no park land in this planning area, as there are no subdivisions in it. Park land and open
space should be provided in future subdivisions when they are approved. At a minimum, each 41.
subdivision should have a neighborhood park. The area adjacent to irrigation ditches,including tree 40.
preservation, and to watercourses, ultimately connecting to the St. Vrain River, should also be OP
treated as open space. These also provide potential trail corridor amenities. Additional community
or regional parks may be possible in this planning area. OP
OP
Public Facilities
OP
The planning area is generally served by a potable water system. The area is not serviced by a 0.
municipal or sanitation district sewer system. Properties are on septic fields. Stormwater
management varies; drainage generally flows by a system of roadside ditches and culverts
downstream to the St. Vrain River via its subwatersheds. New subdivisions will be required to
construct appropriate stormwater management facilities. Future construction in the planning area
will have to evaluate existing and potential public facilities. OP
S
Future Land Use
S
The MCP designates that the planning area will feather out densities from the high-intensity 1-25 �1
corridor to low-intensity land near the eastern boundary of the MAI. Business park land uses should
be next to the interstate,with general commercial land uses as identified in Planning Area 4 adjacent
to WCR 34 because it is an exit off of I-25 and therefore valuable for that purpose. The Raterink SP
(racetrack) annexation was proposed to be enlarged with a bigger racetrack in 2001, a proposal S
soundly defeated by the voters, and is therefore a land use no longer appropriate in such a location
OP
that has higher value and community compatibility as a retail and service sector (i.e. hotel,
restaurant, and highway-oriented businesses). Higher-density residential land uses should be
adjacent to business park and commercial areas in order to act as a buffer to lower-density S
residential uses farther away from these two highways. This planning area envisions that there could 5
be two levels of density—medium or medium low—on the southern side of the drainage divide that
runs approximately through the middle of the planning area, and two levels of density—very low
or agricultural—on the northern side of the drainage divide, as drawn.
Focus
4111
The short-term focus for the planning area should be on the implementation of already-approved
plans consistent with good planning and engineering principles, and the prevention of any S
intensification of inappropriate uses. 5
The long-term focus for the planning area should be on approval of plans for unincorporated parcels 0
that are proposed to be annexed consistent with good planning and engineering principles, as well 0
as opposition to any county plans that would be incompatible with the MCP. 0
S
0
S
w
TOWN OF MEAD, COLORADO
WWTP Facilities Study
February 4, 2005
r^
Prepared for:
Town of Mead
441 Third Street
Mead, Colorado 80542
(970) 535-4477
Prepared by:
TR Engineering
2620 E. Prospect Road, Suite 190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
(970) 491-9888
�.., JR Project No. 39241.26
EXHIBIT C
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Cost Estimates
APPENDIX B Capital Improvement Schedules for Preferred Alternatives
APPENDIX C Other Capital Improvement Schedules
APPENDIX D CDPHE Grant Funding Letter
APPENDIX E Implementation Schedule
APPENDIX F CDHPE Site Application Review Process
APPENDIX G Existing WWTP Service Area
APPENDIX H Existing Treatment Plant Site Plans
APPENDIX I New WWTP Alternative Locations Maps
r
Town of Mead, Colorado
Wastewater Facilities Implementation Plan
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Section
Page
Number Number
Executive Summary i
Introduction 1
Background and History 1
A. Executive Summary of 2001 Feasibility Study Update. 3
A.1 Introduction 3
A.2 Effluent Limitations 3
A.3 Current Situation 4
A.4 Future Situation 4
A.5 Alternatives 4
A.6 Plan Selection 5
B. Population Projection Alternatives 6
C. Additional Alternatives 7
D. Selecting an Alternative. 8
D.1. Alternative Screening 8
D.2. Selected Alternatives 8
D.3. Total Present Worth 9
D.4. Alternative Ranking 12
E. Preferred Alternatives 15
F. 20-Year Capital Improvement Plan Alternatives 16
F.1. Phasing Exiting WWTP Improvements 16
F.2. Discharge Permit Issue 18
F.3 Capital Improvement Schedule 19
G. Financial Considerations 19
H. 1-25 East Development Financial Considerations 20
I. Permitting& Environmental Requirements 21
J. Outfall Sewer and WWTP Pre-design Study. 22
K. Conclusions and Recommendations. 23
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Facilities Implementation Plan
A", Executive Summary
Town of Mead, Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study
The Town of Mead (Town) has been evaluating its existing Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP) since 1999, trying to develop a plan for expansion or replacement that
corresponds with ongoing and future population growth. Due to new discharge limits,
which require the plant to remove ammonia from the wastewater before it is discharged
to a stream, population growth and its increased WWTP capacity requirement are no
longer the only driving force behind this effort. In the new discharge permit effective
January 1, 2005, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)
issued a compliance order to the Town to meet the ammonia discharge limits by
December 1, 2009. With this compliance order and recent effluent limit failures in mind,
the Town must move forward to replace the existing aerated lagoon WWTP with a
mechanical WWTP capable of producing a higher quality effluent.
This study addresses a 20-year capacity for the new WWTP, beginning in 2010, which
corresponds with the construction of a new WWTP by December 2009 to meet the
anticipated state and federal compliance order. When considering where to build the new
WWTP and what size it must be to meet the 20-year capacity, population growth must be
forecasted. Population growth is determined by the number of new houses developers
desire to build in Mead and its wastewater service area, and how much of this
development is allowed to proceed by the Town Board, Planning Commission, citizens,
and/or other land use agencies (i.e. Weld County).
The Town's 208 planning area results in the need to provide wastewater service on the
east and west sides of 1-25. The east and west WWTP alternatives are presented in this
study because most of the land east of 1-25 is not currently annexed into the Town. The
Town has a policy that wastewater service will not be provided unless the land is annexed
to the Town. The possibility exists that land east of 1-25 may not annex to the Town due
to the landowners not wanting to be subject to the annexation process that requires a
public vote.
Population projections have been used to establish the 20-year capacity for a new WWTP
based on 5% annual growth, which is approximately 0.52 mgd in 2030. To accommodate
the 5% growth, ensure extra capacity for unknown growth, and construct the new WWTP
in sensible phases, this study presents a regional alternative (Alternative 4A— East of CR
17) with a 1 mgd plant capacity. This regional alternative is the preferred alternative.
However, the costs are significantly higher than other alternatives that do not service the
entire 208 planning area.
While a total of eleven alternatives for wastewater treatment were considered in this
Facilities Study, they were narrowed down to only five alternatives that are evaluated in
detail. The alternatives are as follows:
r^
• Alternative 4A —East of WCR 17. This alternative considers a WWTP located
east of WCR 17 and providing service to the entire 208 planning area east and
west of 1-25, utilizing gravity flow to the treatment plant.
• Alternative 4 - SVSD East and West. This alternative considers using a lift
station to pump wastewater to the St. Vrain Sanitation District (SVSD) treatment
plant for the entire service area east and west of I-25.
• Alternative 5 — West of I-25. This alternative considers constructing a WWTP
west of 1-25. This alternative would start out providing treatment for the area
west of I-25 initially with the possibility that the area east of I-25 could pump to
the west I-25 WWTP location should there be a need.
• Alternative 6 - SVSD West. This alternative is similar to Alternative 4 except
the lift station that pumps to the SVSD WWTP would be sized to initially
accommodate flows only from the west side of 1-25. This alternative could also
be phased and allow for serving the east I-25 area. The capacity needs of the lift
station and sewer interceptors would have to be re-calculated. In this scenario, all
the financial risk would be placed on the developers instead of the Town.
• Alternative 7 —West 1-25/East SVSD. This alternative considers a combination
of constructing a new WWTP west of 1-25 (Alternative 5) to treat flows west of I-
25, and constructing a lift station to pump to the SVSD WWTP (Alternative 4) for
flows east of 1-25.
When alternatives were initially selected, it was assumed that landowners on the east side
of I-25 would participate in the Mead wastewater system. In light of the possibility that
these landowners may not participate in the Mead plan for disposing of their wastewater,
or delay implementing their development plans, this study evaluates two alternatives
(Alternative 7 — West I-25/East SVSD and Alternative 6 — SVSD West) that assume the
property east of 1-25 will not be served by Mead.
If development on the east side of 1-25 does not contribute flow to the new WWTP, a
much smaller WWTP can be built, and the location does not need to be east of I-25. If a
new WWTP is constructed to accommodate only the west side of 1-25, population growth
can be assumed to be closer to 3% for 20-year planning, which equates to a WWTP
capacity of 0.39 mgd in 2030. The 3% population growth is used instead of 5% because
much of the service area west of 1-25 as designated in the Town's Comprehensive Plan
consists of large lots with septic systems, which do not contribute flow to the WWTP. To
accommodate a 20-year WWTP life based on 3% growth, the West I-25/East SVSD
Alternative 7 is evaluated assuming a 0.5 mgd plant will be constructed and operational
by November 1, 2009.
Listed below is a summary of costs for the top five alternatives considered in this study.
WWII'Alternative Locations
7 5 4A 6 4
West I-25& Fast of
East SVSD West of I-25 WCR 17 SVSD West SVSD E&W
Item 0.5 mgd 1 mgd 1 mgd 0.5 mgd 1 mgd
Initial 2008 Capital Cost $3,341,089 $5,593,022 $7,354,772 $8,025,799 $11,206,498
Total Present Worth in 2005 Dollars $4,511,411 $6,199,798 $7,252,683 $8,342,565 $11,086,864
ii
The West I-25/East SVSD Alternative 7 is less expensive due to the plant capacity being
0.5 mgd as opposed to 1.0 mgd in Alternatives 4, 4A, and 5. Also, because of the very
short outfall sewer required for the West of 1-25 WWTP compared to Alternatives 4, 4A
and 6, millions of dollars are saved in pipeline costs. Reduced pipe sizes compared to
alternatives 4, and 4A also contribute to the dollar savings. A significant cost is incurred
in alternatives 4 and 6 where $3,315,000 is required to pay the SVSD Plant Investment
Fee for the 600 existing Town taps. The Town has 560 taps as of February 2005, but
expects 600 by the end of 2005.
Using the assumptions noted in the Capital Improvements Schedule in Appendices B and
C, the West I-25/East SVSD Alternative 7 requires that the Town be capable of paying
annual debt service of$147,502 to pay back the borrowed money. This debt load can be
met with Tap Fees at $7,000 and the projected number of new taps each year.
Analyzing the Total Present Worth data and the Capital Improvements Schedules, the
West 1-25/East SVSD Alternative 7 is the least expensive, and the only alternative that
enables the Town to finance a new WWTP without significantly raising Tap Fees in 2006
or finding other funding sources. Other factors for each alternative are evaluated as
presented in Table D-2. Alternative 4A is ranked first in this evaluation.
In addition to planning for the new WWTP, this study proposes minimum improvements
to the existing WWTP to keep it in service for five more years without experiencing
effluent violations, until a new WWTP is operational in late 2009. The cost of these
improvements is included in the Capital Improvements Schedule for each alternative that
is found in Appendices B and C.
The Capital Improvements Schedules in Appendices B and C are based on population
projections of either 3% or 5%, the number of new wastewater taps the increased
population will require each year, and associated Tap Fees. In order for the required cash
flow in these tables to occur, the Town Board, Planning Commission, and citizens have
the responsibility of allowing enough growth to proceed so that the number of new taps
for each year is met. If fewer new taps are allowed, the Town would be required to raise
user rates for existing customers to cover the debt service. Each alternative is first
evaluated assuming that the $7,000 tap fee, which took effect on February 1, 2005, will
not be increased in the future. The only alternative that has a positive cash flow in this
scenario is the West I-25/East SVSD WWTP Alternative 7. Alternatives 4, 4A, and 5
were evaluated to determine the number of prepaid taps that would be required by the
land owners east of 1-25 to meet the debt service assumptions. The analysis shows that
Alternatives 4, 4A, and 5 require 357, 154, and 31 prepaid taps, respectively.
Possible ways to raise the dollars needed for alternatives 4, 4A, and 5 are discussed in
Section H of this study, and the end result will require landowner participation in the
cost.
iii
In summary, the new WWTP location must be chosen based on who will contribute
wastewater to the plant, whether there will be any landowner contributions in the form of
tap fee pre-purchases, infrastructure installation, or other additional funding sources, and
how much money the Town can borrow and meet the debt service for each year. At this
time, there is a possibility that the property on the east side of I-25 may not participate in
the new WWTP. This should lead the Town to consider constructing the new WWTP on
the west side of 1-25 if the Town Board does not believe that the issue of growing the
Town and providing wastewater treatment east of I-25 is feasible. This decision can be
made once further discussions with the SVSD and the land owners are complete.
The alternatives preferred in this study and presented in order of preference are as
follows:
• Alternative 4A —East of WCR 17. This alternative considers a wastewater
treatment plant located east of WCR 17 and providing service to the entire 208
planning area, both east and west of 1-25, utilizing gravity flow to the treatment
plant. This alternative will require cooperation from Weld County in allowing the
Town to expand its growth boundary to WCR 17, and participation in the cost
from the land owners east of I-25.
• Alternative 4 - SVSD East and West. This alternative considers using a lift
station to pump wastewater to the SVSD WWTP for the entire service area, both
east and west of I-25. This alternative requires that the SVSD perform a rate
study and the results of the rate study establish a cost that makes this alternative
equal to or less than the cost for Alternative 4A. In addition, a master meter
agreement (Inter Governmental Agreement (IGA)) will need to be developed that
is acceptable to both parties.
• Alternative 5 — West of 1-25. This alternative considers constructing a WWTP
west of 1-25. This alternative would start out providing treatment for the area
west of 1-25 initially, with the possibility that the area east of 1-25 could pump to
the west 1-25 WWTP location. This alternative is the most costly alternative from
the perspective of serving the entire service area. However, this alternative
provides the least financial risk for the Town because all costs for developing the
wastewater collection system east of I-25 would be the responsibility of the land
owners, and would be constructed in phases as required by each development.
r
iv
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to provide the Town of Mead with a road map showing steps
necessary to get to the point of constructing a new outfall sewer and wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP). This study will be submitted to the State of Colorado and North Front
Range Water Quality Planning Association for necessary regulatory approvals, and will
be used to assist in obtaining grant and loan money for the project. Additional reports
and information will be required for submittal to the various agencies, and this plan will
describe the information that will be required.
In the past several years, the Town has examined the wastewater facilities through
various studies and reports. The documents produced have assessed the current situation,
as well as projected future needs for the existing and new facilities. This WWTP
Facilities Study will attempt to utilize the information from the past studies, while at the
same time updating the recommended course of action based on current conditions.
Section A of this plan is an Executive Summary of the 2001 Wastewater Feasibility
Study Update prepared by Jacobson Helgoth Consultants (JHC), with information
updated as necessary. Sections B-K build on the information from the 2001 study,
adding and/or summarizing recommendations based on current conditions.
Background and History
Upon dissolution of the Mead Sanitation District on January 1, 1993, the Town of Mead
assumed ownership and control of the wastewater treatment facilities serving the Town.
The Town of Mead has been designated as both a wastewater"Management Agency" and
an "Operating Agency"in the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association
("NFRWQPA") Areawide Water Quality Management Plan 2003 Update("WQMP").
The WQMP is a planning document mandated by Section 208 of the Clean Water Act,
which requires designation of waste treatment management agencies, and provides that
such agencies may only obtain discharge permits for wastewater treatment facilities
which are not in conflict with such a plan. Section 208 in conjunction with Section 201 of
the Clean Water Act also provides for designation of service areas for wastewater
treatment facilities and facility operators within the adopted regional plan. A copy of
Mead's Service Area, as designated in the WQMP, is attached in Appendix G.
The Town currently owns and operates two wastewater treatment facilities. The primary
facility is the Town of Mead WWTP located near downtown Mead. The other facility is
the Lake Thomas WWTP located east of I-25. Both facilities are aerated lagoon
WWTPs. The Lake Thomas WWTP treats only one small condominium complex, while
the Town of Mead WWTP treats the remainder of the Town's wastewater. The Town of
Mead WWTP is the main focus of this plan, but the Lake Thomas WWTP is discussed as
an option for increasing treatment capacity. Figures of the existing WWTP locations and
site plans can be found in Appendices G and H.
The main Town WWTP was originally constructed by the aforementioned former Mead
Sanitation District. Treatment is presently provided by a three-cell aerated lagoon system
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 1
including a fermentation cell, aeration cell, and settling cell. In 1992 and 1993, the two-
basin facultative lagoon treatment system was converted to an aerated lagoon treatment
system. Improvements included placing an earthen berm across Basin 2, which created
Basin 3, placing aerators into Basins 1 and 2, changing the method of chlorination, and
installing flow recording devices on both the influent and effluent sides of the plant.
Following a study of the system by the Town's consulting engineer, it was determined
that sludge needed to be removed from Basin 1 and that its detention time allowed algae
to grow and be discharged in the effluent, thereby exceeding the TSS for the plant. In
1995, the Town began bypassing Basin 1 of the plant and drying it for sludge removal.
Curtains were placed across Basin 2 to create three cells, and the polishing cell was also
bypassed. This effectively cut the detention time and allowed the plant to operate more
efficiently. In July 1996, Basin 1 was cleaned out and 1.1 million gallons of biosolids
were removed.
A new influent headwork structure was constructed in 1998. Four new 4,500-gallon
chlorine contact vaults were added in 2000. These tanks are sized for a 30-minute
detention at the peak flow rate of 180,000 gallons per day.
The WWTP currently treats an average of 80,000 gpd, and has the design capacity to
treat 140,000 gpd. However, the lagoon system has had treatment failures in the recent
past that make its ability to effectively treat the higher design flow questionable. The
accuracy of the flow meter is also in question, since recorded flows have not increased as
expected as new taps have been added to the system.
In 2000, the Town acquired the Lake Thomas Wastewater Treatment Plant. This facility
has a hydraulic and organic loading capacity of 12,000 gpd. The aerated lagoon facility
was constructed in 1989 and was used to serve the Country View Day Care Center.
Currently the facility is receiving minimal flow and has not discharged into Lake Thomas
since the day care facility was closed in late 1998. The day care center was renovated
and converted in 2001 to the Lake Ridge Condominium complex. The Lake Thomas
WWTP lagoon was also rehabilitated. New inlet and outlet structures, a new chlorine
contact chamber, rehabilitation of the lagoon banks, and removal of solids from the
bottom were completed in December of 2001.
The 12,000 gpd capacity of the Lake Thomas WWTP equates to an approximate
population of 120, assuming a contribution of 100 gpcd. The flow from Lake Ridge
Condominiums is expected to be in the range of 5000 gallons per day for the 29 units
available. This flow recognizes an average population density of 1.75 residents per unit,
because the complex is targeted to senior citizens. Considering the remaining 7,000 gpd,
an additional 23 single-family residences (beyond the existing 29 units of Lake Ridge)
could be connected to this facility.
r
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 2
A. Executive Summary of 2001 Feasibility Study Update
In August 2001, Jacobson Helgoth Consultants (JHC) submitted the "Wastewater
Feasibility Study Update" final draft report to the Town. Information compiled in the
study includes service area delineation, population growth projections, effluent
limitations, trunk sewer general routing, and treatment alternatives.
This section provides a summary of Chapters 2 through 7 of the Wastewater Feasibility
Study Update, August 2001.
A.I. Introduction
The purpose of the "Wastewater Feasibility Study Update" final draft report to the Town,
was to update a 1992 Wastewater System Feasibility Study for the Town of Mead. The
service area under study contained 18.2 square miles or 11,650 acres. Since development
of the study, the Mead 208 service area boundary was expanded to include land east of
WCR 13 approximately one half mile. A service area map is attached as Appendix G.
A.2. Effluent Limitations
The Town currently has a State of Colorado Discharge Permit that will be effective until
December 31, 2009. The permit hydraulic and organic loading is based on a maximum
flow of 140,000 gallons per day (gpd) and 333 pounds of BOD.
For the year 2001, the WWTP treated an average flow of 72,000 gpd and 171 pounds per
day of BOD. Based on the 2000 census data and added taps in 2001, approximately 1000
people were served by the existing WWTP in 2001, which results in 75 gallons per capita
per day(gpcd) contribution to the WWTP. This calculation indicates that Mead per
capita wastewater flows are low compared to the national average of 100 gpcd.
Review of the flows from 2002-2004 indicates the flow has not increased, but this cannot
be accurate since approximately 100 taps have been added to the system during this time.
Although influent and effluent flows continue to be recorded, the flow meters at the
WWTP do not seem to be accurately measuring the flow, most likely due to the 750 gpm
pump surges from the Feather Ridge pump station which began operating in 2001. Using
the historical Mead average of 75 gpcd of wastewater, with 500 taps and 3.15 people per
tap, the actual 2004 flow could be as high as 118,125 gpd. The analyses in this study
assume a 2004 flow of 100,000 gpd in 3% growth scenarios and 110,000 gpd in 5%
growth scenarios, which are both higher than the 68,000 gpd that is being recorded.
If the flow meter is recording flows accurately, two other possibilities for the low flows
are 1) exfiltration through a leak in the system, or 2) the per capita water consumption for
the Town is very low. There is no evidence of a large leak in the wastewater system, and
it is very unlikely that the average consumption in Mead is that much lower than the
national average. In order to make accurate evaluations of current conditions, and to
accurately project future conditions, the Town must install a V-notch weir with a recorder
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 3
on the effluent side of the plant. This will avoid the flow surges that are encountered by
the influent meter.
BOD from 2001-2004 has increased an average of 20 pounds per day each year, with
January through August 2004 averaging 190 pounds per day.
In summary, the existing treatment facilities are treating somewhere between 49 and 84
percent of the design capacity. This range is calculated from the metered flow of 68,000
gpd (49%)to the probable flow, which is calculated to be 118,125 gpd (84%).
A.3. Current Situation
The 2000 population for Mead was determined to be 2017 with 641 occupied housing
units. The WWTP serviced 400 taps in 2001 and nearly all taps are single-family
residences.
The Town maintains two lift stations, one east of the Feather Ridge Subdivision, and one
in the North Creek Subdivision. The Feather Ridge lift station is intended to be a
temporary lift station until an interceptor sewer is constructed to a new WWTP east of I-
25, at which time it will be connected to the outfall sewer.
All wastewater is currently being treated in Basin 2. Basins 1 and 3 are not in use.
A.4. Future Situation
The study predicts that the service area population could reach 17,400 by the year 2020.
At this population, an average flow of 1.74 mgd would occur based on an average flow of
100 gpcd.
Typically, WWTPs are constructed in phases to lessen the cost burden on current users.
Utilizing 1.0 mgd increments of capacity for the new WWTP in the early years of a
growing system is recommended. The evaluations performed in the next sections will
assume starting with a 1.0 mgd WWTP.
A.5. Alternatives
Four alternatives were evaluated in the study for replacing the existing WWTPs. The
four alternatives considered three alternative plant sites located in the Town's service
area and one alternative for pumping the flow to the St. Vrain Sanitation District for
treatment. The alternative locations can be seen on the map in Appendix I, labeled I, 2,
3, and 4.
The location and cost for the new WWTP and outfall sewer alternatives are indicated
below.
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 4
Location Estimated Cost
Alternative 1 1-25 at North Creek $5,746,000
Alternative 2 North Creek above Lake Thomas $6,334,000
Alternative 3 North Creek below Lake Thomas $6,334,000
Alternative 4 St. Vrain Sanitation District $7,343,000
Cost estimates for these four alternatives are included in Appendix A.
A recommended or preferred alternative was not named in the report. It is believed that
the Lake Thomas WWTP could be abandoned under Alternatives 3 and 4. These two
alternatives would allow the outfall sewer to be located near the existing Lake Thomas
WWTP.
A.6. Plan Selection
The report recommended that a public hearing be conducted to obtain public input for the
study results. The public hearing has not occurred and additional information will be
required before a public hearing is appropriate. Information developed later in this report
will provide the necessary information for the public hearing.
This section of the report also noted that the implementation plan was to follow the
public hearing. The implementation plan will be addressed later in this study.
Funding alternatives were presented that included the following:
• Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)
➢ State Sewer Construction Grant Program
> Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund
• United States Department of Agriculture
➢ Water and Waste Program
• Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority
> State Revolving Loan Fund
• Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA)
> Energy & Mineral Impact Assistance Grants and Loans
> Community Development Block Grants
> Rural Development Authority Loans
Typically it is very difficult to obtain grants for infrastructure for new development. The
Town should be able to receive a grant for the existing flow portion of the WWTP as
follows, depending on the growth projection and size of new plant:
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 5
• Grant Amount for 1 mgd plant & 5%growth:
110,000 gpd/1,000,000 gpd = 11 percent of the total cost
• Grant Amount for 0.5 mgd plant & 3% growth:
100,000 gpd/500,000 gpd = 20 percent of the total cost
Loan money is available for the remaining construction cost through the above-named
agencies at an interest rate of 3.5 to 4 percent. The cash flow analyses in this study
assume a rate of 4 percent. To apply for loans, the Town must have completed the
Preliminary Engineering Report, the Environmental Assessment, and the Public
Meetings. The site application and the construction documents are approved after the
loan application is approved.
In recent discussions with CDPHE and DOLA, these agencies indicated that the Town of
Mead is a good candidate for the grant and loan programs. DOLA, who will conduct the
financial needs assessment and financial condition of the Town for the loan programs,
stated that the Town's assessed value of$22 million in 2001, coupled with minimal
existing debt, indicate that the Town is in excellent financial condition for obtaining a
loan for the WWTP. These agencies also stated that the Town can borrow 100 percent of
construction and engineering costs if it desires. The cash flow analyses in this study
assume the Town will borrow only 60% of the total cost, but this issue should be further
analyzed when the WWTP site is chosen and financial projections are finalized. With the
low interest rates currently in place, it may be more desirable to borrow a higher
percentage, and use the cash reserves as the debt service pledge.
B. Population Projection Alternatives
In the JHC "Feasibility Study", a population projection was made for the proposed
WWTP. The projection resulted in a 2020 population of 17,372. This projection was
compared with growth projections that have been developed by the state of Colorado.
The growth projection for this region of the state varied from 1.1 to a maximum of 5.2
percent annually. A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the total increase in
population based on three different levels of growth. The graph below shows the
historical growth compared with alternative projections of 3, 5, and 10 percent.
Town of Mead, Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 6
Town of Mead,Colorado
Population Projection
25000
2 2 M54
0000
15000
es
e
e
a 10000
6.830
5000 .__.__. j _._____ —__.
4,223.
I i
0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Year
t Historical Population-4—3%Growth milE-5%Growth —U—10%Growth
r
After review with the Town Manager and Town Board, it was agreed that the Town
would most likely achieve a 5 percent average annual growth rather than the 3 percent
growth. This is based on the number of annexations that are being processed and the
knowledge that northern Colorado is a desirable place to reside. The 10 percent growth
was presented as a growth projection twice the anticipated five percent value.
The 5 percent growth applies to the areas west and east of I-25 for sizing the WWTP.
When only the west side is used to size the plant, 3 percent growth is used. This
difference in growth projections is due to a significant portion of the service area west of
I-25 consisting of large lots with septic systems, which will not contribute flow to the
WWTP.
The projected growth will need to be compared with actual growth periodically to make
adjustments in the capital improvement plan and resulting financial plan.
C. Additional Alternatives
Since the 2001 Wastewater Feasibility Study Update, seven additional alternative
locations have been identified due to new circumstances and possible future
development. These locations can be seen on the map in Appendix I, labeled 1A, 2A,
�.� 3A, 4A, 5, 6 and 7, along with the four original alternatives.
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 7
Four of these alternatives -- 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A -- are outside the existing 208 Service Area,
but correspond with the Mead Area of Influence indicated in the 2004 Mead
Comprehensive Plan. Since these four alternatives are further east than the original four
alternatives, a larger service area can be accommodated, and none of the alternatives
require pump stations.
D. Selecting an Alternative
Although eleven alternatives have been considered, they were narrowed down to the top
five for further analysis in this section. Alternatives were eliminated from further
evaluation if they were very similar to another alternative. Preference was given to
alternatives that provide service to a greater area for about the same cost as another
alternative serving a smaller area.
D.I. Alternative Screening
Selection of a wastewater management plan is a difficult task. Although cost is an
important element, it cannot be used as the sole criteria in making decisions. In this
facilities study, the following criteria will be used in selecting the recommended plan:
• Capital Cost
• Operation and Maintenance Cost
• Total Present Worth Cost Comparison
• Energy Consumption
• Staffing Requirements
• Wetlands
• Floodplain Impacts
• Socioeconomic Impacts
• Reliability
• Flexibility
• Expandability
• Operational Complexity
• Implementation
For some of these criteria, a direct comparison can be made of the relative advantages or
disadvantages. For example, capital costs and annual energy consumption can be
quantitatively defined and compared. However, the rating of other parameters, such as
socioeconomic impacts, is a subjective process because benefits and adverse impacts
cannot be directly quantified and mean different things to different people.
D.2. Selected Alternatives
The five alternatives selected for further evaluation are as follows:
• Alternative 4A: East of WCR 17. This alternative considers a WWTP located
east of WCR 17 and providing service to the entire 208 planning area east and
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 8
west of I-25, utilizing gravity flow to the treatment plant.
• Alternative 4: SVSD East and West. This alternative considers using a lift
station to pump wastewater to the SVSD treatment plant for the entire service area
east and west of I-25.
• Alternative 5: West of I-25. This alternative considers constructing a WWTP
west of 1-25. This alternative would start out providing treatment for the area
west of I-25 initially with the possibility that the area east of 1-25 could pump to
the west I-25 WWTP location should there be a need.
• Alternative 6: SVSD West. This alternative is similar to Alternative 4 except
the lift station that pumps to the SVSD WWTP would be sized to initially
accommodate flows only from the west side of 1-25. This alternative could also
be phased and allow for serving the east 1-25 area. The capacity needs of the lift
station and sewer interceptors would have to be re-calculated. In this scenario, all
the financial risk would be placed on the developers instead of the Town.
• Alternative 7: West 1-25/East SVSD. This alternative considers a combination
of constructing a new WWTP west of I-25 (Alternative 5) to treat flows west of 1-
25, and constructing a lift station to pump to the SVSD WWTP (Alternative 4) for
flows east of 1-25.
See Appendix I for exhibits for each of these five alternatives, showing WWTP, lift
station, interceptor sewer, and force main locations and sizes. Appendix A presents the
capital cost of all infrastructure.
In Sections D.3. and D.4. that follow, these five alternatives are evaluated according to
the criteria described in Section D.1. above, and are ranked in order of preference.
D.3. Total Present Worth
A present worth analysis is used to determine the most cost-effective alternative. The
total present worth is the amount of money, if invested at a specified interest rate, that
would pay for all capital and Operating and Maintenance (O&M) costs over the life of
the planning period. Items included in the present worth evaluation are probable
construction cost, contingencies, engineering fees, O&M costs, and the remaining value
of improvements at the end of the design period.
The following table, Table D-1, summarizes the present worth cost for the five
alternatives evaluated herein.
ors
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 9
> >
Table D-1
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE COSTS: CAPITAL,OPERATIONS& MAINTENANCE,AND PRESENT WORTH
WWTP Alternative Locations
7 5 4A 6 4
West 1-25 & East of
East SVSD West of I-25 WCR 17 SVSD West SVSD E&W
Item 0.5 mgd 1 mgd I mgd 0.5 mgd 1 mgd
Total 2008 Cost for WWTP and/or Lift
Station for SVSD, including outfall sewers,
PIFs,contingencies,engineering,etc. $3,341,089 $5,593,022 $7,354,772 $8,025,799 $11,206,498
SVSD Plant Investment Costs
($5,525/SFE,500 taps as of 9/04)(1) $0 $0 $0 $3,315,000 $3,315,000
Outfall Sewer Length, fl 6.000 6,000 25,/00 27,800 27,800
Outfall Sewer Cost $240,000 $240,000 $1,545,000 $1,545,000 $1,707,000
Initial 2008 Capital Cost $3,341,089 $5,593,022 $7,354,772 $8,025,799 $11,206,498
2020 Plant Upgrade(No Capacity)(2) $775,272 $1,338,255 $1,452,443 $226,259 $678,777
Total 20 Year Cost $4,116,361 $6,931,277 $8,807,215 $8,252,058 $11,885,275
Present Worth Costs
Total Capital Cost $4,116,361 $6,931,277 $8,807,215 $8,252,058 $11,885,275
Remaining Value(negative value)in 2030 $2,008,363 $3,275,075 $4,967,497 $1,568,068 $2,947,403
O&M Cost.$/Year(3) $132,762 $132,762 $145,262 $133,850 $133,850
O&M Gradient Increase Begins 2010 $6,600 $6,600 $7,000 $7,780 $12,100
Total Present Worth in 2005 Dollars $4,511,411 $6,199,798 $7,252,683 $8,342,565 $11,086,864
Difference In Present Worth,$ $0 $1,688,387 $2,741,272 $3,831,154 $6,575,453
Difference In Present Worth,% 0% 37% 61% 85% 146%
Notes:
(I) Plant investment fee(PIF)that would have to be paid for existing customers.
(2) This line item is to repair/replace major components,which is periodically necessary,not to add new capacity.
(3) SVSD master meter fee is part of the O&NI costs for Alternatives 4 and 6. It is assumed to be$18.00 per customer per month,which is
$4 less than the$22 SVSD monthly customer fee,to account for subtracting the portion of the fee that applies to SVSD distribution lines.
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 10
Probable construction cost estimates for treatment facilities and the outfall sewer were
determined from the JHC study and some further evaluation of interceptor sewers. O&M
costs were obtained from estimates provided by the contract operator for the St. Vrain
Sanitation District WWTP.
The criteria used to determine the present worth of the alternatives are listed below:
• Planning period (2010 to 2030) 20 years of operation
• Service life
o Structures 50 years
o Pipelines 50 years
o Equipment 20 years
o Basins 30 years
• Interest rate 4 percent
• Allowance for contingencies 20 percent
• Allowance for engineering, legal
and administrative costs 15 Percent
It should be noted that cost estimation procedures are approximate, and therefore
alternatives that have total present worth within 15 percent of each other should be
considered as having the same cost. The selection of an alternative should then be based
�-. on other non-monetary factors.
The present worth analysis shown in Table D-1 assumes that a new treatment plant will
need to be on line in November 2009 to meet the conditions of the State Compliance
Order regarding ammonia removal. It is assumed construction will begin in 2008. The
Town's current aerated lagoon will provide service on the west side of I-25 until a new
WWTP is operational. However, the aerated lagoon will need to be improved to meet the
growth needs on the west side prior to the new WWTP being built.
For the SVSD alternatives, the Town will need to reserve capacity in the plant for future
growth. The details of reserving this capacity have not yet been addressed, and the cost is
unknown. As such, this cost is missing from the cost analysis at this time. Another
consideration for the SVSD alternatives is that the lift station, force main, and gravity
sewer from County Road 13.5 to the SVSD WWTP are major infrastructure items needed
by any entity in the area to pump wastewater to SVSD. With this in mind, the Town
could approach the SVSD regarding sharing in these costs, since the infrastructure
ultimately benefits the SVSD by bringing in wastewater customers to fully utilize the
SVSD WWTP, which is currently running at less than one-third of its capacity.
In summary, this analysis shows that the least expensive alternative from a capital cost
and present worth analysis is Alternative 7, to locate the treatment plant west of 1-25, and
to pump the east side wastewater to SVSD. Alternative 5 is similar to Alternative 7, in
that the Town is responsible only for the WWTP and interceptors west of 1-25, but
Alternative 5 assumes a 1.0 mgd WWTP instead of a 0.5 mgd. Alternative 4A costs
more, but has the ability to provide gravity flow service to the Town's entire current 208
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 11
,e^ planning boundary, plus some additional service area. Alternatives 4 and 6 cost more,
but require fewer personnel since the Town would only have to run a lift station instead
of a WWTP. Alternatives 4 and 6 also eliminate the need for the Town to have a NPDES
permit for a WWTP. It should also be recognized that the area being served by each of
the alternatives needs to be considered in the selection process.
D.4. Alternative Ranking
The purpose of this section is to summarize the alternative analysis with respect to a
number of evaluation criteria, including capital and O & M costs. It is convenient to do
this in the form of a summary matrix. This is presented as Table D-2.
Alternative Location
7 5 4A 6 4
West 1-25/ West of East of SVSD SVSD
Evaluation Criteria East SVSD 1-25 WCR 17 West E & W
1 Capital Cost 1 2 3 3 4
2O & MCost 1 2 4 3 3
3 Energy Consumption 4 2 3 1 2
4 Staffing Requirements 3 3 2 1 I
5 Wetlands 1 4 4 2 3
6 Flood Plain Impacts 3 1 2 4 4
7 Socioeconomic Impacts 3 4 1 2 2
8 Reliability 3 2 1 4 4
9 Flexibility 2 3 l 4 3
10 Expandability 3 2 1 4 4
11 Operational Complexity 4 3 2 1 1
12 Implementation 2 1 3 4 4
Total Score 30 29 27 33 35
Summary Ranking 3 2 1 4 5
Notes:
1. The rating system is based on a maximum scale of 1 through 4 with 1 being "best." The
lower total score is the best ranking.
2. Alternative 4A is the only alternative that provides gravity flow to the entire service area.
Each criterion is given the same weight, and lower values are indicative of a better rating.
Other than cost comparisons, subjective judgment can be made and the rationale for the
rankings is provided in the sections that follow. Although this evaluation will lead to a
selection of a recommended plan, it is understood that not everyone will agree with all
items presented herein. It does represent a consensus of thought between JR Engineering
and the Town of Mead officials involved with this project.
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 12
Lines I and 2. Capital cost and operation and maintenance cost These items are
ranked as presented in the present worth evaluation.
The length and cost for outfall sewer pipe required is broken out in the Summary of
Alternative Costs to emphasize the effect the pipe length has on the overall cost estimate
for each alternative. The further east a new WWTP is built, the faster the total cost rises.
Land owners in the east side of the service area would benefit significantly by having the
treatment plant readily accessible to their land by gravity flow. However, the millions of
dollars of additional cost will increase the financial burden on the Town, unless the
adjacent land owners elect to front the Town additional money for having the
convenience of a treatment plant available without the need and expense to pump back to
a plant located further west.
It must be noted that the capital costs for the SVSD alternatives could change
significantly if the Plant Investment Fee assumed in this study is changed. The Town is
trying to establish discussion with the SVSD to determine the legitimacy of the current
cost estimates. If the costs can be lowered, the Town would be much more interested in
pursuing the SVSD alternatives.
Line 3. Energy Consumption. This rating is based only on electricity and fuel used to
operate the facilities and does not include energy consumption for construction.
Although the SVSD alternatives would consume the most power due to the need to
operate both a treatment plant and a lift station, the treatment plant energy costs are
already accounted for in the Master Meter Fees charged to the Town. In general, it is
assumed that a lift station consumes less energy than a WWTP of the same size.
Therefore, Alternative 4 and 6 will require less energy than Alternatives 4A, 5, and 7, and
Alternative 6 will require less than Alternative 5. Alternative 5 will require less energy
than Alternatives 3 and 4A, since it is only a 0.5 mgd treatment plant as opposed to 1.0
mgd.
Line 4. Staffing Requirements. Total staffing requirements for the SVSD alternatives
are considerably higher than the other two treatment alternatives due to the need to
operate a major lift station and a WWTP, but the WWTP staff is already accounted for in
the Master Meter Fees charged to the Town. A lift station will only require one staff
member to periodically check its operation. A WWTP of this size and complexity will
require 2-3 staff members for operation 24 hours a day.
Line S. Wetlands. Wetland impacts will result from location of the outfall sewer that
will be installed along the bottom of the draw to Lake Thomas. The longer the outfall,
the greater the impact on the wetlands. Most of the wetlands that could be affected by the
alternative WWTP locations are upstream of Lake Thomas. The ranking was based on
the outfall with the least length being a lower number than the outfall with the longer
length. The WWTP will need to be located above the 100-year flood plain, so the
treatment plant will not impact the wetlands.
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 13
Line 6. Floodplain Impacts. All the alternatives will require constructing the outfall in
the floodplain. The SVSD treatment plant is located next to the St. Vrain River and is
adjacent to the 100-year flood plain. The WCR 17 plant would be in a similar location
next to the St. Vrain River. The west of 1-25 treatment plant location is not adjacent to a
major river. Therefore, the SVSD and WCR 17 treatment plants have the possibility of
incurring significant damage from a major flood while the west of I-25 treatment plant
location would not. The WCR 17 interceptor sewer would not have to cross the
floodplain, but the SVSD interceptor sewer would. Again, the length of the outfall was
also used to rank this category.
Line 7. Socioeconomic Impacts. This category is based on the traffic, noise, dust, odor,
aesthetic, and political impacts of each alternative. This item is probably the most
subjective of all the ranking criteria.
The SVSD alternatives have the most potential for impacts due to political concerns that
could arise when a public service is being provided by two units of government instead of
it all being controlled by one, but the aesthetic impacts would be smaller than the Mead
treatment plant alternatives. Alternative 4A would have less impact on the surrounding
area than Alternatives 5 and 7 because much of the land is in a floodplain, which will not
be developed. The low-lying land will allow the plant to be less visible to the
surrounding areas, and the buffer will also allow dissipation of odors, which will keep
them from spreading to any adjacent inhabited areas.
A requirement affecting all possible WWTP location alternatives is the enforcement of
minimum setbacks from wastewater treatment works to habitable structures. The setback
requirements are given in Colorado Water Quality Control Division Policy No. WQSA-7.
Mechanical plants with 100,000 gpd capacity or greater must be located at least 1,000
feet from habitable structures, which includes residences, schools, and commercial
structures. As the possible alternatives are being considered, development is progressing,
and in some cases is eliminating alternative locations as possibilities. It is possible to
have the Division approve a site within the 1000-foot boundary if mitigating factors are
approved, but it is much better for long term planning and future community relations to
meet the 1000-foot boundary.
(Some previously considered alternatives are not being further analyzed due to the above
setback requirements. Alternatives 1A, 2A, and 3A are now problematic alternatives
because new houses have been built in the vicinity of these locations since they were first
considered.)
Line 8. Reliability. The treatment plant below Lake Thomas would be the most reliable
due to serving the largest treatment area. The SVSD alternative would be the least
reliable due to the need to operate a lift station 365 days a year. Standby power would
need to be provided to limit overflows due to power failures, but other mechanical
equipment/electrical equipment can fail, resulting in the possibility of an overflow.
Typically, WWTPs are staffed 24 hours per day to allow for managing equipment
failures. In addition, the redundancy of equipment and basins provides for a more
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 14
reliable system. However, it should be realized that many lift stations have been
designed to be very reliable, and thus this is not a serious issue.
Line 9. Flexibility. Flexibility includes the ability to meet changing flow and treatment
plant strength requirements. Typically, activated sludge treatment plants, as
recommended, are designed to receive changes in flow and strength. The SVSD
alternatives 4 and 6, would require close monitoring of the lift station to make sure the
peak flow is adequately pumped to the treatment plant.
Line 10. Expandability. This item views the ability to expand the treatment plant and
area serving the WWTP. Expanding the service area for the SVSD alternative would be
the most difficult. The treatment plants located above Lake Thomas would require lift
stations to serve development downstream.
Line 11. Operational Complexity. The SVSD alternatives 4 and 6 will be more complex
to operate due to the need for a major lift station that must operate 365 days out of the
year. The Mead treatment plants would not require lift stations to deliver flow.
However, the Mead treatment plants will require a permit to operate, and will be required
to report regularly to the state on effluent parameters.
Line 12. Implementation. The SVSD alternatives 4 and 6 will require preparation of an
intergovernmental agreement(IGA)to implement. Implementing treatment plant
locations west of I-25 will result in far more public concern from adjacent residents as
compared to east of WCR 17. Alternative 5 can be financed without contributions from
developers or other sources. Alternatives 4, 4A, 5, and 6 will require funding
contributions, or Tap Fees will have to be raised. This category is ranked according to
the funds deficit shown in the cash flow section of the Capital Improvement tables in
Appendices B and C, as well as concerns with IGA requirements.
E. Preferred Alternatives
The alternatives ranked in order from best to worst according to Table D-2 are 4A, 5, 7,
6, and 4. However, the preferred alternatives of the Town are Alternatives 4A, 4, and 5.
This is because these alternatives all provide service to the entire service area, and each
involve only one governmental entity for wastewater treatment. In order to choose the
best alternative, the Town must have further discussions with the SVSD and land owners
on the east side of 1-25. The Town must further evaluate the SVSD alternative by
completing the cost of service study to validate the required Plant Investment Fees, and
determine if the land owners east of I-25 would participate in the WCR 17 or SVSD
alternatives by pre-purchasing taps.
The alternatives preferred in this study and presented in order of preference are as
follows:
• Alternative 4A: East of WCR 17. This alternative considers a wastewater
treatment plant located east of WCR 17 and providing service to the entire 208
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 15
planning area, both east and west of I-25, utilizing gravity flow to the treatment
plant. This alternative will require cooperation from Weld County in allowing the
Town to expand its growth boundary to WCR 17, and participation in the cost
from the land owners east of 1-25.
• Alternative 4: SVSD East and West. This alternative considers using a lift
station to pump wastewater to the SVSD WWTP for the entire service area, both
east and west of I-25. This alternative requires that the SVSD perform a rate
study and the results of the rate study establish a cost that makes this alternative
equal to or less than the cost for Alternative 4A. In addition, a master meter
agreement (IGA) will need to be developed that is acceptable to both parties.
• Alternative 5: West of 1-25. This alternative considers constructing a WWTP
west of I-25. This alternative would start out providing treatment for the area
west of I-25 initially, with the possibility that the area east of I-25 could pump to
the west I-25 WWTP location. This alternative is the most costly alternative from
the perspective of serving the entire service area. However, this alternative
provides the least financial risk for the Town because all costs for developing the
wastewater collection system east of I-25 would be the responsibility of the land
owners, and would be constructed in phases as required by each development.
F. 20-Year Capital Improvement Plan Alternatives
The proposed 20 year capital improvement plan for the Town originally called for
utilizing the existing WWTP to its full capacity prior to constructing a new WWTP. This
capital improvement plan assumed that the State would allow utilizing the existing
aerated lagoon treatment system. However, new stream standards for ammonia now
require the Town to construct a mechanical plant earlier than needed due only to
population growth. A new WWTP capable of removing ammonia must be operational by
November 1, 2009, and must be meeting all permit limits by December 1, 2009.
Improvements to the existing WWTP aerated lagoon need to be accomplished in 2005 to
ensure that the existing plant adequately treats the wastewater until 2009, but these
improvements will be kept to the minimum amount necessary.
F.1 Phasing Existing WWTP Improvements
In the December 1999 report titled, "Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Evaluation
Report", JR Engineering determined a schedule of improvements that would allow
increasing the existing treatment plant capacity to 320,000 gpd. This study indicated that
the current capacity of the WWTP is believed to be in the range of 105,000 gpd while the
current flows being treated are in the range of 75,000 gpd. This results in a remaining
capacity of 30,000 gpd and equates to adding approximately 127 taps. This capacity is
based on 75 gpcd and 3.15 people per single-family residence. As of the date of this
report, approximately 100 taps have been added in 2003 and 2004, and as previously
mentioned, recorded flows do not appear to be accurate. Since flows may be closer to
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 16
118,125 gpd instead of 75,000 gpd, the Town could already be behind in updating the
existing WWTP.
Listed below is a summary of phased improvements that would achieve an ultimate
capacity of 320,000 gpd. Since the new WWTP will be operational in 2009, the upgrade
from 180,000 gpd to 320,000 gpd would no longer be required.
Table F-1
Phased Maximum Additional Total Construction
Improvements Flow, gpd Taps Served Population Cost, $
(1) (4)
Phase 1 105,000 127 1400 156,000
Phase 2 125,000 85 1667 167,000
Phase 3 (2) 140,000 63 1866 85,000
New Permit (3) 180,000 169 2400 100,000
Phase 4 (5, 6) 320,000 571 3200 945,000
Notes:
1. Existing population served by the WWTP is estimated at 1000 with a
per-capita flow of 75 gpd
�-. 2. Cost for expansion to 180,000 gpd.
3. Cost to revise permit from 140,000 gpd to 320,000 gpd.
4. Construction costs have been inflated using the Engineering News-Record
construction cost index. (Jan 2000 = 6130, Sep 2004 = 7298)
5. Per-capita flow of 75 gpcd used to determine"total population" and
"additional taps served" for Phases 1 to 3. A flow of 100 gpcd is used for
Phase 4.
6. The model was developed in 2002. Due to new ammonia limits that took
effect on January 1, 2005, Phase 4 is no longer viable since it will not bring
the existing WWTP into compliance with ammonia standards. Instead, the
new WWTP is being scheduled for construction to meet the state compliance
order of November 1, 2009. The new plant must meet all permit limits by
December 1, 2009.
Several years have passed since the above recommendations were made in the 1999 JR
Engineering report, and none of the recommended phased improvements have been
completed to date. JR Engineering now recommends that the phases be accomplished in
one project in 2005, so that the existing facility will function well for the remaining five
years of its life through 2009. Rehabilitation of the existing in-service lagoon, Basin 2, is
recommended. A preliminary cost estimate for this rehabilitation is included in
Appendix A, and the costs are also included in the Capital Improvement Schedules in
Appendices B and C. The rehabilitation design and cost estimate need to be further
analyzed to ensure the lagoon capacity is consistent with the projected flows, but this cost
estimate meets the requirements of the conceptual nature of this analysis.
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 17
At a cost of$328,670, the rehabilitation of Basin 2 will cost much less than the phased
improvements, which total $1.5 million, allowing the Town's money to be spent more
wisely on the new WWTP. Also, with only five years left, completing one project to
increase the lagoon's life will be more efficient than trying to implement several phases
of improvements.
F.2 Discharge Permit Issues
The Town's new NPDES permit became effective on January 1, 2005, and will expire on
December 31, 2009. The new permit incorporates an ammonia discharge limit, which the
Town is not capable of meeting with its current aerated lagoon treatment facility.
Accordingly, a compliance schedule was included in the new permit. The compliance
schedule allows the Town a five year permit period to perform the necessary treatment
plant improvements.
The compliance schedule is as follows:
Task Deadline
Submit plan to meet discharge limits and increase hydraulic October 1, 2005
and organic loading.
Site Application and Preliminary Effluent Limits May 1, 2006
Final Plans, Specifications, and Construction Schedule October 1, 2006
Progress Reports and Updated Schedule July 1, 2007, 2008, 2009
WWTP Complete and Operational November 1, 2009
WWTP Meeting All Permit Limits December 1, 2009
With this compliance schedule, the Town has a couple of options, as follows:
I. Design, construct and begin operation of a new treatment plant by November 1,
2009.
2. Investigate technology that would allow using the existing lagoon site until such
time as a new treatment plant is required by population growth.
Currently, the state does not recognize aerated lagoon technology as a process that will
reliably remove ammonia from wastewater. There are some states that are beginning to
accept modified aerated lagoon technology for ammonia removal. These aerated lagoons
are generally modified to include recycle flows and clarification equipment. The cost for
these improvements has not been investigated. Additional research and meetings with
the state will be required to determine if Option 2 is viable. That investigation exceeds
the scope of this study. Furthermore, the Town has been pursuing the option of moving
the WWTP away from the Town's core to allow for a larger service area. Relocating the
WWTP east of 1-25 would reduce the number of lift stations needed to serve the area east
of I-25.
re`
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 18
F.3 Capital Improvement Schedule
Appendix B presents the capital improvement schedules for Alternatives 4, 4A, and 5,
which are the three alternatives being considered for implementation. Appendix C
presents the capital improvement schedules for Alternatives 6 and 7, which are no longer
being considered. The top three lines in these schedules present the population, WWTP
flow, and number of taps assumed for each year from 2004 to 2030. The schedules for
Alternatives 6 and 7 are based on an assumed population growth of 3 percent each year as
was illustrated in the population section of this report, and only treating wastewater from
the west side of I-25. The schedules for Alternatives 4, 4A, and 5 are based on an
assumed population growth of 5 percent each year and treating wastewater east and west
of I-25. The costs to upgrade the existing WWTP were placed under the year in which
the improvement must be completed to assure adequate treatment plant capacity for the
population and flow being served. In addition, the new WWTP improvements will need
to start design in 2005 in order to have the WWTP operational by the time the existing
WWTP flow reaches its maximum capacity and the state compliance order must be met
in 2009.
G. Financial Considerations
Development of a financial plan for design and construction of new WWTP
improvements requires extensive evaluation of the Town's wastewater tap-on fees,
wastewater user rates, availability of grants and loans, and bonding or repayment
capacity. The Town will ultimately need to perform a detailed rate study prior to
obtaining the funds necessary to construct a new WWTP.
A preliminary tap-on fee model was created to determine the approximate range for tap-
on fees required to fund the new WWTP. This model, tailored to each alternative, is at
the bottom of the capital improvement schedules in Appendices B and C, and shows the
cash flow expected from current tap-on fees, as well as increased tap-on fees.
The assumptions that were made in this model are as follows:
• Tap-on fee revenues are based on the number of taps that are indicated at the top
of the schedule.
• Revenue calculations were based on the tap-on fee account balance from 2003,
the 2004 tap-on fee of$6,000, the current tap-on fee of$7,000, and the minimum
required to fund the particular WWTP alternative.
• Construction costs were assumed to inflate 3.5 percent each year.
• Interest on savings is 3 percent.
• The interest rate on borrowed money is 4 percent.
• Borrowing for the new treatment plant is limited to 60 percent of the total cost.
• No financial aid is included; however the Town should pursue available grants
f^ when the new treatment plant is constructed.
• No funding is provided from existing customer revenues.
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 19
Results of the preliminary model for Alternative 7 shows that the Town can cash finance
the existing WWTP improvements with the current tap-on fees of$7,000 per tap. In
looking at the new WWTP where costs will start occurring in 2005, the $7,000 tap-on fee
will also generate enough revenue to meet the annual debt service of$147,502. This debt
service results from financing $2.0 million of the total probable cost of$3.3 million that
will be required for the new WWTP.
There do not appear to be adequate funds to implement Alternatives 4, 4A, 5, and 6,
according to the current cash flow projections. This could change depending on the
outcome of discussions with the SVSD and the land owners east of I-25.
Further evaluation of this model will be required in the future to assure that adequate
funds are available for the new WWTP improvements. It should be noted that all cost
estimates are conceptual at this time, and are based on previous studies completed for the
Town.
H. I-25 East Development Financial Considerations
The financial analyses presented in the Capital Improvement Schedules in Appendices B
and C do not account for all infrastructure required for development east of I-25.
Alternatives 6 and 7 include nothing for the east side, while Alternative 5 includes excess
WWTP capacity for the east side. Alternatives 4 and 4A include excess capacity in the
lift station and WWTP, respectively, plus interceptor sewers that are closer to the east
side property. The land owners will be required to build interceptor sewers to tie into the
Town sewers, and will be required to construct lift stations that serve their property alone.
Development east of 1-25 will require the new WWTP be larger than for the west side
alone, which greatly increases the cost. Other significant cost increases for building a
WWTP east of 1-25 are due to the longer and larger diameter pipelines that are required.
If the Town desires to construct a new WWTP to treat flow from the east and west sides
of I-25, or chooses to pump wastewater to the St. Vrain Sanitation District to
accommodate the east and west, a plan will have to be implemented to raise the needed
dollars to fund these alternatives. Possible ways to raise the dollars needed are as
follows:
1. Reduce upgrades to the existing plant: this is a risky plan since the existing plant
is already having effluent violations each year, and improvements recommended
in this study have already been reduced from previous recommendations.
2. Have land owners or developers pre-purchase taps: with the current situation, it
does not appear that the land owners or developers east of I-25 are currently
considering this. An option to increase land owner and developer participation
would be to change the Town's policy so that the Town can provide wastewater
service to properties that do not annex to the Town.
'•-" 3. Find a source for borrowing more than 60% of the total construction cost: must
determine if this is possible.
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 20
4. Raise Tap Fees to $8,000 or more, depending on the alternative: this could
backfire if raising tap fees too much causes development to slow below the
projected number of taps.
5. Generate revenue from existing customers: this can be done in two ways, as
described in a. and b. below.
a. Transfer a portion of each month's operating revenue from existing
customers into a Capital Improvement Fund, which is then used to help
fund the existing customers' portion of the new WWTP. In reality, this
practice should be in place already, but it is not. The Town completed a
Wastewater Rate Study in late 2004, and this practice is among the
recommendations in the study. Since the Town has not historically saved
money from operating revenue in a Capital Improvement Fund, this option
would not provide a large sum of money to work with between now and
2009, anyway.
b. Require a lump sum payment(assessment) from existing customers: this
would generate revenue that should have been previously generated if the
wastewater rates were appropriately set to provide a balance in a Capital
Improvement Fund. This could create a bad relationship between the
Town leadership and the public, but it has been successfully done in small
communities similar to Mead.
6. Pursue grants: must apply and wait to see if grants are received. However, the
Town must be realistic—there are no grants to pay for infrastructure for new
development, which should pay for itself Some grant money may be possible
only for correcting existing deficiencies.
7. Sell more taps by approving more development than currently projected: there is
no guarantee this will happen, since development is market-driven and is subject
to annexation election variables.
In lieu of pursuing the above options for providing wastewater service east of I-25, the
Town could place the complete financial risk of development on land owners instead of
the Town by building a WWTP on the west side of I-25 as in Alternatives 5 and 7.
The cash flow for the alternatives that would provide service east of I-25 can be found in
Appendices B and C. The tap-on fee model on the alternatives indicates the dollar
amount each alternative is short under current tap fees, and how many taps developers
would have to pre-purchase for the Town to build one of these alternatives.
I. Permitting& Environmental Requirements
Locating the outfall sewer along North Creek will require obtaining a 404 permit for
construction in wetlands. Other construction permits that will be required include a
construction dewatering permit, groundwater permit and an erosion control permit. Costs
for obtaining these permits is in the range of$20,000, not including the necessary
environmental studies. It is assumed that all of these permits will be granted.
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 21
An environmental assessment (EA) will be required to review the direct and secondary
impacts of the proposed project at the construction site, as well as throughout the utility
planning area. These studies generally cost in the range of$20,000 to $30,000.
A new discharge permit for the new mechanical treatment plant will also have to be
obtained, unless an alternative to pump wastewater to the SVSD is chosen. If the Town's
wastewater is pumped to SVSD, the Town will not have a permit requirement for a
WWTP.
J. Outfall Sewer and WWTP Pre-design Study
Location of the outfall sewer and the preferred treatment plant location will need to be
refined in the near future. Aerial mapping of the outfall and treatment plant corridor will
be helpful in this endeavor. Since the Town already has aerial mapping from I-25 to
WCR 13, only the area between County Roads 13 and 17 will be needed. Selection of
the final outfall sewer location will need to be determined utilizing this map and after
neighborhood meetings have been completed to obtain consensus from adjacent property
owners on the final alignment.
In addition, identifying the alignment for the outfall sewer will allow the Town to acquire
the necessary rights-of-way or easements as each development project is presented to the
Town for consideration, unless such rights-of-way or easements are acquired prior to
development.
The pre-design study will include a specific layout and sizing of the proposed treatment
plant. Phasing of future expansions will also need to be accomplished. This study will
also include submitting the site application and obtaining preliminary effluent limits for
the selected treatment plant site. The Colorado Ammonia Model (CAM) will need to be
utilized to determine the ammonia limits. The CAM is typically run by the State and
takes approximately three to four months to complete. The cost of running this model
will be in the $5,000 range. It would be prudent for the Town to have a selected site prior
to running the model in order to limit the number of times the CAM needs to be
performed.
Cost of the pre-design study is expected to be in the range of$65,000 to $80,000. This
study is budgeted for in the Town's 2005 budget. The attached schedule in Appendix E
shows the pre-design effort, site application, environmental studies, and reviews by the
various entities will require approximately 19 months to complete, at which point
construction drawings can be started. This schedule can be streamlined if necessary.
However, the Town should plan on a minimum of one year for these activities to occur.
Should an environmental issue be identified, this schedule would need to be extended.
Several years would be involved if significant engineering, environmental, or legal
expenses become required to obtain site approval.
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 22
K. Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions from information presented herein are as follows:
• The existing WWTP serves approximately 1400 people utilizing approximately
560 taps (as of February 2005), and the average flow to the existing WWTP is
estimated to be 112,000 gpd.
• The existing WWTP site has the capability, with $300,000 plus in improvements,
of serving 1000 taps or a population of 3,200 people. The service capacity for the
existing treatment plant is very limited and would not practically include much
wastewater from land east of I-25.
• The current permitted treatment plant capacity is 140,000 gpd. This capacity is
expected to be reached by 2007 with 5 percent growth, or 2008 with 3 percent
growth. New flow monitoring is to be installed in the near future to verify current
flow recordings, which seem to be low for the population being served.
• The existing treatment plant will need to achieve ammonia removal, if still in use
by 2009. This may not be achievable. This study thus assumes that the Town has
�—. no desire to retain the existing treatment facilities and that a new WWTP will
need to be constructed by November 1, 2009.
• The total cost for improving the existing WWTP to treat 180,000 gpd will be in
the range of$330,000, and does not include the cost for ammonia removal. The
improvements noted will require a site application to obtain the appropriate
approvals from the State. The need for a site application should be evaluated after
the WWTP flows are verified. The possibility exists that flows will not exceed
the current permit limits and this would save the town significant dollars.
• The 20-year plan presented herein assumes a 3 percent annual growth for
treatment of wastewater west of I-25 only, and 5 percent growth for treatment of
wastewater west and east of 1-25. A lower growth is expected west of 1-25 due to
a significant portion of the area being large-lot development with septic tanks.
• The 3 percent annual growth will result in a 2030 sewered population of 3,896
and will result in an average day treatment capacity of 0.39 mgd. The 5 percent
annual growth will result in a 2030 population of 7,717 and will result in an
average day treatment capacity of 0.77 mgd.
• Improvements east of I-25 will require land owner upfront monetary or
infrastructure contributions for the Town to provide wastewater service,
regardless of which WWTP alternative location is chosen.
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 23
• The preliminary financial analysis in this report identifies that the Town is in a
fairly solid financial condition under its current tap-on fee schedule when
considering development in areas that would result in expanding the existing
WWTP where tap-on fees would finance the expansion. However, development
east of 1-25 will result in the need to obtain financial contributions from land
owners in this area.
Recommendations for implementing this plan are as follows:
• Engage in discussions with the SVSD regarding Plant Investment Fees to
determine the actual cost to connect the existing Town sewer taps. The current
$5,525 plant investment fee and line extension fee does not make this alternative
economically feasible when compared to the Town constructing its own WWTP.
• Additionally, a Master Meter Agreement will be required to determine the
specifics for connecting to the SVSD. Issues such as monthly service fee cost
increases, wastewater strength charges, and reservation of future treatment plant
capacity will need to be determined.
• Engage in discussions with land owners east of I-25 to determine their schedule
i-. for wastewater treatment needs and negotiate cost participation in the form of pre-
tap sales. A financial commitment must be made in the form of pre-tap sales in
order for the Town to reduce the financial risk in providing service to this area.
• Choose the best alternative between Alternative 4 (new lift station to serve both
the east and west sides of 1-25) and Alternative 4A (new WWTP at WCR 17) if
possible, otherwise choose Alternative 5 (New WWTP on west side of I-25,
development east of 1-25 to pump to WWTP).
• Conduct and document public meetings, and complete the Environmental
Assessment. This can and should be completed before the final site selection is
completed.
• After conducting public meeting, submit this study along with Environmental
Assessment to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and
the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association for review and
comment.
• Planning for the 2005 budget has included incorporating, as a minimum, some of
the recommended improvements for the existing WWTP. Additional lagoon
wastewater testing for BOD should be conducted to monitor the performance of
the lagoons. This additional testing may allow postponing most if not all of the
improvements.
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 24
• Submit the above documents to the CDPHE, along with grant and loan
applications. The process for grant and loan funding has been started as indicated
by the letter attached in Appendix D.
• A pre-design study and submittal of a site application should be considered in
2005 after negotiations have been concluded with the east I-25 landowners. This
study would tie down the routing of the outfall sewer, perform geotechnical
investigations of sewer line route and WWTP site and prepare preliminary design
and costing for the new WWTP. The cost of this study would be in the range of
$60,000 to $75,000, depending on which site is chosen.
r
Town of Mead,Colorado
Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Study 25
APPENDIX A
r
•
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Page 1 of 1
• ENR Construction Cost index
Client Name: Town of Mead 7Date I Index
Project Name: Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study_ Initial 1/1/2006 j 10,000.00 1
Project Number: 434-01 - Current 1/1/2006 I 10,000.00 j
Item I Quantity Unit I Unit Cost$ I Cost $
1 Estimated Capital Costs cf Site Work and _
2 Equipment for Mechanical WWTP Above Lake Thomas I
3 I
4 PreliminaryTreatment 1 ea. 171,116.001 171,116
5 Complete Mix Activated Sludge w/ Diffused Air 1 ea. 1,016,493.001 1,016,493
6 Final Clarification 1 ea. 704,822.00i 704,822
7 UV Disinfection and Facilities 1 ea. 296,526.001 296,526
8 Sludge Thickening 1 ea. 76,138.00 76,138
9 Aerobic Sludge Digestion 1 ea. 472,960.00 472,960
10 Sludge Dewatering 1 ea. 856,107.00 856,107
11 Miscellaneous Structures 1 ea. 243,817.001 243,817
12 30'Sanitary Sewer Piping (installed, incl manholes) 10,000 LF 90.00; 900,000
13 Land Acquisition 5 acres 13,000.001 65,000
14 0
r 15 0
16 0
17 0
18 1 I 0
19 0
20 0
21 0
22 Engineering Fees 10% const.total 4,802,979.00 480,298
. 23 0
24 ' 0
•Subtotal from page 2 0
Subtotal (Sum of lines 2 thru 22) $5,283,277
- Construction Contingency 20.0 % $1,056,655
Design Status (Check One) Opinion of Probable Cost $6,339,900
v Conceptual Design
Preliminary Design JACOBSON HELGOTH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Final Design
Project Manager. Date:
The Engineer, using his or her professional judgement, has developed this stated Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
based upon the design status identified above. Development of this Opinion has included consideration of design input
level;however,the circumstances under which the work is expected to be undertaken,the cost and availability of materials,
�`labor and services, probable bidder response and the economic conditions at the time of bid solicitation are beyond the
control of the Engineer and will impact actual bid costs. Should bidding be delayed,these costs should be reviewed and,if
necessary,adjusted to a more applicable Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Page 1 of 1
__. ENR Construction Cost Index i
!Client Name: Town of Mead , Date I Index
Project Name: Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study i Initial I 1/1/2006 j 10,000.00
'Project Number: 434-01 I Current I 1/1/2006 1 10,000.00 j
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost $ Cost $
1 Estimated Capital Costs of Site Work and
2 Equipment for Mechanical WWTP Below Lake Thomas — I
4 Preliminary Treatment -+
__��_----- I 1 I ea. 171,116.0O 171,116
5 Complete Mix Activated Sludge w/Diffused Air' 1 ea. 1,016,493.00; 1,016,493
6 Final Clarification 1 ea. 704,822.00! 704,822
7 UV Disinfection and Facilities 1 ea. 296,526.001 296,526
8 Sludge Thickening 1 ea. 76,138.001 76,138
9 Aerobic Sludge Digestion 1 ea. 472,960.00 472,960
10 Sludge Dewaterinq I 1 ea. 856,107.00 856,107
11 Miscellaneous Structures 1 ea. 243,817.00 243,817
12 30"Sanitary Sewer Piping (installed, incl manholes), 20,000 LF 90.00, 1,800,000
13JLand Acquisition 5 acres 13,000.00 65,000
14 I0
15 0
16 0
17 0
18 0
19 0
20 0
21 0
22 Engineering Fees 10% const. total 5,702,979.00 570,298
23 0
24 0
(Subtotal from page 2 0
Subtotal (Sum of lines 2 thru 22) $6,273,277
-
Construction Contingency 20.0 % $1,254,655
Design Status (Check One) Opinion of Probable Cost $7,527,900
v Conceptual Design
Preliminary Design JACOBSON HELGOTH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Final Design
Project Manager: Date:
The Engineer, using his or her professional judgement, has developed this stated Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
based upon the design status identified above. Development of this Opinion has included consideration of design input
level: however,the circumstances under which the work is expected to be undertaken, the cost and availability of materials,
rrabor and services, probable bidder response and the economic conditions at the time of bid solicitation are beyond the
.ntrol of the Engineer and will impact actual bid costs. Should bidding be delayed,these costs should be reviewed and, if
necessary,adjusted to a more applicable Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
^ Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Page 1 of 1
_. _. �ENR Construction Cost Index
iClient Name: Town of Mead i Date Index
I
[Project Name: Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study j I___ Initial 1/1/2006 10,000.00
Project Number 434-01 Ji ,I Current 1/1/2006 10,000.00
Item Quantity! Unit Unit Cost $ Cost$
1 !Estimated Capital Costs for Gravity Sewer, Force i _____ __ ___
2 'Main and Lift Station to Deliver Water to SVSD I , 7
------ ------
3 I - — ---
4 30'Sanitary Sewer Piping from Town(installed,incl'Ms) ' 27,000 : LF_ I 90.00 2,430,000
5 118" Force Main (installed) i 7,0067 LF I 54.00 378,000
-- 6 130'Sanitary Sewer Piping to SVSD(installed,include MHs)' 10,500 ; LF 90.001 945,000
7 'Lift Station ; 1 ! ea. 11,810,073.00 1,810,073
8
1 0
9 I 0
10 0
11 I I 0
12i
0
131 0
141 I 0
r" 15I 0
17 I J 0
0
18 0
19
0
20
0
21
0
22 Engineering Fees 10% const total 5,563,073.00 556,307
23 0
24 0
Subtotal from page 2 0
Subtotal (Sum of lines 2 thru 22) $6,119,380
- Construction Contingency 20.0 % $1,223,876
Design Status(Check One) Opinion of Probable Cost $7,343,300
b Conceptual Design
Preliminary Design JACOBSON HELGOTH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Final Design
Project Manager: Date:
The Engineer, using his or her professional judgement, has developed this stated Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
based upon the design status identified above. Development of this Opinion has included consideration of design input
level;however, the circumstances under which the work is expected to be undertaken,the cost and availability of materials,
/tNabor and services, probable bidder response and the economic conditions at the time of bid solicitation are beyond the
.ontrol of the Engineer and will impact actual bid costs. Should bidding be delayed, these costs should be reviewed and, if
necessary,adjusted to a more applicable Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
Alternative 4: SVSD WWTP E & W
Construct a pump station to serve the west and east sides of I-25,and pump wastewater to the SVSD
WWTP
Item I Quantity I Unit I Unit Cost$ I Cost$
1 Interceptor Sewers,Pump Station,&Force Main to serve west side of 1-25
2 10"Interceptor Sewer 2000 LF 30 $60,000
3 15"Interceptor Sewer from Town to Lift Station 15000 LF 45 $675,000
4 SVSD Plant Investment Fee 600 EA $5,525 $3,315,000
5 Lift Station East of CR 17 1 EA $905,037 $905,037
6 10"Force Main 8,000 LF $30 $240,000
7 Lift Station East of CR 13.5 1 EA $1,810,073 $1,810,073
8 18"Force Main 6,000 LF $54 $324,000
9 30"Gravity Sewer 10,800 LF $90 $972,000
10 SUBTOTAL $8,301,110
II
12 TOWN OF MEAD SUBTOTAL $8,301,110
13 Contingencies of 20% 20% const.Total $8,301,110 $1,660,222
14 Engineering,Legal,&Administration of 15% 15% const.Total $8,301,110 $1,245,166
15 TOWN OF MEAD TOTAL $11,206,498
16
17
18 Interceptor Sewers,Pump Stations,&Force Mains to serve newly developed land east of 1-25
19 8"Interceptor Sewer in roadway 9,000 LF 32 $288,000
20 10"Interceptor Sewer 15,675 LF 30 $470,250
21 10"Interceptor Sewer in roadway 10,500 LF 40 $420,000
22 15"Interceptor Sewer 27,475 LF 45 $1,236,375
23 18"Interceptor Sewer 7,540 LF 54 $407,160
24 SUBTOTAL $2,821,785
25
26 DEVELOPER/LAND OWNER SUBTOTAL $2,821,785
27 Contingencies of 20% 20% const.Total $2,821,785 $564,357
28 Engineering,Legal,&Administration of 15% 15% const.Total $2,821,785 $423,268
29 DEVELOPER/LAND OWNER TOTAL $3,809,410
30
31 TOTAL $15,015,908
NOTES:
I. The Town will fund and construct the WWTP and interceptor sewers required to serve existing wastewater customers.
2. The interceptor sewers,pump stations,and force mains which serve only new development will be fully funded and
constructed by the development project. These costs are not included in the Town's cash flow analysis for constructing a new
WWTP and associated outfall sewer.
3. Developers participation in costs for shared infrastructure will be through tap sales. Prepurchase of taps will be required
as shown in the Capital Improvement Program cash flow tables in Appendices B and C.
4. This cost estimate does not include the Plant Investment Fees that the SVSD will charge to the newly developed
properties,which are estimated at$5,525 per wastewater tap.
r
Alternative 4A: CR 17 WWTP
Construct a 1.0 mgd WWTP to serve the west and east sides of I-25 by gravity flow
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost$ Cost$
11.0 mgd WWTP
2 Preliminary Treatment 1 EA $171,116 $171,116
3 Complete Mix Activated Sludge w/Diffused Air I EA $1,016,493 $1,016,493
4 Final Clarification 1 EA $704,822 $704,822
5 UV Disinfection and Facilities 1 EA $296,526 $296,526
6 Sludge Thickening 1 EA $76,138 $76,138
7 Aerobic Sludge Digestion 1 EA $472,960 $472,960
8 Sludge Dewatering 1 EA $856,107 $856,107
9 Miscellaneous Structures 1 EA $243,817 $243,817
10 Land Acquisition 5 ACRES $13,000 $65,000
11 SUBTOTAL $3,902,979
12
13 Interceptor Sewers to serve west side of 1-25
14 10"Interceptor Sewer 2,000 LF 30 $60,000
15 15"Interceptor Sewer 12,000 LF 45 $540,000
16 24"Interceptor Sewer 3,000 72 $216,000
17 30"Interceptor Sewer 8,100 LF $90 $729,000
18 SUBTOTAL $1,545,000
19
�h, 20 TOWN OF MEAD SUBTOTAL $5,447,979
21 Contingencies of 20% 20% const.Total $5,447,979 $1,089,596
22 Engineering,Legal,&Administration of 15% 15%const.Total $5,447,979 $817,197
23 TOWN OF MEAD TOTAL $7,354,772
24
25
26 Interceptor Sewers to serve newly developed land east of 1-25
27 8"Interceptor Sewer in roadway 9,000 LF 32 $288,000
28 10"Interceptor Sewer 15,675 LE 30 $470,250
29 10"Interceptor Sewer in roadway 10,500 LF 40 $420,000
30 15"Interceptor Sewer 27,475 LF 45 $1,236,375
31 18"Interceptor Sewer 7,540 LF 54 $407,160
32 SUBTOTAL $2,821,785
33
34 DEVELOPER/LAND OWNER SUBTOTAL $2,821,785
35 Contingencies of 20% 20% const.Total $2,821,785 $564,357
36 Engineering,Legal,&Administration of 15% 15% const.Total $2,821,785 $423,268
37 DEVELOPER/LAND OWNER TOTAL $3,809,410
38
39 TOTAL $11,164,181
NOTES:
I. The Town will fund and construct the WWTP and interceptor sewers required to serve existing wastewater customers.
2. The interceptor sewers,pump stations,and force mains which serve only new development will be fully funded and
constructed by the development project. These costs are not included in the Town's cash flow analysis for constructing a new
WWTP and associated outfall sewer.
/1', 3. Developers participation in costs for shared infrastructure will be through tap sales. Prepurchase of taps will be required as
shown in the Capital Improvement Program cash flow tables in Appendices B and C.
r
Alternative 5: West 1-25 WWTP&East 1-25 Force Main to West
Construct a 1.0 mgd WWTP to serve the west and east sides of 1-25,and pump wastewater from the
east side of I-25 to the West 1-25 WWTP
Item I Quantity Unit Unit Cost S Cost$ •
1 1.0 mgd WWTP
2 Preliminary Treatment I EA $171,116 $171,116
3 Complete Mix Activated Sludge w/Diffused Air 1 EA $1,016,493 $1,016,493
4 Final Clarification 1 EA $704,822 $704,822
5 UV Disinfection and Facilities 1 EA $296,526 $296,526
6 Sludge Thickening 1 EA $76,138 $76,138
7 Aerobic Sludge Digestion I EA $472,960 $472,960
8 Sludge Dewatering 1 EA $856,107 $856,107
9 Miscellaneous Structures 1 EA $243,817 $243,817
10 Land Acquisition 5 ACRES $13,000 $65,000
II SUBTOTAL $3,902,979
12
13 Interceptor Sewers to serve west side of 1-25
14 10"Interceptor Sewer 2000 LF 30 $60,000
15 15"Interceptor Sewer 4000 LF 45 $180,000
16 SUBTOTAL $240,000
17
18 TOWN OF MEAD SUBTOTAL $4,142,979
19 Contingencies of 20% 20%const.Total $4,142,979 $828,596
20 Engineering,Legal,&Administration of 15% 15%const.Total $4,142,979 $621,447
21 TOWN OF MEAD TOTAL $5,593,022
22
23
24 Interceptor Sewers,Pump Stations,&Force Mains to serve newly developed land east of 1-25
25 8"Interceptor Sewer in roadway 11,540 LF 32 $369,280
26 10"Interceptor Sewer 18,225 LF 30 $546,750
27 10"Interceptor Sewer in roadway 8,200 LF 40 $328,000
28 15"Interceptor Sewer 27,475 LF 45 $1,236,375
29 18"Interceptor Sewer 7,540 LE 54 $407,160
30 18"Interceptor Sewer in roadway 4,960 LF 72 $357,120
31 Lift Station East of CR 13.5 I EA $1,810,073 $1,810,073
32 18"Force Main 15700 LF $54 $847,800
33 Lift Station East of CR 17 1 EA $905,037 $905,037
34 10"Force Main 8000 LF $30 $240,000
35 SUBTOTAL $7,047,595
36
37 DEVELOPER/LAND OWNER SUBTOTAL $7,047,595
38 Contingencies of 20% 20%const.Total $7,047,595 $1,409,519
39 Engineering,Legal,&Administration of 15% 15%const.Total $7,047,595 $1,057,139
40 DEVELOPER/LAND OWNER TOTAL $9,514,253
41
42 TOTAL $15,107,274
NOTES:
I. The Town will fund and construct the WWTP and interceptor sewers required to serve existing wastewater customers.
,�� 2. The interceptor sewers,pump stations,and force mains which serve only new development will be fully funded and
constructed by the development project. These costs are not included in the Town's cash flow analysis for constructing a new
WWTP and associated outfall sewer.
3. Developers participation in costs for shared infrastructure will be through tap sales. Prepurchase of taps will be required as
shown in the Capital Improvement Program cash flow tables in Appendices B and C.
r
Alternative 6: SVSD WWTP West Only
Construct a pump station to serve the west side of I-25, and pump wastewater to the SVSD WWTP,
assuming 0.5 mgd
Item I Quantity I. Unit I Unit Cost$ I Cost$
1 Interceptor Sewers,Pump Station,&Force Main to serve west side of 1-25
2 10"Interceptor Sewer 2000 LF 30 $60,000
3 15"Interceptor Sewer from Town to Lift Station 15000 LF 45 $675,000
4 Lift Station 1 EA $905,037 $905,037
5 10"Force Main 6,000 LF $30 $180,000
6 15"Interceptor Sewer to SVSD 10,800 LF $75 $810,000
7 SVSD Plant Investment Fee 600 EA $5,525 $3,315,000
8 SUBTOTAL $5,945,037
9
10 TOWN OF MEAD SUBTOTAL $5,945,037
11 Contingencies of 20% 20% const.Total $5,945,037 $1,189,007
12 Engineering,Legal,&Administration of 15% 15% const.Total $5,945,037 $891,755
13 TOWN OF MEAD TOTAL $8,025,799
NOTES:
1. The Town will fund and construct the pump station and interceptor sewers required to serve existing wastewater
�., customers.
2. This alternative cost estimate is used to demonstrate the cost difference between serving the west side of 1-25 only versus
serving east and west of 1-25 with the pump to SVSD WWTP scenario.
r
Alternative 7: West 1-25 WWTP& East 1-25 Force Main to SVSD
Construct a 0.5 mgd WWTP to serve the west side of 1-25,and pump wastewater from the east side
of I-25 to the SVSD WWTP
Item I Quantity Unit Unit Cost$ I Cost$
1 0.5 mgd WWTP
2 Preliminary Treatment t EA $102,670 $102,670
3 Complete Mix Activated Sludge w/Diffused Air I EA $609,896 $609,896
4 Final Clarification 1 EA $422,893 $422,893
5 UV Disinfection and Facilities 1 EA $177,916 $177,916
6 Sludge Thickening 1 EA $45,683 $45,683
7 Aerobic Sludge Digestion I EA $236,480 $236,480
8 Sludge Dewatering I EA $428,054 $428,054
9 Miscellaneous Structures 1 EA $146,290 $146,290
I0 Land Acquisition 5 ACRES $13,000 $65,000
11 SUBTOTAL $2,234,881
12
13 Interceptor Sewers to serve west side of 1-25
14 10"Interceptor Sewer 2000 LF 30 $60,000
15 15"Interceptor Sewer 4000 LF 45 $180,000
16 SUBTOTAL $240,000
17
18 TOWN OF MEAD SUBTOTAL $2,474,881
19 Contingencies of 20% 20%const.Total $2,474,881 $494,976
20 Engineering,Legal,&Administration of 15% 15%const.Total $2,474,881 $371,232
/'- 21 TOWN OF MEAD TOTAL $3,341,089
22
23
24 Interceptor Sewers,Pump Stations,&Force Mains to serve newly developed land east of 1-25
25 8"Interceptor Sewer in roadway 9,000 LF 32 $288,000
26 10"Interceptor Sewer 18,225 LF 30 $546,750
27 10"Interceptor Sewer in roadway 10,500 LF 40 $420,000
28 15"Interceptor Sewer 27,475 LF 45 $1,236,375
29 18"Interceptor Sewer 7,540 LF 54 $407,160
30 Lift Station East of CR 13.5 1 EA $1,810,073 $1,810,073
31 18"Force Main 6,000 LF $54 $324,000
32 Lift Station East of CR 17 1 EA $905,037 $905,037
33 10"Force Main 8,000 LF $30 $240,000
34 30"Gravity Sewer 10,800 LF $90 $972,000
35 SUBTOTAL $7,149,395
36
37 DEVELOPER/LAND OWNER SUBTOTAL $7,149,395
38 Contingencies of 20% 20% const.Total $7,149,395 $1,429,879
39 Engineering,Legal,&Administration of 15% 15%const.Total $7,149,395 $1,072,409
40 DEVELOPER/LAND OWNER TOTAL $9,651,683
41
42 TOTAL $12,992,772
NOTES:
I. The Town will fund and construct the WWTP and interceptor sewers required to serve existing wastewater customers.
2. The interceptor sewers,pump stations,and force mains which serve only new development will be fully funded and
constructed by the development project. These costs are not included in the Town's cash flow analysis for constructing a
new WWTP and associated outfall sewer.
r 3. Developers participation in costs for shared infrastructure will be through tap sales. Prepurchase of taps will be required
as shown in the Capital Improvement Program cash flow tables in Appendices B and C.
4. This cost estimate does not include the Plant Investment Fees that the SVSD will charge to the newly developed
properties,which are estimated at$5,525 per wastewater tap.
r
r
APPENDIX B
r
1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SCHEDULE
ALTERNATIVE 4
' Town of Mead
Wastewater Facilities Study
ALTERNATIVE 4
6%Annual Growth Assumption
New Lift Station to SVSD in 2009 Servicing East&West Sides of I-25
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2071 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Population 1335 1,452 1,574 1.703 1,838 1,980 2,129 2,285 2450 2622 2803 2,994 3,193 3,403 3.623 3,654 4.097 4,352 4,619 4,900, 5,195 5,505 5830 6,172 6,530 6,907 7,302 7,717
WWTPFbw,mgd 010 0.11 0.12 013- 0.14 0.15 016 0.23 0.24 0.26 018 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.39 0.41 0.44 0.46 049 0.52 . 0.55_ 0.58 0.62 085 0.69 0.73 0.77
TapWer 86 80 49 51 54 57 60 63 66 89 72 76 80 84 88 89 93 98 103 106 113 119_ 125 131 138 145 152 160
CAPITAL COSTS _ _ _ _ _
Existing WWTP Improvements $ 42,670 $285,800 _ _
New 16 mgd LM Station $2,241,300 $2,241,300 $6,723,899
Total Treatment Plea _Costs $ 42,870 $285,800_ S $2,241,360 52,241,300 56,723,899 , _ —
LOAN INFORMATION - _ — ,
Loan Amount for New WW1P(60%cif total) 56,723,899 _ _ _ _
Debt Service Principal 6 Interest _ _ $494 744.47 5494,74447 5494,744.47 $494,74447 $494,744.47 $494,74447 $494,744.47 $494,74447 $49474447 $494,74447 $494,74447'5494,744.47 $494,744.47 5494 744.41 5494,744.47-1494,744.471$494,744.47}494,747 $494,744.47 5494,744.47 $384.48 $0.00 0
OtStend'eg Loan PmctPal 56,498.110 $6,263,290 56,019077 $5,765,096_$5,500955 55,500,955 $5,226,249 $4,940,554 $4,643,432 $4,334,425 $4,013,058 $3,678,835, $3,331,244 $2,989,750 $2,593,795 $2,202;803 $1,796170_$1,373,272 $933,459 $476,053 $350 $0 SO
CASH FLOW CALCULATIONS BASED ON VARIOUS TAP FEES -
$6,000 Tap Fee(bagirting 2004) 5430,000 $480,000 $294,201 3308,911_ $324,357 $340,575 $357,603 $375,483 3394258 $413,971 $434,569 $456,401 $479,223 5503,164 $528,343 $533,42] $560,094, $588.098 5817,504 $648,379 $680,798 $714,838_ $750 580 $788,109 $827,514 $888,890 $912,335 3957,951
Cash Flow $430000 875,730 901,646 1228,590 363,781 3,651,373 3,136,640 3,318,633 3.485,493 -3,835,977 3,768,771- 3,882,489 3.975,660 -4,046,734 -4,094,071 -4.137.273 4,154,660 -4,144.408 4,104,538 4,032,992 3,927,596 -3,766,057 3,805.942 -3,384,697 4,119,821 3,313,487 -1,447.422 518.419
$7,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2005) $430,000 $480,000 $343,235 $360,396- $378,416 5397,337 5417,201 5438,064 5459,967_ $482,966 $507,114 $532470 $559,093 6587,048 $616,400 $622,327. $653,443 $686,116 $720421 $756,442. $794,265, $833,978_ $875,677 $919,460 $965,434 $1,013,705 $1,064,390 51117.610
Cash Flow $430,0W 875,730 950,660 1,330,090 -506192 3,868,876 -2,655,186 -2,968,970 3.063.127 3,136,166 3,186,522 -3.212,527 -3,212,429 3.184,374 3,128,408 4,081,352 -2,963,880 -2.831.786 -2,862,745, -2.454,302 -2,203,888 -1,908,712_-1,585,954 -1,172.557 -725.319 273.515 1,343,376 2.487.653
$8,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2006) 5430,0W $480,00 $343,235 .$411,882_ $432,478 $454,099 $476,804 $500,845 $525,677 $551,961 $579,559 3608,537 5638,964 $670,912 5704,457, $711231 $746,792 $784,131 5823,339 $664,506 $907,731 5953.117 51.000,773 51.050.812 51.103.353 $1,158,520 $1,216,446 $1,277,289
Cash Flow 5430,000 875,730 950,680 1,381.575 -399.618 4.034.344 -2.626,808 -2873,444 -2,695,980--2,892.683 -2,861,723 -2,601,165 -2.508,969 -2,382,981 -2,220,928 -2,048.680 -1,837.790 -1,585,158 -1,288,267 '944271 550,170 -102.600 401,173 965,264 1,593,177 2,783,196 4,055,306 5,413,681
$18,000 Tap Fee lbegiting 2006) 5430,000 $480,000_ 5343,235 5926,734 $973,070 51,021,724 51072,810 $11$6,450 $1,162,773"51,241,912 $1,304,037. $1,369,206 $1437,688 $1,509,551 51,585,026 $1,800,270 $1,680,283 51784,297 $1,852,512 51,945,138 52,042395 52,144514 52,251,740 $2,384,327 52.482,543 52,606676 52.737,034 52,673,854
Cash Flow $430,070 875,730 950,660 1,896.427 666.126 5,689.027 343.026 281,820 975,485 1742.161 2,566,267 3,512,456 4,525,628 5,630,948 6,833,851 8,076.053 9,423,113 10,881,128 12,456,516 14,156,042 15,966.813 17,956.319- 20,072441 22,343,472 24,778.140 27,880,009 31,174.613 34671,960
Notes:
1. For new plant 5mb bottoming to 58,723.599 Reflects borrowing 60%of total construction cost of $11,206,49
2. Annual debt service(based an bond ring 60%for 20 yeah)= U94.744.47
3. With Tap Fees at$7.000 in 2006,east side developers to contribute dolt shortage of $2,501,436 357 Taps @ 57,000 each.
4. rap Fees are raised to 318,000 in 2006,no developer contribution is regrind.
5 Tap Fees were raised from 53.000 to 55,0W on 1272003. $6,000 on 1/12004,and to$7,000 on 211/2005.
6. Cash Flow equals the Previous Year Account Balance.3%Interest.Curren Year Tao Fees,-Comtrution Costs..Loan Amount, -Debt Service
Assumptions.
1. 2%Intent on savings
2. 4%Interest on borrowed money
3 3.5%inaahon
4. 15%Engineering for design end construction phase services
5. 40%of protect cost to be cash financed.
APPENDIX C
t 1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SCHEDULE
ALTERNATIVE 4A
Town of Mead
Wastewater Facilities Study
ALTERNATIVE 4A
5%Annual Growth Assumption
New WWTP in 2009 East of County Road 17
Year 2003 2004 2005 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Population 1,335 1,452 1,574 1,703 1,838 1,980 2,129 2,285 2,450 2,622 2,803 2,994 3,193 3403 3,623 3.854 4,097 4,352 4,619 4.900 5,195 5,505 5,830 6,172 8,530 8,907 7,302 7,717
WWTP Row,mgd 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 016 0.29 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0,36 0.39 041 0.44 046 0.49 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.62 0.65 0.69 0.73 0.77
Taps/Year 86 80 49 51 54 57 60 63 86 69 72 78 80 64 88 89 93 98 103 108 113 119 125 131 138 145 152 160
CAPITAL COSTS - - — '
Existing VVVVTP Improvements $ 42,870 $ 285,800
New 1.0 mgd VWVTP East of CR 17 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $1,470,954 $1,470,954. 54,412,863
Total Treatment Plant Costs $ 42,870 $335,800 $ 50000 $1,470,954 $1,470,954 64,412,863 _ ' -
-
LOAN INFORMATION
Loan Amount for New W WTP(60%of Slap $4,412,863 _ _ _
Debt Service Principal&Interest $324,698.46 $324,898.46 $324,698.46 $324,698.46 $324,698.46 $324,698.46 $324,698.46 $324,698.46 $324,698.46 $324,698.46 $324,698.46 $324,008.46 $324,698.46 $324,698.46 $324,698.46 $324,698.48 $324,698.46 $324,698.48 $324,698.46 $324,896.48 $239.20 $0.00 $0.00
Outstanding Loan Principal $4,264,679 $4,110,568 $3,950,292 $3,783,605 $3,610,251,$3,810,251 $3429,963 $3,242,483 $3,047,463 $2844,663 $2,633,751 52,414402 $2,186280 $1,949,033 $1,702,296 51,445689 $1,178818 $901,272 $612,625 $312,431 $230 $0 $0
CASH FLOW CALCULATIONS BASED ON VARIOUS TAP FEES
$6,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2004) , $430,000 $480,000 $294 201 $308,911 $324,357 $340 575 $357,603 $375,483 $394,258 $413,971 $434,669 $4.56,403' $479,223 $503,184 $528,343, $533,423 $560,094 $588,099 $617,504 1648,379 $880,798 $714,838 $750,580 $788,109 $827,514 1868,890 $912,335 $957,951
Cash Flow $430,000 875,730 851,646 1,127,590 3,544 2,961,400 -1,359,330 -1,335,732 -1,292,887 -1,229,473 -1,144,092 -1,035269 -901,450 -7405194 -552,170, -354,488 -126,182 134.895 430,194 762,479 1,133,828 1,546,644 2,003469 2.506.939 3.059,693 3,959,742 4,981.872 6,039,461
$7,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2005) $430,000 $480,000 $343,235 $360398 $378,416 $397,337 $417,201 $438,084 $459,967 $482,968 $507,114 $532,470 $559,093 $587,048 $616,400 6622,327 $653,443 $686,116 $720,421 $756,442 $794.265 $833,978 $875,677 $919,460 $965,434 $1,013,705 $1064,390 $1 117,810
Cash Flow $430,000 875,730 900,680 1229,090 161,133 3,178,903 -1,077,876 -988,068 -870.521 -729.664 -561,842 -364308 -138,219 121.366 415,495 721,433 1,064,607 1447.316 1,871,985 2,341,169 .2,657,558 3,423,989 4,043,447 4.719,078 5,454,194 8,576,744 7,772,670 9.045.733
$8,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2036) $430,000 1480,000 $343,235 $411,682 $432,476 $454,099 $476,804 $500,645 $525,677 $551,961 $579,559 $608 537 1838,984 5670,912 $704,457 $711,231 $746,792 $784,132 $823,339 $864,508 $907,731 $953,117 51000,773 $1,050,812 $1,103,353 $1,158,520 $1,216,446 $1,277,269
Cash Flow 5430,000 876730 903,680 1.250,575 267,708 3.344,371 -849,498 690,542 -503.374 -286,180 -37.043 246,055 565,241 922.759 1,320.973 1.733.925 2,190.697 2.693,945 3,246,481 3.851.200 4,511,257 5.229.901 6,010.574 6,858,899 7,772,691 9,086,426 10,484,600 11,971,561
$12,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2006) $430,000 $480,000 $343,235 $617,822 $648,713 $681,149 $715207 $750,961 $788,515 5827,941 $869,338 $912,805 $958,445 $1,006,369 $1,056886 $1,086,846 $1,120189 $1,176,198 $1,235,008 $1,296,758 $1,361,596 $1,429,676 $1,501,160 $1,576,218 $1,655,029 $1,737,780 $1,824,669 $1,915,903
Cash Flow $430,000 875,730 900,680 1,486,516 694,005 4.006,245 64.015 491,563 985,212 1,487,758 2,062,153 2,691,503 3,379.080 4.128,335 4,942,885 5,783,890 6,695,058 7,680,459 8,744,378 9,891,325 11,126,050 12,453,548 13,879,081 15,408,182 17.046,676 19,125,151 21,332,323 23,674.872
Notes'
1. For new plant.limit bomoeing to $4412463 Reflects borrowing 60%of total conatructron cost of $7,354,772
2. Annual debt service(based on bwrowng 60%for 20 years)= $324,698.46 ar
3. With Tap Fees at$7,000 in 2006,east side developers to contribute dollar atatage of $1,077,876 154 Taps a$7,000 each.
4. If Tap Fees are raised to$12,000 in 2006,no developer contribution h required.
5. Tap Fees were raised from$3,000 to$5,000 on 1/27/2003, $6,000 on 1/12004.and to$7,000 on 2/1/2005.
6. Cash Flow equals the Previous Year Account Balance+3%Interest+Currant Year Tap Fees,-Construction Costs.r Loan Amass, -Debt Service
Asaumpbons:
1. 2%Interest of savings
2. 4%Interest on borrowed money
3 35%infebon
4 15%Engineering tor design and Construeat phase services
5 40%of protect cost to be Cash financed.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SCHEDULE
ALTERNATIVE 5
Town of Mead
Wastewater Facilities Study
ALTERNATIVE 5
5%Annual Growth Assumption
New W WTP in 2009 on West Side of I-25,Pumping East Flow to West
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017_ 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Population 1,335 1,452 1574 1,703 1,838 1,980 2,129 2285 2,450 2822 2,803 2,994 3,191 3,403 3,623 3,854 4,097 4,352 4,619 4900 5,195 5,505 5830 6172 6530 8,907 7,302 7717
WWTP Flow,mod 0.10 0.11 012 0.13 0.14 015 0.16 0.23 0.20 0.26 0.26 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 039 0.41 0.44 048 0.49, 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.82 0.65 0.69 073- 0.77
Taps/Tear 86 80 49 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 76 BO 84 88 89 93 98, 103 108- 113 119 125 131 138 145 152 160
CAPITAL COSTS — '
Existing VVWTP Improvements $ 42,870 $ 285,800
New 1.0 mod WWTP West of I-25 S 50,000 $ 50,000 $1,118,604 $1118604 $3,355813
TotalTreatment Rant Costs - $ 42870 $ 335,800 $ 50,003 $1,118604 $1,118,604_53,355813 - -
LOAN INFORMATION
Loan Amount for New NAgTP(60%of total) 53,355813 -
Debt Service Principal 5Interest 5246,920.725246,920.72 $248,920.71 $246,920.72 $216,920.72 $246,920.72 $246,920.72 $246,920.72 $246,920.72 $248,920.72 $246,920.72 $246,920.72 $246,920.72 $246,920.72 $246,920.72 $246920.72 $246,920.72 $246,920.72 $246,920.72 $246,920.72 $181.91 $0.00 $0.00
Outstanding Loan Pnncips $3,243 125 $3,125,929 $3,004,048 $2,877,287 52,745,457 $2,745,457 $2,608,355 $2,465,768 $2,317,478 $2,163,257 $2,002986- 51,838,060 $1,662,582 $1,482,165 $1294,530 $1,099 391 5896,446 $885,383 $465,878 $237,592 $175 $0 $0
•
CASH FLOW CALCULATIONS BASED ON VARIOUS TAP FEES _ _ - '
$6,000 Tap Fee(began 2004) 5430,000 5480,000 $294,201 $308,911 $324357 $340,575 $357,603 5375,483 $394258 $413,971 $434,869 $456,403 $479,223 $503,184' $528,343 $533,423 $560,094 $588,099- $817,504 $648,379_ $680,798, $714,838 $750,580 $788,109 $827,514 $888,890 $912,335 $957,951
Cash Flow $430,000 875,730 851,646 1,127,590 355,891 2.693.875 -497,378 -378,763 -239.001 -76,731 109,482 321,154 559,879 827,339 1.125,308 1,434,3176 1,776,177 2,152,879 2,566,520 3,019,309 3,513,512 4.051,761 4.636,458 6.270,373 5.958,374 8,944210 7.905,429 9,113,289
$7,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2005) 5430,000 5480,000 $343,235 5360,398 $378,416 5397,337 $417,204 $438,064 5159,967 $482,968 $507,114 $532,470 $559,093 $587,018 $616,400 $622,327 $853443 5686,118 $720,421 $756,442 $794,285 5833,978 5875,677 $919,460 $985,434 $1,013,705 $1,064,390 $1,117,610
Cash Flow $430,000 875,730 900,680 1,229,090 513,483 2,911,371 -215,924 -29,100 183,365 423,077 691,731 991,116 1,323,110 1,689.699 2,092,973 2,510,239 2,966,966 3,465,500 4,008,311 4,597,999 5,237,303 5,929,106 6,676,444 7,482,512 8,350,675 9,531.212 10,786,227 12,119,581
$8,000 Tap Fee(beginrarlg 2008) $430,000 $480,000 $343,235 $411,882 5432,476 $454,099 $476,804 5500,645 $525,677 $551,961 $579,559 $808,537 $638,964 $670,912- $704457 $711,231 $746792 $784,132 $823,339 5664,506_ $907,731 $953,117 $1,000,773 $1,050,812 $1103,353 $1,158,520 $1,216,446 $1,277,269
Cash Flow $430,000 875,730 900,680 1,280,575 620,058 3,076,646 12.45r 266,427 550.512 866,56 1,216,531 1,602.478 2,026,570 2,491,092 2,998,451 3,522,730 4,093,056 4,712,129 5.382,789 6,108,030 6,891,001 7,735,016 8,643,571 9,620,333 10,669,172 12.040,893 13.498,158 15,045.389
Notes:
1. For new plant.limit borrowing to $3,355,813 Reflects hmnowing 60%of total construction cost of $$,593022
2. Annual debt service(based on borrowing 60%for 20 Vestal= 5248.920.72
3. With Tap Fees at 57.000 in 2006,east side developers to compute dollar shortage of $215,924 31 Taps a$7,000 each.
4. (Tap Fees are raised to$8,000 in 2006,no developer conaOution is required.
5. Tap Fees were raised from 53,000 to$5.000 on 1/27/2003. $6,000 on 1/12004,and to$7,000 on 2/12005. ,v
6. Cash Flow equals the Previous Year Account Balance.3%Interest,•Current Year Tap Fees,-Construction Costs,•Loan Amount, -Debt Service
AssWllpttnsl
1. 2%Interest on savings
2. 4%Interest on borrowed money
3. 3.5%inflation
4. 15%Engwleeng for design and construction phase services
5. 40%of project cost to be cash financed
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SCHEDULE
ALTERNATIVE 6
Town of Mead
Wastewater Facilities Study
ALTERNATIVE 6
3%Annual Growth Assumption
New Lift Station to SVSD in 2009 on Servicing Only West Side of I-25
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2028 2027 2028 2029 2030
Sewered Population 1,204 1,270 1,338 1,408 1,481 1,555 1,832 1,711 1,792 1,876 1,982_ 2,051 2,142 2,237 2334 2,434 2,537 2,643 2,752 2,865 2,981 3,100 3,223 3350 3,480 3,615 3,753, 3,888
W WTP Flow,mgd 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.18 0.19 020 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.28 0.28 0.29 030 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.35 0.38 0.38 0.39
Taps/Year 86 80 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 38 37 36 39 38 40 41 42 43, 45 46 47, 49 50 52 53 55
CAPITAL COSTS — — -
Existing W WTP Improvements $ 42,870 $265,800
New 0.5 hind Lift Station 51,605,160 51,805,180 $4.815,480 _ - -
Total Treatment Plant Costs $ 42,870 $285,800 $ - $1.805,180 $1,805,180 $4,815,480 -
LOAN INFORMATION - - - '
Loan Amount for New WTP(60%of total) $4 815,480 - "
W
Debt Service Principal 6 Interest $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354,322.95 5354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354,322.99 $354,32289 $354,322.99 $354,322.99 5354,322.99 $281.03 $0.00 $0.00
Outstanding Loan Principal $4,853,776 $4,485,604 $4,310,705 $4,128,810 $3,939840 $3,939,640 $3,742,902 $3,538,295 $3,325,504 $3 104,201 $2,874,046 $2,634,685 $2,385 750 $2,126,857 $1,6557,808 $1,577,589 $1,286,370 $983,502 5888,519 $340,937 $251 $0 $0
CASH FLOW CALCULATIONS BASED ON VARIOUS TAP FEES -
`
$6,000 Tap Fee(began 2004) $430.000 $480,000 2163,451 $188,354 $173,405 $178,607 $183,985 $189,484 $195,169 $201,024 $207,055 $213,286 $219864 $226,254 $233,042 $230,801 $237,725 $244,857 $252,203 $259,789, $287582 $275,589 1283,858 $292,372 $301,143 $310,177 $319,483 $329087
Cash Flow $430,000 875,730 770,896 954,668 -457,993 2,687,451 -2,367,037 -2,579217 -2,780,955 -2,999,053 -3208.302 -3,411,485 3,814,374 -3,814,730 -4,012,305 4,216,073 .4,416,993 4,614,799 4,609215 6 4,999,954 5,188,714 5,380,183 -5,547,033 5.719,926 5.887,503 5,895,337 5,489,761 -5,270,489
$7,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2005) $430,000 $480,000 $190,693 $198,413 $202,306' $208,375 $214,626 $221,065' $2276997 $234,528' $241,564 $248,811' $256,275 $263,963 $271,682 $289,288 $277,346 $285,608- $294,238 $303,083' 5312,155 $321,520 $331,166 $341,101 $351,334 $381,874 $372,730 $383,912
Cash Flow $430,000 875.730 798,138 1.010,514 -372,135 2.684.799 -2216,881 -2,394,272 -2,568,784 -2,739,954 -2907,513 3,071,175 4230,647 3,385,819 -3,535,772 4691,543 4,842,351 3,987,854 4,127,696 4,261,511 4388,909 4,509,491 4.622.838 -4,728,517 -4,828,077 4580.966 4279.475 -3,981,153
$8,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2008) $430,000 $480,000 $190,693 $224,473 $231,207 $238,143 $245,287 $252,648 3260225 $288,032 $276,073 $284,355 $292,886' $301,872 $310,723 $307,735 $316,967' $326,476 $336,270 $346,358 $358,749- $367,451 $378 475 $389,829 $401,524 $413,570 $425,977 1438,756
Cash Flow $430,000 875.730 796138, 1,038,573 414,609 2,773,239 -2,095,812 -2,239,405 -2,378,291 -2,512,148 -2,640.641 -2,763,421 -2.880,127 -2,990,380 -3.093,788 3,202252 .-3,303.654 .3,397574 3483578 -3,561214 -3,630,018 3,889,484' 3,739,122 3,778,398 3,808,765 -3.469.592 3.113,007 -2,736,510
$22,500 Tap Fee(beginning 2026) $430,000 $480000 $190,693 $631,329 $850,289 $669,777 $689,870 $710,566 $731,883 $753,840 $776,455 $799,749 $823,741 $&6453 $873,907 $865.504 $891469 $918,213 $945,780 $974,133 51,003,35E$1,033457 $1,064,481 $1,096,395 $1,129,287 $1163,185 $1,198,080 $1,234,002
Cash Flow $430,000 875.730 798,138 1,445,430 519,447 4.055,610 -343,210 6.169 383,853 791,047 1,229,000 1,899,005 2202,404 2,740,583 3,314,978 3,892459 4,507,455 5,161,494 5.656,161 6,593,093 7,373,989 8,200,803 9.074.753 9.998.320 10.973,250 12,355,819 13,800,791 15.310,809
Notes:
1. For new plant.lime borTowwq to MA15,410 Reflects borrowing 60%of total construction cost of $8,025,799
2. Annual debt service(based on borrowing 60%for 20 years)- $354,322.99
3. WIth Tap Fees at$7,000 in 2006,more fig must be found to conabud this alternative. $2834,745 376 Tape w$7,000 eadl.
4. If Tap Fees are raised to 522.500 in 2006, they sill generate enough cash to pay for 40%of the mat and borrow the remaining 80%, The Tap Fees w$also cover the debt service required for 20 years,and provide additional hods for hdure improvements.
5 Tap Fees were raised front$3,000 to$5,000 on 1272003, $6,000 on 1/1/2004.and to$7,000 on 2/12005.
6. Cash Flow equals the Previous Year Amount Balance•3%Merest,•Current Year Tap Fees,-Construct on Costs,•Loan Amount, -Debt Service
Assumptions:
1. 2%Interest on savings
2. 4%nterest on borrowed money
3. 3.5%Inflation
4. 15%Engineering for design end construction phase services
5. 40%of propel mat to be cash financed.
•
` CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SCHEDULE
•
ALTERNATIVE 7
Town of Mead
Wastewater Facilities Study
ALTERNATIVE 7
3%Annual Growth Assumption for West of 1-25
New W WTP in 2009 West of 1-25 for West Flow,East Flow to SVSD
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2001 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018_ 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Severed Population 1,204 1,270 1,338_ 1,408 1.481 1,555 1,632_ 1,711 1,792 1,876 1.962 2.051 2.142 2,237 2,334 2434 2,537 2,843 2,752 2,865 2,951 3,100 3223 3350 3480 3615 3,753 3896
W WTP Flow,mod 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 012 0.12 0.17 0.18 0.1% 0.2-(1 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25_ 0.26 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.35 0.36, 0.38 0.39
TapWear 86 80. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33- 34 35 36 37 38_ 39 38 40 41_ 42 43 45 46 47 49 50 52 53 55
-4
CAPITAL COSTS
Existing WW Improvements $ 42,870 S 285,800 W W - _ - - _
New 0.5 mad TP West of $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 668.218 5 688,218 $2,004,653 - -
Total Treabnent Plant Costs :, $ 42,870 $335.800 $ 50000 $ 868.218 $ 668.218 52004653, _ - -
,
LOAN INFORMATION _
Loan Amount for New W WTP(60%of total) $2,004,853
Debt Service Prmpal&Interest $147,502.39 $147,502.39 $147,502.39 $147,50239 $147,502.39 $147,50239 $147,502.39 $147,50239 $147,502.39 $147,502.39 $147,502.39 $147,502.39 $147,502.39 $147,502.39 $147,50239 $I47.502.39 $147,502.39 $147,50239 $147,502.38 $147,502.39 $108.66 $0.00_ $0.00
mvd Outstanding Loan Ppal _ $1,937,337 $1,867,328 51,794,519 51,718,797 $1,840047 $1,640047 $1,558,148 $1,472,970 $1,364,386 $1,292,259 $1,198447 $1.096.803_ $993172 $885397 $773,310 $656740 $535,508 $409,425 $278,300 $141,930 $104 $0 $0
CASH FLOW CALCULATIONS BASED ON VARIOUS TAP FEES __ _ _ _
$6,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2004) $430,000 $480,000 $163,451 $168,354 $173405 $178,607 $183,985 $189,484_ $195,169 $201,024 $207055 $213,266 $219,664 $226,254 $233,042- 1230,801 $237725 5244.857 $252,203 $259,789 $267,562 $275,589 $283856 $292,373 $301143 $310,177 $319,483 $329,067
Cash Flow $430,000 875,730 720,896 853,868 375,929 1,750,988 -182,183 -143,844 -99,055 47,514 11,088 77.073 150,777 232,544 322,735 412,488 510,960 618,534 735,605 862,583 999,894 1,147,979 1,307292- 1478,36 1,661,514 2,004,813 2.364.392 2.740,147
$7,000 Tap Fee(beginning 2005) $430,000 $480,000 5190,693 $198413 $202306 $206,375,' 5214,626 $221,065 $227.697 $234,528 $241,564 $248,811 $256,275 $263,963: $271,882 $269,268 $271,346 $285,666_ $294,236_ $303,083 $312,155 $321,520 5331,186 $341,101 $351,334 $361,874 $372,730 $383,912
Cash Flow $430,000 875.730 748,138 909,514 461,792 1,868,336 .31.626 41,100 122,117- 211,584 309.878 417,383 534,504 661.655 799.268 937.019 1,085.803 1.245,479 1417,122 1,601,028 1,797699 2007,671 2.231,487 2,489.715 2.722,941 3.139,165 3574,678 4,030.083
Notes:
1. For new plant,limit Portraying to $2,004,553 ReMcls bona n%60%of total construction cost of $3,341,05$ •
2. Annual debt service(based on borrowing 90%for 20 years)= $147,502.39
3. WM Tap Fees at$7,000 m 2006.east side developers to contribute dotter shortage of $0 0 Taps 59$7,000 cacti.
4. Tap Fees were raised from$3,000 to$5,000 on 1272003. 16.000 on 1/12004,and to$7000 on 2/1/2005.
5. Cash Flow equals the Previous Year Account Balance•3%Interest•Current Year Tap Fees,-Construction Costs.•Loan Amount. -Debt Service
Assumptions:
1. 2%Interest on savings
2. 4%Interest an borrowed money
3 3.5%ngabon
4. 15%Engineenng co for design and construction phase services
5. 40%a protect canto be OHM financed.
r-�
APPENDIX D
CDPHE-WQCD Fax:3037820390 May 31 2002 14:39 P. 03
Bl)lOwens,GovernorSTATE OF COLORADO
Jane E.Nonon,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. «*• - i *
Phone(303)692-2000 Denver,Colorado 80230-6928
TDD Line(303)691-7700 (303)692-3090 aye
rado
otea://www.edphestare.00.or
Colorado Department
Located in Glendale,Colo
cdp a�are'o•os of Public Health
and Environment
I also spoke briefly with Tom Schaffer,District Engineer for Weld County(970)248-7152• Feel free
to contact him with any technical or facility planning questions that you have. I let him know that you
may be contacting him. As per your suggestion, he would like a copy of the N Front Range
Planning report,which you have completed. Please fax or mail that information, at your earliest
convenience,to Tom at: Fax(970)240-7198 and WQCD-B2,4300 Cherry Creek Drive South,
Denver, CO 80246-1530.
For future reference: Donna Davis is the Work Program Leader for the Financial Assistance Program.
She will be the main permanent contact throughout the funding process. She will be the person who
will coordinate with you,the Town of Mead, and other funding sources,in order to prepare a funding
package for the project. If you have any questions regarding specific projects, what types of funding
•^ they are eligible for and what the funding process entails, or any grant questions please don't hesitate to
call Donna(303)692-3562 or me.
I am assisting Donna, until August,when a permanent assistant will be hired. Until that time, I will see
that your project data is in order and that all possible eligible projects get on the 2003 Eligibility Lists.
Donna Davis and a Project Administrator will help you with the rest of the process. I currently am
gathering what grant and loan information I think will be useful to you. I will put that in the mail or
fax it to you, at the beginning of next week, the first week of June. In the meantime,I will fax what
information I have readily available. Following is a copy of an informational letter describing briefly
the loan and grant options, a copy of the waste water and drinking water needs survey form for your
records (I have filled one out for Mead—and that is the information that you will be verifying for me),
a summary of the Drinking Water Revolving Fund, and an outline of the requirements for the Drinking
Water Planning Document.
Sincerely,
Margaret Pauls
Ltfl t—WWLI rax:auor'tQUSyu flay d1 1UUz 14:4U V. u4
•
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Owens, Governor
lane E.Norton,Executive Director
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 4�`- i,\
4300 Cherry Creek Or.S. Laboratory and Radiation Services Division - * •-0y t,•
Denver,Colorado 80246-1530 6100 Lowry Blvd. �e
Phone(303)692-2000 Denver,Colorado 80230-6928 • •
e a 6+
TDD Line(303)691.7700 (303)692.3090
Located in Glendale,Colorado Colorado nt
hnpl/www.cdphe.snte.co.us aof Publi
nd Envicr Health dt
MEMORANDUM
TO: Local Officials and Interested Persons
FROM: Donna Davis-Bodnar
RE: Water and Sewer Needs in Colorado
DATE: March 1,2002
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Water Quality Control Division(WQCD)has the roll of
assessing the drinking water and water quality needs in Colorado. Do you know of a community that will need grant
and/or loan funds for water,wastewater,stormwater and/or non point source projects? The WQCD offers the following
funding sources:
• The Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund provides low interest loans to governmental entities for the
construction of wastewater, stormwater and non-point source projects.
• The Domestic Wastewater Treatment(DWWT)Chant Program provides financial assistance to
governmental agencies and counties on behalf of unincorporated areas for planning, design and
construction of eligible DWWT projects serving a population of not more than 5,000 persons. Funding is
dependent upon r app opriations from the state legislature.
• The Drinking Water Revolving Fund provides low interest loans to governmental agencies for the
construction of water projects for public health and compliance purposes. Ineligible projects include:
o Darns,water rights or reservoirs
o Projects needed primarily for growth or fire protection
• The Drinking Water Grant Program provides financial assistance to governmental and not-for-profit public
water system for consolidation,planning,design and/or construction of water treatment systems serving a
population of 5,000 or less. Again,funding is dependent upon appropriations from the state legislature.
To be eligible for funding,the project must be identified on the eligibility list developed by the WQCD. To check
whether your community's needs are currently identified,you may view the current eligibility lists for the four funding
programs on the Internet at the Department of Public Health and Environment's regulation index page at:
httio://www.cdtthe.state.co-us/on/wateroualitvreassn
If you know about an eligible project that is not currently identified on the lists please contact the WQCD. A thorough
and accurate identification of local water and wastewater system needs may also improve the share of fends that
Colorado receives from the EPA in future years to capitalize its Revolving Funds. While we make significant effort to
keep the lists current, if you find that some of the information is not accurate or complete,or if you would hie to be
removed from the mailing list,please contact us at the address above,or call Donna Davis-Bodnar at(303)692-3562 or
Debbie Stetson at(303)692-3554,by March 31,2002.
As always,we are interested in hearing your opinion of the lists. Is this information useful to you in the performance of
your job? Are you aware of how it helps local governments in the state? Do you have knowledge of projects that
should be on the lists? We would very much like to hear your comments or questions. Thank you for your participation
in this process.
/^"."-
APPENDIX E
TOWN L �)MEAD
NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SCHEDULE 2007 ID /10
i Finalize ztlon lo Proceed
��- - Duration
0 days Mon days Mon 1/100/05 1 ID a1117M A M 1 J I J 1A 5 I O N LD�J F '.M TA M J_ J ,�5 O N1 D�J TF [M I A i MI J J A S VO I N D 12008
J�F T M T A1 M j JI
1/3 Finalize Wastewater Study 7 days Mon 1/17/05 1
4 i Environmental Study 8 Report 97 days Tue 2/1/05. Y I
I !
5 1 Request Plant Effluent Limits 44 days Mon 3/7/05 I 1
6 1 Loan Application 24 days Mon 5/16/05 I I
7 I GeolechNczl Report 22 days Fri 3/18/05 O
En
gineering!Prepare cal e Report 64 days Fri 3/18/05
_. __.. ..
9 I Prepare Site Application 65 days Thu 3/17/05
10 Submit to Review Entitles 44 days Tue 6/21/05
11 .'CDPHE Review 89 days Sat 8/20/05 •
12 y Site Approval 0 days Wed 12/21/05 . 12121
13 I Prepare Construction Documents 183 days Wed 12/21/05[
'i — 14 ;Stale Plan Review 60 days Mon 9/4/06 I • f � ,
15 Revise Construction Documents 30 days Mon 11/27!06 I__
16 '!Bid Project 60 days Mon 1/8/07
•
17 I Award Contract 30 days Mon 4/2/07 4
18 I Construction 280 days? Mon 5/14/071 :
Page 1
APPENDIX F
COLORADO DEPARTMENT ( 7 HEALTH AND ENVIRONMLNT
Site Application Review Process
New and Expansion
H�IG/tdc rile/al C.y ':i
CoI
I -E Weeks I q m n-Ms I NIA WoA
Identify Need for Analyze Complete
ewlAdditiona Request to Alternatives for Application Form, :-
Wastewater Submit to Review
III Hydraulic YES—► Permits Unit for ► Meeting Needs& Engineering ► 1/,
Capacity/Process Capacity? PEL's Complying with Report and Entities n'loin
Developmentt
PEL's Checldist 1
t
NO
/'1
I --' q 0n7As NO I New WWTP?
7
YES
Prepare Position Paper,
Management 1.Completeness Review
Review of Staff Approval/Denial Letter& YES Complete or 2.Technical Review 4 Post Site
Recommendation Assign Site Application Adequate? 3.Planning Review
Number
•
NO
1
Identify Applicant
Deficiencies-May O. Responds to
Return Application Deficiencies
Concur With _
Staff? NO
•
YES
1
These reviews are essentially
Approval/Denial
Letter Issued (To Appeal Proces� independent.
"
r1/4.
APPENDIX G
I `
I r 4 t , -s'
I.
J Y..r. rtn .. r •,L,, f; — jI --. ..._
�,. 1, r7onTN LTemcf } I
I �
r 1'�
I _ � _'.. ,I- rr -� nA•ra^.• 4 �----a}•+1 w� F*� 'll y \/;if;
___._ ' �1�"�� ( �' �
, I , ., .L..--•--._ 6 .L,1 c-.-�'„' ,7- \'.. ���\� �.
3 -;-
'dsglAR
,
.t: I '•� I �' �� V POMP STATION
Itit
7. F —
� �
Z.
/
3.
I I I. . )'. ti I , i„n r� I -
- ,",
f - rrlrr ;4 r
,.�,_ Jai ,i ..1 ,` +
- '
LEGEND TOWN OF MEAD
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE AREA WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
EXISTING 208 SERVICE AREA,
5 PUMP STATION WWTP'S & PUMP STATIONS
SEPTEMBER 10, 2004
"•^‘
6000 3000 0 6000 _PR ENGINEERING
i�r� I A Subsidiary of W.rhi,n
SCALE: 1" = 6000' 2623Fast Prospect Raid sole 69•Fm Cora CO 80525
9A-49I-9BBB•Fax 970-4.9I--9984•Wxwl 9m^
APPENDIX H
-, __mil `` -: 1 -- - =MP I_
60' _ _ 1
L
NOTES ` Ho'
1. ALL IPES SHOWN 7r NH `_`'- -ARE PVC UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED. r8 zea
\ \` __I
"-_ ` 211
1B
? z\ /
GRIT TROUGH W/PARSHALL FLUME _ -
v j SPUTTER BOX -sir i
SURFACE
$ POR AURpO, _'rm_ c CEU. 1 �..
F, 02,-,;;;;;; o yf I
oT
I i DELL 2
A *
J p ` 713 Jl
-1 I -�y� i
co
ra
_ •
• • •" ER 8px - _ C CATS VALVE OUTLET
L-----_______._,______
1
_`
w LAGOON INFORMATION \ ` AU7
Q. VOLUME* DETENTION**
2 CELL (GAL) TIME (DAYS) GATE VM3sE .,
m MP CF 10) .
E
I Ct2/1/13 BLDG DISCHARGE W
E FERMENTATION PIT 156,000 1.1 CONTROLJ
° CELL 1 465,000 3.3 BYPASS UNE anow€E M•ECRON NH
3 CELL 2 609,000 4.4 CHULR1NE CaTACT CHAMBERS EFFWEHT STARDPFE
CELL 3 558.000 4_0 (4 TW •4,000 CAL EA) Auo wFm
I TOTAL BASIN 2 1,788,000 12.8 TOWN OF MEAD
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
I BASIN 1 3,122,000 EXISTING WWTP SITE PLAN
o 4 SEPTEMBER 10, 2004
c, BASIN 3 195,000
*VOLUME BASED ON MAX DEPTH OF 6.7'. 80 40 0 80 JR ENGINEERING
g "DETENTION TIME BASED ON 140,000 GPD. r l Aw slrian CoctilanY
STATE STANDARD FOR DETENTION TIME IN
x AERATED LAGOONS IS 12-30 DAYS. SCALE: 1" = 801 2620EastProspecRedSHe190•Fat cth ,CO 80625
970-491-9888',Fax 970-491-5S64•wnwiraireengccm
.....an.mw0vew vvvv 1 rlww I Implementation PIan\Lake Thn.nng WWTP Ghnmatic.0-- 0 5x1110-1-" 09!02'"""'11:03:r"" miller. 1
j / /
-'---4'PVC.RANT EFFLUENT LINE
\ C PVC EFFLUENT LINE
TO LAKE THOMAS
\ \- \ CONTROL BUILDING 1.000 GALLON NYPOCHLORITE
\ (SEE RAN/SECTION) CONTACT BASIN
•'NEST1ORAGE A fEEO
(_ ` \\` I II I I 1. C PVC PIPE'I
1
1, �te
` 1 /2-4'PV G.CAPPED(GATE VALVES)
I r\���;N. )...\` .� ' / 7%..• I-i'STEEL BLOWOFF
1 /. �� ��\ �� % t POLY LINE FORCE MAIN
111 i \�°��°�!°\\\ icy` /J .�♦
EFFLUENT 'k . --\ �\ � .(\� \�j�.., y �,`.i / /� %� \
r POLY PIPE e yr 1'..... __\Gam\ •fff\\\� ` .
WTLE Is \ \ . I )01 „/ I / -�—,tom\\.
sTaucTUR II SETTLING P /'
CELL �\ i I• I I I I I �-- 0./
`� /�... ..,�� /4PPROx FORCE MAIN
i'PWY \\ / POND I / ,• .` / / -
OEPfN ti_ ��------
A __Z.-LOCATION
/ \ 1, 11 1 j /A\` •N .\ I //p RATION \ / /�/Lei✓ / / 7 7 L// �'` POMPEDNTRaL
\�\ 1 CELL pi/if
/ , `�' PANEL----,„.
1 / '( / a' / I•PVC i�
FLOATING \\ \\ .\ :�i/�:/ ` �/ / / // OVERFLow pump
i �
BAGFLE� �` \`\#
\�\ i9 \\ //l//// //les �-- / ,AJ STATION
FRAME('SUBMERSIBLE �-------",....,›.-s„, // \ ,, 'a /� `I // INFLUENT
AERATOR(1'S BHP) / � \(\�„ /// (/// :."
a' �\ " ' /
(APPROXIMATE) /!` 1�\�e LIC // YC/ // 7 //
/ /
FLOATING BARGE // 4, / / �-/ /'
AERATOR LoC TION / / / 'L--/ /i •�'. _/
r CC MPROX ATE ///n/ /
C //�/ / "I '/ `\
i/(//)� / /
� n m x > D O INLET STRUCTURE /� L.i .----i ' / �-!
`./ m (n / !/.+ / one /• _flIT1NCa
—TBM.ELEVATIaN Si000- ,.- -11 Mil K
/ MOUSE
!\VL' Na
my -' NOD /
9IZ m * °
m
..7 Zl 00 Z ,
8 0 60 30 0 60
G) SCALE: 1" = 601
o
,r•
APPENDIX I
r
ff Y I,dil � `,\ r ✓ fM /
a
a
,','\..4.,.4.
�I ���..___J____4•,/ _ pan, r�
0
1 !a_ •z . �l,
/ -°s _ A a A ,.ry�� . . , ,�° - I \ yam;
r _ _ A r^ , n .: I '3' -
N ' ' STA - t r` , f -I j �f. 4000 2000 0 4000
' ✓ x e.e r — T _ SCALE: 1" = 4000'
i q�- Ar �_ �� sa ' �,y ' .,ti _ �,.V ry_
{ l\ \„ f I i ��* �y� '.in
%/ AL7EIINA W'�P��� ( \ .-� /! Y Ii-„t
181 I I l �� - s/ I ( 4
3 � �•� e�\ Imo„ \. 9 .4 C�'���. ij I• e ' -,\ it-7_ ;.� A'-`1 1 r,
5
R.
, �. .u •• t.
LEGEND
li _' --,-.-17- -- -/ f 1A V ����d ti ,,,„\,)\A�V -'-�P�,mnia roar! n! i NA1l% =` ,,i 111E
..�
P ;� . y ` a)� 0 �� ar G21-zi; SANITARY SEWER SERVICE AREA
a I 1 �s �� ` � �_ I`,c, `31. au PROPOSED ADDED SERVICE AREA
�� U . .� - ��._ '� i� �..._� ✓ x \ a �` A �>` —�. FORCE MAIN 74 `� dA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
t ti. - ! _ J ( ;� - . *SAW weir ,� 1 1
1 �; l ' i.`" s PUMP STATION
o �\ \ I E \ /\ n zs � z I, ., c� ' sib POTENTIAL LIFT STATION
_ + , l mo w„
o.
l ( h_ f { h Y
E �•p 1 •B 3 , ze , _ P6 x 'r25--). _� zv / �}. za
0
TOWN OF MEAD
, �� r = WASTEWATER FACIUTIES STUDY
LL
1 "'' " ` ', PROPOSED WWTP ALTERNATIVE
I 11 LOCATIONS & SERVICE AREAS
'F r� i1MMI1F- tJA'f7
'I .1._!T e, li )o 31 _ .3 . cM 31 ��
� f P
n rib .� ti L E _ t -� I
V. . _ .._ 1 J R ENGINEERING
A 818.101503Weltilm
O
MO US PUCCI RaQ St 90•Fal Cant CO BOBS
970-19 .Fac 9AJ9F99B1•wga9 Own
1 , J , 10; /
1 1 i� ifs l.n_-� .. k �. i ...c.:-/-1--7) C.71-1/4'11\1:1"71-11
f�
IIIIr 1 �, If1 6 F w 1 j✓ w'7 �' 7 :;L— .'0. J �_ Cam/
, At N'&1'14* — ter ,.
Call � 4000 2000 0 4000
�-N• ` 0 tS y „ kik
P P ST�ON P - Ihi
SCALE. 1" = 4000'
-\ ik
J r s T-1111:11
`�1 �' / r'
'' RIDS s \L` I ., c LEG ND
STATI .vil
a � �__ i SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
C=: I , 0 A v 1 Ia \ � /4 fv AREA
� !
I ilk � « , �� PROPOSED ADDED
ceo
, r SERVICE AREA
o
r ,. ldCif � Ifl �� C LI r WASTEWATER TREATMENT
L _ L � : ) 1• 1--� . _ � PLANTW
/ � �I� 1 PUMPSTATION
F- ` I ,' f �T '� ' f 7 �� 6 EXISTING UM
EXIS b WYYI#� r°_ fi a ` :2 '�
F . . z
• 7� _ " 0- Po PROPOSED LIFT STATION
zr, 41.C --�s" 1
'1 ^ rs j ) 1 rig , ef7�LlF€(i at PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWER
, _ ��,� w ' ' '• -- PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
\i - PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWER
_ � v .� . - CONSTRUCTED BY TOWN
( may f ,; 21 z3 1 _ " ' ffi -"1 Y� /4i �
--._./.� " �� i} ; DRAINAGE BASIN OF PROPOSED
-
INTERCEPTOR SEWER
cd g� \
I � '1-.:"�.}e' ,.� i 1 ,„, .3i�l.� r^'•°°` _ : 1 O BASIN ER
NUM B
" "/ _ EXISTING SVSD LINES
1.
33
3D
• � r " — v �'�i'^' �'� - � of ' 1
a
,_ - a ST Al S ANITA� q • o TOWN OF MEAD
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUD
it 15' r ALTERNATIVE 5
. p ' U� - WEST 1-25 WWTP
P a ..� '" FEBRUARY 4, 2005
5
J Y {� -�� .34 fN - 361 92 ' l I�
•
.. 331
" 7 / /� 1 IS J•R ENGINEERING
1 I p
-1 lif
c '.a - y9_ . e __».—_ ...{._'. 26A East Papal ka451w•90.Fat CQnSCO 61&5
910-191-t.5a 9 o-e-181•w•ryapnd.9ai
K
i mow'
• a
,R - g - . ""f �. ,-/"-
‘19.-S. I .1 -,4 ‘
U
' •
(/3�)
�� 2000 0 0 f 40004 00
•
�r' � ` N• ��� SCALE. 1'' = 4000'
• a- e PU ST l
L/�� > 1 � �L 4J
a RID ,, � iPr, LEGEND
LI
MP STATI,� � - , — __, �/ a 1 ti � ` SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
.. ..
O. a �1 A I i% - rJ V `. ��.. rI' ( ' �. ti AREA
b
m .� �
�� �?% a� I �' y 1� � — • PROPOSED ADDED
f t� ix F. SERVICE AREA
_ T �� M .1� '1 _ ,,a,�1,1 - �AL1E72NAAVf"WW �J� - v WASTEWATER TREATMENT
t Ad PLANT
T 9 EXISTING PUMP STATION
\� ✓-----/ EXISTING WWII e ra w "1 �E � � f s �.�' 0 PROPOSED LIFT STATION
_ J / PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWER
3 11 11i
• '� _� t ' ra PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
� f N s I= PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWER
•
_ V� .i CONSTRUCTED BY TOWN
1s % � � 1�
. DRAINAGE BASIN OF PROPOSED
i ® INTERCEPTOR SEWER
a>
I .y ca ® BASIN NUMBER
v - // 'o l�!' rE-- '
^ 6a,a EXISTING SVSD LINES
e /
p / , _
o- ss a 1n
n / ,
a " ✓ T
-). I: n;d NM W MEADII
ACID ES STUDY
99 WASTE ATER F
y Q \ ALTERNATIVE 4A
1 S h f �-'
r� ( �j CR 17 WWTP
a. d 1'e 1 \ ?y, ..� ,. ::.��er Fr 1 FEBRUARY 4, 2005
e /
-. 31
it r__,_,
_
N rr
p
i 1. = r " :— . .. ::. ... 1F - 4' �_ f R ENGINEERING
A&Slag of%Son
2e03 Eal ROXIO RNA Slia 10.Fal Um CO MS
o
99
S 910-61eFic 9A-491961•wptlipl.UWMI
_ t � RI' � - %��, -/ NT
a �`1 /I !' .. "ll,,,,,„
. .4 _ , Jt., , , ./ ‘,_ . ,3, ,,_ , _ . . „ „ ,__ r r ',- • '.3 / - ----.;', ' / 4E, --, ,, ° ' _ - ,-) - ---A- .
{ 3 vi ii v
ue
/ II ‘
�' �.. <:::::,,,,,,,
r5
�, r: 7/ 44, ‘71144___
�11 j ) • �v _ s� , 4000 2000 0 4000
3 / 5 __ P".` I #, N' ''.., T_ ? 1 { " SCALE: 1" - 4000'
P STbN 1 �. I '' _ �� I �a, � ° a � .. � \ __
_ �1 LEGEND
X' - Ira \zj "UAIP STA71• ti SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
I '� AREA
a � I � . ! ,� \ { PROPOSED ADDED
n __ Q is ¢ �1� a . � 6. iSERVICE AREA
�J ,. S' . WASTEWATER TREATMENT
A 13.5 ` t ir
PLANT
_t + I,, 7La P .I, y � Ll STATION 9EXISTING PUMP STATION
lI ( fL. 9!_ ' I ( y r 0 PROPOSED LIFT STATION
EXI W %fi
_ t4 � �� t ® PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWER
to
�;, ,
INN no
� % � i • F [I PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
� r 0
cf, •
1
MIN INK PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWER
s � c CONSTRUCTED BY TOWN
6
a
1 `� �, , f r • DRAINAGE BASIN OF PROPOSED
• ��.�: 1- 2a 1 - 7—�-- ® � °f, INTERCEPTOR SEWER
3 �' 1 ' _ I =
# BASIN NUMBER
n
a r # _> a
` \----4, �. , • '"_ _ 1�: .,
ii
1 �1 EXISTING SVSD LINES
E. 2 111 n
"
E _ 30 - l N I - I, _ 29 pn.e 28 9
ST NP SANITq� o 7
. .- ✓�" TOWN OF MEAD
STRICAC
�o WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
y � � I 've q ;• -YAT 1�4 'H�� .�I
' _ � - / � .. # ALTERNATIVE 4
1 �� v 4;1 6r 7 SVSD WWTP
i _ 1 9 >4 F� t . - / FEBRUARY 4, 2005
i3F /phi• X34 I . 33
J
-
IMr I
R ENGINEERING
A:hlryMWMblw
N MrY1''uu yam,p (�y Ul COC�J aLV f� nqo�•��1 Salt 130•Rd MBA W
97o-AF9®•Fat 9N-191-9331•wanep�ymn
K
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION
REGULATION NO. 22
SITE LOCATION AND DESIGN APPROVAL REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS
ADOPTED: November 17, 1981
EFFECTIVE: December 30, 1981
AMENDED: May 13, 1996
EFFECTIVE: June 30, 1996
AMENDED: July 14, 1997
EFFECTIVE: August 30, 1997
AMENDED: March 10, 1998
EFFECTIVE: April 30, 1998
AMENDED: May 10, 2004
EFFECTIVE: June 30, 2004
EXHIBIT D
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Water Quality Control Commission
5 CCR 1002-22
SITE LOCATION AND DESIGN APPROVAL REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS
22.1 AUTHORITY
Sections 25-8-202 (1)(e); 25-8-202 (1)(i)and (2); 25-8-702 C.R.S.
22.2 DEFINITIONS
(1) "AMENDMENT"means a change to an existing site location approval or a change to an existing
domestic wastewater treatment works constructed before November 1967 and not expanded
since that date, meeting the requirements of section 22.8, and for which reduced information
requirements and a streamlined review process apply.
(2) "APPLICATION" means the combined materials necessary to fulfill the requirements of section
22.4, 22.5, 22.6, 22.7 or 22.8 as appropriate. This may include the appropriate application form,
engineering report, review agency recommendations and certifications.
(3) "APPROVAL" means the final action of the Water Quality Control Division approving an
application for site location approval, certification or design. A site location approval shall specify
the location and, in general, the type of domestic wastewater treatment works being approved
and its design capacity. This action may take the form of an approval, conditional approval, or
acknowledgement of receiving certification (for interceptors).
(4) "COMMISSION" means the Water Quality Control Commission created by section 25-8-201,
C.R.S.
(5) "CONSTRUCTION" means entering into a contract for the erection or physical placement of
materials, equipment, piping, earthwork, or buildings which are to be part of a domestic
wastewater treatment works. When an entity enters into a design-build contract for the domestic
wastewater treatment works, the portion of the contract covering the preparation of the site
application and/or design, is not considered to be "construction", i.e. the contractor may complete
site application and/or design work, including obtaining Division review and approval of the site
location and design, and still be in conformance with this regulation.
(6) "COMPREHENSIVE PLAN" means the Master Plan adopted by a City, Town or County or an
amendment to such plan. However, in the event that comprehensive plans overlap the subject
property, then the plan developed by the local government having land use jurisdiction over the
sight shall be given primary consideration.
(7) "DESIGN CAPACITY" means the rated capacity (capability)of a treatment plant to meet effluent
limitations or other appropriate capacity measure for a treatment works (e.g. hydraulic capacity
for an interceptor sewer). For a treatment plant, this rated capacity is comprised of two
components, hydraulic capacity and organic loading capacity. The hydraulic capacity shall be
given in gallons per day (gpd)or million gallons per day(MGD)that the treatment plant is able to
process. The organic loading capacity shall be given in pounds or tons of 5-day biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) per day that the treatment plant is able to process. Thus, the hydraulic
and organic loading capacities define the maximum amount of waste that the facility can reliably
treat and be in compliance with effluent limitations. In some cases, the loading of another
1
pollutant, e.g. ammonia, may limit the design capacity of a treatment facility. In these cases, a
rated capacity for that pollutant in pounds per day shall also be specified. This rated capacity can
be expressed as: (a) maximum monthly average;or(b)another capacity measure deemed
appropriate by the Division for the treatment plant.
For facilities also considered in accordance with the Guidelines on Individual Sewage Disposal
Systems, the design capacity shall be the average daily flow, at full occupancy, prior to the
application of the 150 percent design flow factor required by those Guidelines.
(8) "DIVISION" means the Water Quality Control Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment.
(9) "DOMESTIC WASTEWATER" means a combination of liquid wastes (sewage)which may include
chemicals, household wastes, human excreta, animal or vegetable matter in suspension or
solution, or other solids in suspension or solution which are discharged from a dwelling, building
or other structure.
(10) "DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT" (TREATMENT PLANT)means an
arrangement of devices and structures for treating, neutralizing, stabilizing, or disposing of
domestic wastewater, industrial wastes, and biosolids.A domestic wastewater treatment plant is
one type(or element)of domestic wastewater treatment works. The term"domestic wastewater
treatment plant" does not include industrial wastewater treatment plants or complexes whose
primary function is the treatment of industrial wastes, notwithstanding the fact that human wastes
generated incidentally to the industrial process are treated therein.
(11) "DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS" (TREATMENT WORKS) means a system
or facility for treating, neutralizing, stabilizing, or disposing of domestic wastewater which system
or facility has a designed capacity to receive two thousand gallons of domestic wastewater per
day or more. The term "domestic wastewater treatment works" also includes appurtenances to
such system or facility such as oulfall sewers and pumping stations and to equipment related to
such appurtenances. The term "domestic wastewater treatment works"does not include
industrial wastewater treatment plants or complexes whose primary function is the treatment of
industrial wastes, notwithstanding the fact that human wastes generated incidentally to the
industrial process are treated therein.
(12) "EFFLUENT LIMITATION"means any restriction or prohibition established under the"Colorado
Discharge Permit System Regulations", Regulation 61 (5 CCR 1002-61).
(13) "EXPANSION" means any construction that increases the design capacity of any facility meeting
the definition of domestic wastewater treatment works. An expansion involves increasing the
hydraulic, organic,or other capacity-limiting pollutant(as defined under design capacity for which
the treatment facility has a rated capacity) loading to the domestic wastewater treatment works. It
does not mean the replacement in kind of facilities or equipment that would be considered
ordinary maintenance. If a modification or replacement does not increase design capacity of the
domestic wastewater treatment works, it is not an expansion.
(14) "GPD" (gallons per day)or"MGD" (million gallons per day)are the units used to estimate or
measure total domestic wastewater flow to a domestic wastewater treatment works.
(15) "INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM (ISDS)" means an absorption system of any size
or flow, or a system or facility for collecting, storing, treating, neutralizing, stabilizing, or disposing
of sewage which is not part of or connected to a sewage treatment works. An ISDS with a design
hydraulic capacity equal to or greater than two thousand gallons per day is considered to be a
domestic wastewater treatment works and subject to this regulation.
2
(16) "INTERCEPTOR SEWER" means-a sewer line with an internal pipe diameter equal to or greater
than 24 inches, if it performs one or more of the following functions as its primary purpose:
(a) It intercepts domestic wastewater from a final point in a collection system and conveys
such waste directly to a treatment plant;
(b) It is intended to replace an existing treatment plant and transports the collected domestic
wastewater to an adjoining collection system or interceptor sewer for treatment;
(c) It transports the domestic wastes from one or more municipal collection systems to a
regional treatment plant;
(d) It is intended to intercept an existing major discharge of raw or inadequately treated
wastewater for transport directly to another interceptor sewer or to a treatment plant.
A sewer with a minor number of building or lateral connections may be considered an interceptor
sewer if it performs one or more of the functions listed above. Interceptor sewers are
appurtenances to domestic wastewater treatment works.
(17) "LIFT STATION" (PUMPING STATION)means a wastewater pumping station that pumps the
wastewater to a different point when the continuance of the sewer at reasonable slopes would
involve excessive depths of bury or that pumps wastewater from areas too low to drain into
available sewers. This definition does not include wastewater pumping stations for single family
residences or clusters of five or fewer single family residences or other small buildings, as long as
they receive less than two thousand gallons per day of domestic wastewater. Lift stations are
appurtenances to domestic wastewater treatment works.
(18) "MANAGEMENT AGENCY" means a municipality, appropriately designated by the governor, in
accordance with section 208 of the Federal Clean Water Act and State Law,with responsibilities
to implement all or part of an approved water quality management plan.
(19) "MUNICIPALITY" means any regional commission, county, metropolitan district offering sanitation
service, sanitation district,water and sanitation district, water conservancy district, metropolitan
sewage disposal district, service authority, city and county, city,town, Indian tribe or authorized
Indian tribal organization or any two or more of them which are acting jointly in connection with a
domestic wastewater treatment works.
(20) "OUTFALL SEWER" means a sewer that receives treated wastewater from a treatment plant and
carries it to a point of final discharge. This definition does not include reclaimed domestic
wastewater distribution and transmission system piping. Outfall sewers are appurtenances to
domestic wastewater treatment works.
(21) "PERSON" means an individual, corporation, partnership, association, state, or political
subdivision thereof,federal agency, state agency, municipality, commission or interstate body.
(22) "208 PLANNING AGENCY" means an entity appropriately designated by the Governor, in
accordance with section 208 of The Federal Clean Water Act and State Law, to produce and
update a water quality management plan.
(23) "PRELIMINARY EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (PELs)" means effluent limitations developed by the
Division or developed by the applicant and approved by the Division, usually in support of a site
application or permit application, based on the proposed discharge flow at the inflow to state
waters and the applicable water quality standards for those state waters affected by the
discharge.
3
(24) "RECLAIMED DOMESTIC WASTEWATER" means wastewater that has received treatment that
enables the wastewater to meet the requirements, prohibitions, standards, and concentration
limitations adopted by the Commission for subsequent reuses other than drinking.
(25) "SITE" means the land or water area where any facility or activity subject to this regulation is
physically located or conducted, including adjacent land used in connection with the facility or
activity.
(26) "STATE WATERS" means any and all surface and subsurface waters which are contained in or
flow in or through this state, but does not include waters in sewage systems, waters in treatment
works or disposal systems,waters in potable water distribution systems, and all water withdrawn
for use until use and treatment have been completed.
(27) "TREATMENT ENTITY" means a municipality or person responsible for treating the domestic
wastewater.
(28) "TREATMENT PROCESS MODIFICATION" means a physical construction change to an existing
domestic wastewater treatment works that does not change the design capacity, but either
replaces an existing treatment process with a different process or substantially alters the
operating mode of the process.
(29) "VAULT" means a receptacle, which is designed to receive and store domestic wastewater either
from a sewer or from a privy and is accessible for the periodic removal of its contents. If the vault
is intended to serve a structure or structures that are projected to generate a domestic
wastewater flow of two thousand gallons per day or more at full occupancy, the vault is a
treatment works. Vaults are Individual Sewage Disposal Systems.
(30) "WATERCOURSE"means the natural or human-made channels or ditch or conveyance or
standing body of water into which the effluent from a domestic wastewater treatment works is
discharged and does not necessarily contain water at all times,
(31) "WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN" consists of wastewater management and water
quality plans produced in accordance with sections 208 and 303(e)of the federal Clean Water
Act and state law, and certified and approved updates to that plan. A water quality management
plan must identify a system of treatment plants necessary to meet the anticipated municipal and
industrial waste treatment needs of the designated area over a 20-year period.
22.3 DECLARATION OF POLICY FOR THE SITE LOCATION APPROVAL
PROCESS
(1) Based on section 25-8-702(2)C.R.S., in evaluating the suitability of a proposed site location for a
domestic wastewater treatment works, the Division shall:
(a) Consider the local long-range comprehensive plans for the area as they affect water
quality and any approved water quality management plan for the area;
(b) Determine that the proposed domestic wastewater treatment works can be managed to
minimize the potential adverse impact on water quality and in accordance with the
appropriately issued discharge permit, where applicable; and
(c) 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.
4
(2) Each application for site location approval of a domestic wastewater treatment works shall be
reviewed to ensure:
(a) That the existing treatment works will not be overloaded when connecting new lift stations
or interceptors subject to site application requirements of sections 22.6 and 22.7;
(b) That the proposed treatment works is developed considering the local long-range
comprehensive plans for the area as it affects water quality and the approved water
quality management plans 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 load allocation;
(d) That the proposed treatment works has been properly reviewed by all appropriate local,
state, and federal government agencies and 208 planning agencies;
(e) That the proposed treatment works can be operated and managed at the proposed site
location to minimize foreseeable potential adverse impacts on the public health, welfare,
and safety, as related to wastewater treatment and/or water quality;
(f) That the applicant is capable of providing for adequate treatment works construction and
operational management, including legal authority and financial capabilities, to meet its
preliminary 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.
(3) In the interest of facilitating a more effective and timely review of individual applications, counties,
other local governments and 208 planning agencies are encouraged to establish and implement a
coordinated review and comment process.
(4) In the interest of facilitating a more effective and timely review of proposed new and expanded
domestic wastewater treatment works, each planning agency may establish and implement a
coordinated review and comment process to carry out the provisions of this regulation in
coordination with its water quality planning responsibilities. Where a 208 planning agency wishes
to establish such a coordinated process, the Division may enter into an agreement with the 208
planning agency specifying the procedures for this coordinated process. The intent is to establish
a single process 1)to meet these site location approval requirements and 2)to meet the
requirements for amendments to the water quality management plan. The process should be
designed so that a new or expanded domestic wastewater treatment works that which is
approved as a part of the water quality management plan may be concurrently deemed to also
meet the requirements of these site approval regulations at the time of its inclusion in the plan.
Under such a coordinated process, the Division retains final authority for approval or denial of
each project that is regulated under these site location approval regulations.
(5) Replacement in-kind of a domestic:wastewater treatment works does not require site location
approval unless the replacement occurs at a different location, in which case the treatment works
are considered to be "New"and are subject to the requirements of section 22.4. Similarly,
changing the location of the discharge point on the previously approved site and within the same
defined segment of the receiving surface water does not require site location approval. Other
5
changes to discharge point locations involving new or re-located outfall sewers are subject to the
requirements of section 22.4.
(6) The Commission and Division (after review by the Commission) may adopt policies designed to
aid in the interpretation and implementation of these regulations. The policies will be used in
conjunction with the regulations to form the basis of Division actions with respect to applications
for site location approval.
(7) The burden is on the applicant to supply the information necessary for the Division to make an
adequate review, based on the requirements in these regulations.
(8) The Division will act expeditiously on all complete applications that have been submitted. The
Division may require that the applicant ask for review and comments from other agencies for
applications under sections 22.4, 22.5, 22.7 and 22.8; however, the Division will make the final
decision regarding approval or disapproval of the application.
(9) If the application is denied,the Division will specify which items were not satisfied by the
application and what measures the applicant may take, if any, to satisfy those requirements.
(10) Approval by the Division of an application for site location approval shall not be deemed to be a
determination that the proposed treatment works are or are not necessary, that the proposed site
is or is not the best or only site upon which to locate such a treatment works, or that location of a
treatment works on the site is or is not a reasonable public use justifying condemnation of the
site. Approval by the Division shall only be deemed to be a determination that the site application
meets the requirements of this Regulation 22 (5 CCR 1002-22).
(11) Approval of a site application by the Division or the Commission in no way negates the necessity
for all applicants to obtain all required approvals from other state and local agencies.
(12) All site location approvals become effective on the date of approval and will expire if construction
has not started on the date specified by the Division in its approval letter or by the Commission, if
the matter is appealed. Unless otherwise specified by the Division, the expiration date will be one
year from the date of approval. In setting the expiration date, the Division will consider the
implementation plan and schedule (including design and bidding timing) provided with the
application and any recommendation for phasing as contained in the water quality management
plan. In the event of an appeal of the Division's action,the period during which construction is
required to begin will be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal before the Water Quality
Control Commission. If the Commission ruling upholds the Division's action, then the date of their
ruling shall commence the approval period. Any project not commencing construction on or
before the date of expiration must reapply or request a time extension. If there are no significant
changes from the original application, an extension request can be accomplished by a letter
request from the applicant.
(13) Notice of the decision by the Division shall be included in the next Water Quality Information
Bulletin.
(14) Written notification of the Division's decision shall be sent to the applicant and all persons who
have shown interest via written communication.
(15) Any person adversely affected or aggrieved by the Division's decision on a site application must
appeal that decision to the Commission as a prerequisite to the right of judicial review pursuant to
the State Administrative Procedures Act. The appeal shall be made in writing to the office of the
Administrator and be postmarked no later than thirty(30)days after the date of the mailing of the
bulletin notice of the Division action. Within ninety(90)days of the filing of the appeal the
Commission shall commence a hearing to consider such appeals in accordance with the
6
provisions of section 24-4-105, C.R.S. If appeal is made to the Commission, the decision shall be
made considering the criteria specified in these regulations.
22.4 APPLICATION PROCEDURES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DOMESTIC
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS
(1) The application for site location approval of any proposed new domestic wastewater treatment
works, except for interceptor sewers and lift stations as described below in sections 22.6 and
22.7, shall be made to the Division on the proper form. Prior to submitting the form to the
Division, the application must be submitted to the local authorities and the 208 planning agency
for review and comment in accordance with section 22.4(2). These application procedures also
apply to proposals to move outfall sewers from the approved site location to another site. These
application procedures also apply to proposals to construct new treatment facilities that will
produce reclaimed domestic wastewater if those facilities are to be constructed at a site location
that has not been previously approved by the Division or at a different site from the secondary
treatment plant location.
(a) These forms shall be available from the Water Quality Control Division,4300 Cherry
Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 and on the Division's web page.
(b) Accompanying the application shall be an adequate engineering report describing the
proposed new domestic wastewater treatment works and showing the applicant's
capabilities to manage and operate the facility over the life of the project. The report shall
be considered the culmination of the planning process. A full design report is not
necessary for the application or to obtain approval. Design review procedures are
described in section 22.10. The engineering report submitted with the application shall
address and/or include the following at a minimum:
(I) Service area definition including existing and projected population, site location,
staging or phasing,flow/loading projections, and relationship to other water and
wastewater treatment plants in the area.
(ii) Proposed site location, evaluation of alternative sites, and evaluation of treatment
alternatives. A less detailed evaluation of alternative sites and treatment
alternatives may be submitted for domestic wastewater treatment works with a
design capacity less than 50,000 gpd; however, the feasibility of consolidation
must be considered in the report.
(iii) Preliminary Effluent Limitations (PELs) as developed in coordination with the
Division. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that they consider any
impacts that water quality standards changes may have on the PELs in their
application for site location approval and design for the proposed wastewater
treatment works. Additionally, there are other factors that can impact the
applicability of the PELs, such as changes in stream flows or ambient water
quality. The Division may require that the PELs be re-evaluated when the
Division is processing an application with PELs that, in the Division's judgment,
may no longer be applicable. If it is determined that new PELs must be issued,
Division action on the application will be delayed until new PELs are developed
and it is verified that the proposed treatment process(es)will be able to meet any
new PELs.
(iv) Analysis of the loading, capacity and performance of any relevant existing
facilities within the applicant's service area(s).
7
(v) Analysis of opportunities for consolidation of treatment works in accordance with
the provisions of section 22.3(1)(c), including those recommended in the water
quality management plan, unless the approved water quality management plan
recommends no consolidation.
(vi) Evidence that the proposed site and facility operations will not be adversely
affected by floodplain or other natural hazards. Where such hazards are
identified at the selected site, the report shall describe means of mitigating the
hazard,
(vii) Evidence shall be presented in the form of a report, containing soils testing
results from the site of the proposed treatment works and design
recommendations, and prepared by a Professional Geologist and a Geotechnical
Engineer, or by a professional meeting the qualifications of both Professional
Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer,with an appropriate level of experience
investigating geologic hazards, stating that the site will support the proposed
facility.
(viii) Detailed description of selected alternatives including legal description of the site
of the proposed treatment works, treatment system description, design
capacities, and operational staffing needs.
(ix) Legal arrangements showing control of the site for the project life or showing the
ability of the entity to acquire the site and use it for the project life.
(x) Institutional arrangements such as contract and/or covenant terms which will be
finalized to pay for acceptable waste treatment.
(xi) Management capabilities for controlling the wastewater loadings within the
capacity limitations of the proposed treatment works, i.e., user contracts,
operating agreements, pretreatment requirements and/or the management
capabilities to expand the facilities as needed (subject to the appropriate,future
review and approval procedures).
(xii) Financial system which has been developed to provide for necessary capital and
continued operation, maintenance, and replacement through the life of the
project. This would include,for example, anticipated annual budget and the fee
and rate structure.
(xiii) Implementation plan and schedule including estimated construction time and
estimated start-up date.
(c) Where the site application indicates that the proposed domestic wastewater treatment
works will discharge treated effluent to a ditch or other manmade conveyance structure,
or that an easement, right-of-way or other access onto or across private property of
another person may be necessary to construct the facility or to effectuate the discharge,
the applicant shall furnish to the Division evidence that a notice of the intent to construct
a new domestic wastewater treatment works has been provided to the owner of such
private property.
(2) The applicant shall be responsible for submitting the application and engineering report described
in section 22.4(1)(b)for the proposed new domestic wastewater treatment works to all
appropriate local governments, 208 planning agencies and State agencies for review and
comment prior to submission to the Division. The applicant must perform all necessary
coordination and supply all information for review by other agencies. The applicant is responsible
8
for obtaining all necessary signatures on the form before sending it to the Division, unless the
agencies fail to comment within 60 days, as discussed below. After receiving an application for
site location approval, each agency shall have a period of sixty(60) days in which to review and
comment on the application and to make a recommendation to the Division. After that sixty(60)
day period,the applicant may submit the application to the Division without such comments
and/or recommendations. Upon receipt of any application lacking the comments or
recommendation of an appropriate review entity, the Division shall contact that agency and
provide a period of seven (7)days for the agency to provide comments and/or a recommendation
or to explain the absence of such comments and/or recommendation.The review and
commenting agencies shall include the following:
(a) Management Agency, if different from other entities listed below;
(b) County if the proposed facility is located in the unincorporated area of a county. The
county, through its commissioners or its designee, is requested to review and comment
upon:the relationship of the treatment works to the local long-range comprehensive plan
for the area as it affects water quality; the proposed site location alternatives including the
location with respect to the flood plain; and the capacity to serve the planned purpose. A
recommendation of approval from the county is considered to be a statement that the
proposal is consistent with the water quality considerations contained in its local
comprehensive plan.
(c) City or Town if the proposed facility is to be located within the boundaries of a city or town
or within three miles of those boundaries if the facility is to be located in an
unincorporated area of the county. The city or town, through its mayor, council or its
designee, is requested to review and comment upon:the relationship of the treatment
works to the local comprehensive plan and/or utility plan for the community as it affects
water quality; the proposed site location alternatives including the location with respect to
the flood plain; and the capacity to serve the planned development. A recommendation
of approval from the city or town is considered to be a statement that the proposal is
consistent with the water quality considerations contained in its local comprehensive
plan.
(d) Local Health Authority, who is requested to review and comment on local issues, policies
and/or regulations related to public health, safety and welfare as affected by the proposal;
(e) 208 Planning Agency, if designated or if such function has been delegated by the State,
should comment on the consistency of the proposed treatment plant to the water quality
management plan; and
(f) Other state or federal agencies shall be sent a copy of the application, if the proposed
facility would be on or adjacent to any land owned or managed by such agency. The
review and signature requirements given above do not apply to these agencies.
(3) To notify the public, and provide additional opportunity for public input, the following posting
requirements apply to all new treatment works, unless posted in accordance with local permitting
requirements:
(a) Signs are to be posted for 15 continuous days prior to the time the site application is
submitted to the Division. However, the Division should be notified of the project at the
time of posting so that necessary public information can be made available as required
under(b)of this section. A photograph of the sign or other documentation certifying that
this posting requirement has been met must be included in the application.
9
(b) The sign shall be not less than 3'x 4'on a post not less than 4'above the natural grade
where allowable, or else in conformance with applicable county or municipal sign codes.
Notice shall contain the following information:
NOTICE OF PROPOSED FACILITY (IDENTIFY)
(Title must be 4" in red, or maximum allowable under sign code.)
Notice is hereby given that the property upon which this sign is posted shall be considered for the
construction of a facility(identify). Additional information may be obtained by contacting the
applicant(include applicant's phone number)or the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment,Water Quality Control Division, (303)692-3500.
22.5 APPLICATION PROCEDURES FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING DOMESTIC
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS
(1) The application for site location approval for any expanded domestic wastewater treatment works,
except for interceptor sewers and lift stations as described in sections 22.6 and 22.7 shall be
made to the Division on the proper form. Prior to submitting the form to the Division,the
application must be submitted to the local authorities and the 208 planning agency for review and
comment in accordance with section 22.5(4). These forms shall be available from the Water
Quality Control Division,4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado, 80246-1530 and on
the Division's web page.
(2) The applicant shall also provide an adequate engineering report that documents the need for the
expansion, consistency with local wastewater facility plans and any approved water quality
management plans, and, as a minimum, shall address the following:
(a) Changes to existing service area, population and loading projections;
(b) PELs, as developed in coordination with the Division, see section 22.4(1)(b)(iii) above;
(c) Analysis of the loading, capacity and performance of the existing treatment works;
(d) Analysis of alternative means to treat additional loading, in accordance with section
22.3(1), including any consolidation alternatives recommended in the approved water
quality management plan except if the plan recommends no consolidation, that option
does not need to be considered;
(e) Changes in the financial system which will result from the proposed expansion, including
changes to the fee structure;
(f) Implementation plan and schedule, including estimated construction time and estimated
date on which the expanded plant will be in operation.
(3) The Division may require that the applicant present evidence, in the form of a report, containing
soils testing results from the site of the proposed expansion and design recommendations and
prepared by a Professional Geologist and a Geotechnical Engineer, or by a professional meeting
the qualifications of both Professional Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer, with an appropriate
level of experience investigating geologic hazards, stating that the site will support the expanded
facility.
(4) The applicant shall be responsible for submitting the application and engineering report described
in section 22.5(2)for the expanded domestic wastewater treatment works to all appropriate local
governments, 208 planning agencies, and state agencies for review and comment prior to
10
submission to the Division. The procedures for this comment and review process are specified in
section 22.4(2).
22.6 CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR ELIGIBLE INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
(1) A new or expanding interceptor sewer may be eligible for certification in lieu of site location
approval. The certification process is available in those circumstances where the treatment entity
has adequate treatment capacity, or has site location approval for sufficient additional capacity to
treat the projected total flow and the projected total flow would still be under their discharge
permit flow limitations, where applicable, after the interceptor sewer is completed. Additionally,to
be eligible for the certification process, the proposed interceptor sewer must be capable of
carrying the projected flows from the applicable service area and the project must be consistent
with the Water Quality Management Plan.
(2) The certification process is as follows. Ninety days prior to the commencement of construction of
an interceptor sewer, the person responsible for that sewer shall notify the 208 planning agency
and the Division of such construction. This notification shall be accompanied by a certification
from the treatment entity receiving the wastewater for treatment that it has, or will have,the
capacity to treat the projected wastewater from that interceptor sewer in accordance with the
treatment entity's site location approval and discharge permit. Within 30 days of receipt of
notification, the 208 planning agency, or the Division if a 208 planning agency does not exist,
shall certify that the proposed interceptor sewer has the capacity to carry the projected flow and is
consistent with the Water Quality Management Plan. In the event the person responsible for an
interceptor sewer does not have the said certifications from the treatment entity and the 208
planning agency, the person responsible shall be required to obtain site location approval from
the Division, as set forth in section 22.7 of these regulations, prior to construction.
(3) For notification received pursuant to section 22.6(2), the Division shall acknowledge in writing,to
the responsible person, the receipt of such notification and certification.
22.7 APPLICATION PROCEDURES FOR INTERCEPTOR SEWERS NOT ELIGIBLE
FOR CERTIFICATION AND LIFT STATIONS
(1) The application for site location approval for interceptors not eligible for certification as provided
for in section 22.6 and all lift stations (new or expanding)shall be made to the Division on the
proper form. Prior to submitting the form to the Division, the application must be submitted to the
local authorities and the 208 planning agency for review and comment in accordance with
sections 22.7(2)and 22.7(3). These forms shall be available from the Water Quality Control
Division,4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado, 80246-1530 and on the Division's
web page. The applicant shall also provide an adequate engineering report describing the
proposed lift station and/or interceptor sewer. As a minimum, the report shall address the
following:
(a) Name and address of the applicant;
(b) A map identifying the site of the proposed facilities, topography of the area, and
neighboring land uses;
(c) Service area for the lift station, including existing and projected population, and
flow/loading projections showing projected flow and loading over the following 20 years;
(d) Identification of the treatment entity responsible for receiving and treating the wastewater;
11
(e) Legal arrangements showing control of the site or right-of-way for the project life or
showing the ability of the entity to acquire the site or right-of-way and use it for the project
life;
(f) Confirmation, in writing,from the wastewater treatment entity that it:
(i) Will treat the wastewater;
(ii) Is not presently receiving wastes in excess of its design capacity as defined in it's
site location approval and/or discharge permit, or is under construction,or will be
in a phased construction of new or expanded facilities, and will have the
necessary capacity to treat the projected discharge from the new interceptor
sewer or from the new or expanded lift station. Projections of flow and loading to
the treatment plant as well as current and future plant capacity information must
be provided to demonstrate the plan for maintaining adequate treatment
capacity. Any proposed treatment plant phased construction must be shown in
the Water Quality Management Plan, or by appropriate planning and engineering
studies;
(iii) Has not been in violation of any effluent limitations in its discharge permit for the
last two years and is or not operating under a Notice of Violation and/or Cease
and Desist Order from the Division resulting from discharge permit violations.
Alternatively, if there have been effluent violations or if the treatment plant is
operating under a Notice of Violation and/or Cease and Desist Order from the
Division,then the Division will evaluate the situation and the treatment entities'
proposed corrective measures to achieve consistent compliance and determine if
approval should be granted, granted with conditions, or delayed;
(g) Evidence that the lift station and/or interceptor sewer will be properly operated and
maintained;
(h) Implementation plan and schedule including estimated construction time and estimated
start-up date; and
(i) To notify the public, and provide additional opportunity for public input, the
posting requirements given in section 22.4(3)shall also apply to all new lift
stations.
(2) The application shall be forwarded to the city, town, or county in whose jurisdiction(s)the lift
station and/or interceptor sewer is to be located for review and comment. The local authorities
are requested to review and comment upon: the relationship of the lift station and/or interceptor to
its local comprehensive plan and/or utility plan for the community as it affects water quality; the
proposed site location alternatives including the location with respect to the flood plain; and the
capacity to serve the planned purpose. A recommendation of approval from the local authority is
considered to be a statement that the proposal is consistent with the water quality considerations
contained in its local comprehensive plan. If the local authority does not review and comment on
the application within 60 days, the applicant may submit the application to the Division without
such comments and/or recommendations. Upon receipt of any application lacking the comments
or recommendation of an appropriate review entity, the Division shall contact that agency and
provide a period of seven (7)days for the agency to provide comments and/or a recommendation
or to explain the absence of such comments and/or recommendation.
.+ (3) The application shall be forwarded to the 208 planning agency for the area in which the facilities
are to be constructed and for the area to be served by those facilities for review and comment. A
recommendation of approval from the appropriate 208 planning agency(agencies) is considered
12
to be a statement that the proposal is consistent with any adopted water quality management
plan(s). If the 208 planning agency does not review and comment on the application within 60
days, the applicant may submit the application to the Division without such comments and/or
recommendations. Upon receipt of any application lacking the comments or recommendation of
the 208 planning agency,the Division shall contact that agency and provide a period of seven (7)
days for the agency to provide comments and/or a recommendation or to explain the absence of
such comments and/or recommendation.
(4) For all applications meeting the above criteria, the Division will adopt the recommendation of the
208 planning agency, assuming that the recommendation is consistent with that of the other
review agencies, unless it is aware of potential adverse impacts from the project to water quality
or the public health, safety or welfare not identified or addressed in the application. If the 208
planning agency does not provide a recommendation,or if the review agencies do not agree on
the recommendation, then the Division will review and act on the application in accordance with
section 22.9.
22.8 APPLICATION PROCEDURES FOR AMENDMENT OF AN EXISTING SITE
LOCATION APPROVAL
(1) The application for amendment of an approved site application shall be made to the Division on
the proper form with a list of the review authorities as defined in section 22.4(2)to whom the
amendment proposal has been provided. These review agencies shall have 15 working days
from receipt of the application to review and comment directly to the Division unless a brief(less
than 15 working days) extension is requested in writing. The Division will not deem a lack of
comments from such agencies within the specified comment period as a recommendation for
denial during its consideration of the application. These forms shall be available from the Water
Quality Control Division,4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado, 80246-1530 and on
the Division's web page. The applicant is not required to provide copies to review authorities for
the types of disinfection modifications as described in section 22.8(2)(b)(ii). The applicant, in
consultation with the Division, should also evaluate whether a discharge permit amendment is
necessary and file the appropriate application with the Division if it is needed.
(2) An amendment to the site location approval shall be required for any one of the following changes
from conditions reflected in an approved site application or from conditions at a domestic
wastewater treatment plant constructed prior to November 1967 and not expanded since that
date:
(a) The addition of a treatment process dealing with the liquid stream, that does not involve
an expansion, i.e. an increase in design capacity;
(b) Physical changes to any of the following treatment processes:
(i) Any changes in type of disinfection to include chlorine gas or from other types of
disinfection to chlorination. (A change from other types of disinfection to any
form of chlorination requires that a PEL for residual chlorine be obtained and
included in the application),
(ii) A change from gas chlorination to liquid chlorination or from any form of
chlorination to ultraviolet light disinfection,
(Hi) Changes to the secondary treatment system including aeration basins, recycle
streams, or clarifiers,
13
(iv) Changes to the primary treatment system that could reduce primary treatment
capacity and/or increase the flow, organic, or solids loadings to the secondary
treatment process,
(v) Changes to aerobic or anaerobic digestion that would increase the recycle
loadings to the plant above the approved design level or change the
characteristics of the biosolids,
(vi) Addition of a new treatment process that could negatively affect effluent quality
by increasing recycle flow to the plant or would directly have a negative impact
on effluent quality.
If a treatment entity is contemplating a physical change to its treatment works that is similar in
scope to those listed above, but is not precisely covered by this list,then the entity must submit to
the Division an analysis from a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of
Colorado describing the proposed changes and describing how those changes would affect the
performance of other parts of the treatment works and effluent quality. Where such an analysis is
submitted, the Division shall evaluate the proposed process change considering the list above
and provide a written response to the entity either stating that the changes may be made without
amending their previous site location approval and obtaining design approval, or requiring a site
application amendment and subsequent design review. Such letter from the Division shall clearly
specify that the changes executed must not be more extensive than those proposed in the
engineer's analysis.
(c) A decrease or increase in the approved, rated design capacity of the treatment works, as
long as no construction is to take place. An increase in hydraulic capacity for a treatment
plant will require that the existing effluent limitations be analyzed in coordination with the
Division to determine whether new PELs must be developed. Any changes in treatment
requirements necessitated by more stringent PELs must be addressed by the proposed
modification;
(d) The addition of,or expansion of a treatment process to generate reclaimed domestic
wastewater following secondary treatment at an existing treatment plant that has
previously received site location and design approval. This amendment would also cover
the change in type of discharge employed. A phased implementation of re-use may be
included in the application and approved in accordance with section 22.3(12).
Subsequent site approval amendments are not required as the phases are implemented
within the approval period. Site approval amendments are not required for adding re-use
sites in accordance with the Reclaimed Domestic Wastewater Regulation (5 CCR 1002-
84);
(e) The following changes in the type of discharge employed, where there is no change in
the treatment process:
(i) From a surface water discharge to a ground water discharge, or vice-versa, at
the same approved site location, subject to appropriate PELs; or
A partial or complete change from a surface water or ground water discharge to
wastewater re-use subject to the requirements in the Reclaimed Domestic
Wastewater Control Regulation (5 CCR 1002-84). Such amendment is only
required for the first instance when re-use is implemented. A phased
implementation of re-use may be included in the application and approved in
accordance with section 22.3(12). Subsequent site approval amendments are
^ not required as the phases are implemented within the approval period. Site
approval amendments are not required for adding re-use sites in accordance with
the Reclaimed Domestic Wastewater Regulation (5 CCR 1002-84).
14
22.9 FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DIVISION OR COMMISSION DECISION
MAKING
(1) The Division shall review the site application and engineering report, and in making its
determination as to whether or not to approve, conditionally approve or deny, shall consider a
number of factors including:
(a) Designation of the legally responsible person and the legal description of the location;
(b) The existing domestic wastewater treatment facilities and feasibility(including the cost
effectiveness,water quality management and local comprehensive plans, and legal,
political and physical limitations)of treating wastes in an areawide facility;
(c) Relationship to and potential impact of proposed facility on any water supply intake;
(d) Location of proposed project relative to any flood plain or other natural hazard;
(e) Foreseeable potential adverse impacts on public health,welfare, and safety in
accordance with section 22.3(2)(e);
(f) Proper public notice and any public comment;
(g) For treatment plants, the ability of the proposed treatment process(es)to meet the
existing effluent limitations or the PELs, whichever are applicable;
(h) Review and comment of all required local government agencies and all 208 planning
agencies including recommendations for approval or disapproval and any conditions
which should be a part of the Division approval;
(i) Long-range comprehensive planning for the area as it affects water quality;
(j) The water quality management plan for the area. The Division shall rely substantially
upon such plan in deciding whether to grant site location approval where the plan is
current and comprehensive with respect to its analysis of population growth and
distribution as it relates to wastewater treatment. In those areas where water quality
management planning has not been conducted, or where such planning is not current or
comprehensive, the Division shall rely upon the factors (a)through (i)of this section and
upon the information submitted in the application for site location approval as the primary
determinants in making the site application decision. Where portions of a water quality
management plan are adopted as regulation, pursuant to 25-8-105(3)(a), they shall be
binding on the Division action; and
(k) The policies set forth in section 22.3.
2210 THE DESIGN APPROVAL PROCESS
(1) In addition to approval of the site application or amendment, the applicant must obtain approval of
the design of the treatment works from the Division prior to beginning construction. The design
approval requirements also apply to facilities generating reclaimed domestic wastewater. In
some cases the design of the treatment works can impact the cost and funding of the preferred
option specified in the site application. In such cases the applicant is encouraged to consult with
the Division regarding the specific circumstance and identify critical design issues in the site
application to avoid obtaining site location approval for an option that will not be able to obtain
design approval.
15
(2) The applicant's professional engineer, registered to practice in the State of Colorado, must certify
at the completion of construction that the treatment works was constructed according to plans,
specifications and significant amendments thereto as approved by the Division. Significant
amendments are considered those that change the treatment process, the capacity of the
treatment works or the ability to operate the treatment works.
(3) Design reviews shall be conducted by the Division in accordance with policies established by the
Division and the Commission.
(4) Approval of a facility design by the Division or the Commission in no way negates the necessity
for all applicants to obtain all required approvals from other state and local agencies.
(5) Notice of the decision by the Division shall be included in the next Water Quality Information
Bulletin.
(6) Written notification of the Division's decision shall be sent to the applicant and all persons who
have shown interest via written communication.
(7) Any person adversely affected or aggrieved by the Division's decision on a proposed facility
design must appeal that decision to the Commission as a prerequisite to the right of judicial
review pursuant to the State Administrative Procedures Act. The appeal shall be made in writing
to the office of the Administrator and be postmarked no later than thirty (30)days after the date of
the mailing of the bulletin notice of the Division action. Within ninety(90)days of the filing of the
appeal the Commission shall commence a hearing to consider such appeals in accordance with
the provisions of section 24-4-105, C.R.S. If an appeal is made to the Commission, the decision
shall be made in accordance with the criteria specified in these regulations.
22.11 - 15 Reserved
22.16 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
A written statement of the basis and purpose of these regulations and the amendments adopted by the
Commission on November 18, 1981 has been prepared and adopted by the Commission. The written
statements are hereby incorporated in these regulations by reference in accordance with 24-4-103,
C.R.S., as amended.
22.17 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE FOR THE AMENDMENTS TO THE
REGULATIONS ENTITLED "REGULATIONS FOR SITE APPLICATIONS FOR
DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS Adopted: November 17,
1981
The subject regulations are for the implementation of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, C.R.S.,25-
8-101, et seq. Section 25-8-702 (1)(a) specifically requires the Water Quality Control Division to approve
the site location of any domestic wastewater treatment works with designed capacity greater than 2,000
gallons per day prior to the commencement of the construction or expansion of the treatment works.
The regulations are intended to advise applicants for site approvals of the proper procedures for obtaining
the site approvals and as to the minimum information necessary for the Division to determine if a site
application should be approved.
Section 25-8-702 (2) specifically states: "In evaluating the suitability of a proposed site location for a
domestic wastewater treatment works, the Division shall: (a)Consider the local long-range
comprehensive plan for the area as it affects water quality and any approved regional water quality
management plan for the area; (b) Determine that the plant on the proposed site will be managed to
16
minimize the potential adverse impacts on water quality and; (c)Encourage the consolidation of
wastewater treatment facilities whenever feasible". These factors are contained in the regulations and
information necessary to evaluate those considerations are required by the regulations.
The only scientific and technological issues involved in these regulations are the preliminary design data,
comprehensive planning, and facility management considerations which must be submitted to the
Division so it may evaluate the site application against the statutory mandate. However, these
regulations do not specify the details of such requirements since each application must be evaluated on
its own terms. Therefore,further explanation here is unnecessary.
The site application forms will require submittal of technical data which allow the Division staff to evaluate
such things as service area and population, treatment capabilities and alternatives,flood plain
information,financial capabilities, and legal and institutional arrangements. Also, in regard to
comprehensive planning, the forms will require information as to the relation of the proposed facility to
existing and regional facilities and require that appropriate local governments and planning agencies have
an opportunity to review the proposed project. An explanation of the costs of compliance with these
regulations is discussed in the fiscal impact statement.
In considering the economic reasonableness of its action in adopting these regulations the Commission
considered the cost of compliance with the expected benefits of maintaining existing uses of State waters.
It found the costs of compliance to be an insignificant part of the overall scheme for protecting the State's
waters. In addition, much of the cost of compliance with these regulations was considered by the General
Assembly in adopting the site approval requirement and would be incurred in the planning process and in
obtaining a State discharge permit.
22.18 FISCAL STATEMENT REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULATIONS
ENTITLED Adopted: November 17, 1981
"Regulations for Site Application for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works"
Private and municipal applicants for approval of sites for the location of wastewater treatment works shall
directly bear the cost of the rule and it is presumed that their cost will become a component of
subsequent wastewater treatment fees imposed on persons or entities ultimately using the proposed
treatment works. Such costs are those incurred by the site applicants for preparation of engineering
studies and reports. The specific dollar amount will be a function of the complexity and size of the
proposed wastewater treatment plant. The beneficiaries of this rule are those persons or entities utilizing
the waters of the State into which the discharge from the proposed site would flow. The positive fiscal
impact of this rule on beneficiaries will be from preservation of existing uses of the waters of the State
from which users receive economic gain and other benefits.
Although there will be additional costs involved in the compliance with the requirements of this regulation,
there was no specific economic data submitted to the Commission through the public hearing process
and no testimony was given that the regulations themselves would cause an adverse economic burden.
Furthermore such costs would be incurred as a part of the planning and permit processes.
22.19 STATEMENT OF BASIS, SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY, AND
PURPOSE; 1996 AMENDMENTS
The provisions of 24-4-103(4), 25-8-202(1)(e), (I), and (2)and 25-8-702, C.R.S., provide the specific
statutory authority for consideration of the regulatory amendments proposed by this Notice. The
Commission also adopted, in compliance with 24-4-103(4), C.R.S., the following statement of basis and
�-- purpose.
17
BASIS AND PURPOSE:
A. Overview
The existing requirements which are being addressed in this proceeding have been in place since their
original adoption in 1981. During this time, the Commission has become aware of minor deficiencies with
these requirements. The changes adopted in this proceeding will further clarify already existing
requirements for applicants as well as easing time constraints on all parties affected by appeal
proceedings.
B. Title
The title of the regulations has been shortened to make it less cumbersome and to reflect the process to
which it applies.
C. Vault
A definition of a vault has been incorporated as 22.2 to clarify the status of this type of Individual Sewage
Disposal System(ISDS)with respect to this process. Vaults are recognized as a form of ISDS through
25-10-105(1)(h)and, as provided by Paragraph II.A, of the Guidelines On Individual Sewage Disposal
Systems, required to obtain site approval when design flows exceed 2,000 gallons per day.
D. Consolidation
The required elements of the engineering report have been modified to include an analysis of
opportunities for consolidation of treatment:works together with other treatment alternatives at
2.2.4(3)(c)(iv). This should serve to reduce site application review times by providing information on
feasibility necessary to comply with 25-8-702(2)(c).
E. Effective Date
The status of an approval which is under appeal to the Commission has been clarified by modifying
2.2.5(4). In at least two instances, applicants have questioned whether the approval date was the date of
the Division action or the date of the Commission action. To clarify this confusion, the Commission has
defined the date of its ruling on an appeal as the effective date of the approval.
F. Notice
The means of providing public notice of site application actions has been changed to reflect the correct
title of the Commission's bulletin.
G. Appeals
The present requirements provided only a sixty(60)day time frame within which to commence a hearing.
This has created scheduling problems for the Commission and placed an undue hardship on all parties in
adequately preparing for a hearing on such short notice. The Commission has, therefore, amended
2.2.5(7)of the regulation to allow up to ninety (90)days from receipt of an appeal to the commencement
of a hearing.
18
22.20 STATEMENT OF BASIS, SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND
PURPOSE; JULY, 1997 RULEMAKING
The provisions of sections 25-8-202 and 25-8-401, C.R.S., provide the specific statutory authority for
adoption of the attached regulatory amendments. The Commission also adopted, in compliance with
section 24-4-103(4) C.R.S., the following statement of basis and purpose.
BASIS AND PURPOSE
The Commission has adopted a revised numbering system for this regulation, as a part of an overall
renumbering of all Water Quality Control Commission rules and regulations. The goals of the
renumbering are: (1)to achieve a more logical organization and numbering of the regulations,with a
system that provides flexibility for future modifications, and (2)to make the Commission's internal
numbering system and that of the Colorado Code of Regulations (CCR)consistent. The CCR references
for the regulations will also be revised as a result of this hearing.
22.21 STATEMENT OF BASIS, SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND
PURPOSE; JANUARY, 1998 RULEMAKING
The provisions of sections 25-8-202 and 25-8-401, C.R.S., provide the specific statutory authority for
adoption of the attached regulatory amendments. The Commission also adopted, in compliance with
section 24-4-103(4)C.R.S.,the following statement of basis and purpose.
BASIS AND PURPOSE
Introduction: These revisions to the Regulations for the Site Approval Process 22 (5 CCR 1002-12)were
initiated by an informational hearing in September, 1995. At that hearing, the Commission heard from
several parties regarding improvements that could be made in the rules and, based on that input, decided
to make several minor improvements without further public input. However, the Commission also realized
that there were more substantive issues that would be best addressed by receiving more thorough input,
and subsequently assigned the task of proposing major rule revisions to an advisory committee. The
Water Quality Control Division was given the responsibility of preparing the list of minor changes as well
as organizing the review team that would grapple with the larger issues.
Both processes were set in motion in late '1995, and the set of minor amendments was adopted by the
Commission in May of 1996. The critical review team was organized in December, 1995, and was
comprised of representation from consulting engineers, local government, regional planning agencies,
wastewater treatment agencies, and the real estate development industry. The changes to the rule
adopted in this action were the result of the work of the review team during 1996 and 1997. The following
is a description of the rationale behind each of the changes.
Definitions, (22.2): Significant changes to the definitions included:
-Application was added to the definitions to avoid confusion as to what constituted an appropriate set of
information from which to reach a decision.
-Approval was added to clarify that the Division's final action could take several forms.
- Design Capacity was modified to indicate that the means of expressing capacity is an important feature
that must be provided consistently.
r
19
- Domestic Wastewater was modified to clarify that it does not mean process wastewater. This
modification does not alter the terms usage and is consistent with the definitions of domestic wastewater
treatment plant and domestic wastewater treatment works.
- Interceptor Sewer was modified to clarify that a small number of taps does not automatically nullify the
concept of a large receiving sewer, and that sewers less than 24 inches in diameter are not significant
conveyances requiring site approval, except in unusual circumstances.
-Population Equivalent,Throughput, and Transporting Entity were deleted since they were no longer used
in these regulations.
- Process Wastewater was added only to clarify the regulation. Its definition is the same as that
contained in the Commission's Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations, Regulation 61 (5 CCR
1002-61)
- Vault was modified by deleting the words watertight, covered to remove a perceived loophole in the
regulation. It was determined that this is not inconsistent with the ISDS regulation, but that the Division
would review the ISDS regulation to determine if it also should be modified.
-Water Quality Management Plan was added to clarify that not all plans are oriented towards managing
water quality, a point of some confusion in the past.
Declaration of Policy(22.3): Much of the previous language in the section which sets forth Commission
policy for issuing site approval was taken directly from the statute (25-8-702, C.R.S.). To avoid
redundancy and provide focus, only those three statutory policies expressly requiring certain
considerations were repeated. The previous regulation also included a list of other policy considerations
that were largely left intact, but included several important modifications. Interceptor was deleted from
each policy where it appeared since they are not part of a treatment works. Also, the statutory reference
to design and construction of expansions, after certain capacity thresholds were reached,was deleted as
redundant. Finally, a new policy, 22.3(6), which set forth conditions and procedures for a planning
agency to enter into a coordinated review process with the Division,was included. This new policy
addressed one of the main concerns with the previous rule in that plan amendment requirements were
seen as duplicative of site approval requirements where viable area wide water quality management
plans were in existence. This new policy will allow a coordinated and efficient review at both the regional
and state level. A few minor changes to the list of policies, including a new, easy-to-read format, were
also made.
Application Procedures-New(22.4):Another significant concern with the previous regulation was that it
did not recognize the difference in complexity between application for an entirely new site as opposed to
an expansion at an existing approved site. The changes made in this action recognize those differences
by streamlining application procedures for expansions in a separate section. The prior rule also included
application procedures for interceptors and lift stations under one set of requirements. Since these
processes could be much more streamlined, they, too, were addressed in a separate section.
Section 22.4 now deals only with application procedures for new wastewater treatment plant sites. A
number of minor wording changes help clarify the revised section, but several significant changes were
also necessary. The requirement for an analysis of opportunities for consolidation has always been a
subject of controversy, but the changes to 22.4(1)(b)(iv)should help by linking that analysis to a water
quality management plan, thus avoiding redundancy. The flood plain analysis requirement was also
clarified (22.4(1)(b)(vi)), and a new requirement to include soils and geologic hazard evaluation, prepared
by qualified professionals, should help to assure that suitable plant sites are selected (22.4(1)(b)(vii)).
The requirement of legal arrangements showing control of the site for the project life was expanded to
include the ability of the entity to acquire the site and use it for the project life. It was clarified that any
approval based on this was not to be used as a justification in a condemnation proceeding
(22.4(1)(b)(ix)).
20
The review and sign-off procedures in 22.4(2)were extensively revised to make the process more
efficient. Among the more significant changes was the inclusion of a requirement that the Division solicit
comments from any review agency who has not submitted comments on an application. This requirement
will help assure that nearly all applications have the full review of appropriate agencies. More definition of
the scope of the review requested from municipalities and local health authorities was also included.
The requirement that the State Geologist review each application was deleted from the list of review
agencies. This action was taken largely because of the inclusion of more extensive geologic information
now required as part of the engineering report (see 22.4(1)(b)(iv)), including the requirement that the
information be developed by a professional geologist and a geotechnical engineer, or a professional who
meets the qualifications of both geologist and geotechnical engineer. This review was also considered a
costly evaluation which produced little in the way of added value. A new provision was added allowing
the Division to require that an applicant ask for review and comment from other agencies, including the
State Geologist regarding potential geologic hazards, if it feels such review is needed (22.8(2)).
Application Procedures -Expansions (22.5): Since expansions at existing approved sites do not have to
meet the same threshold tests as new sites in the areas of site suitability,financing, institutional and
management considerations, the application and review requirement should be streamlined accordingly.
This has been addressed by adding a new section specifically for expansions. Section 2.2.5 includes
less complex application requirements and a somewhat abbreviated review process. These changes
were made in response to review committee input that stresses the importance of a discharger's
treatment track record as the most important consideration when an application to expand was pending.
The typical questions of site suitability and long term ability to treat wastes asked of new applicants were
largely moot in the case of expansions. A provision allowing the Division to require a geologic report, as
in section 22.5,was included. Section 22.8(2),which allows the Division to require that an applicant ask
for review and comment from other agencies, is also applicable to section 22.5.
Application Procedures- Lift Stations/Interceptors (22.6): In the previous regulations, application
requirements for all types of facilities were merged into one section. This has created some confusion
and unnecessary work, particularly for new interceptor sewers and lift stations. Section 22.6 alleviates
this confusion by separating out the application, certification, and review procedures for interceptors and
lift stations. The certification procedures for interceptors is largely unchanged, but is now less confusing
since it is dealt with in a separate section (22.6(1)). The application procedures for ineligible interceptors
and all lift stations is streamlined and clarified in 22.6(2),and the approval process is much improved by
requiring only statements of consistency with appropriate plans as the heart of the review. Division
oversight of that determination of consistency is correspondingly minimized.
Application Procedures-Amendments (22.7): Experience with the site approval process has revealed
that occasionally it is necessary to amend approved applications. These changes are often the result of
new effluent requirements brought about because of revised stream standards or other regulatory
changes. Occasionally, it is simply a matter of upgrading a facility with new technology without expanding
the capacity (expansions require site approval via 22.5). An informal amendment process has been in
place since that need was recognized, but this process is now formalized with the inclusion of 22.7. That
section sets forth the circumstances when an amendment is necessary, the minimal information
requirements in the application, and the streamlined review process.
Criteria for Decision Making - (22.8): Most of the criteria guiding Division and Commission decision-
making was retained from the existing regulation. However, some modification to the criteria dealing with
consolidation opportunities was made for clarification purposes, and a new criteria was added to
emphasize the important role that current and comprehensive area wide water quality management plans
play in reaching a site approval decision.
Parties to the Rulemaking Hearing
1. Denver Regional Council of Governments
2. Metro Wastewater Reclamation District
21
3. Aspcol Corporation, N.V., Douglas and Barbara Scheffer, and Puma Paw Ranch, Inc.
4. The City of Colorado Springs
5. North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association
6. Pike Peak Area Council of Governments
22.22 STATEMENT OF BASIS, SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND
PURPOSE; APRIL 2004 RULEMAKING
The provisions of sections 25-8-202 and 25-8-401, C.R.S., provide the specific statutory authority for
adoption of the attached regulatory amendments. The Commission also adopted, in compliance with
section 24-4-103(4) C.R.S., the following statement of basis and purpose.
BASIS AND PURPOSE
Introduction: The changes adopted to this regulation by the Commission largely implement the
recommendations developed by a Division-led stakeholder group that was formed after the informational
hearing held by the Commission in March 2003.
There were numerous minor changes made to improve clarity and address inconsistencies in the
previous regulation. Substantive changes are summarized and discussed below. In addition to the
regulatory changes, the Division and stakeholders agreed that a guidance document must be developed
to inform the regulated community about the Division's review and approval process. The guidance
document will include a further description of the Division's review process including flow charts and
timelines. The guidance document will also include detailed instructions for completing an application,
target deadlines for the Division to issue PELs and process applications, and reporting mechanisms for
the Division to assess achievement of these target deadlines. Improving the predictability and timeliness
of the review process is an expected outcome of implementing the guidance document. The guidance
document will be issued by the Division no later than September 30, 2004.
Title: The title of the regulation was changed to add design approval so that the regulations will fully
encompass the site location and design approval processes that are specified in 25-8-702 C.R.S.
Definitions, (22.2): Significant changes to the definitions included:
* "Amendment"was added to the definitions to help clarify when the process defined in section 22.8 is
applicable.
""Approval"was modified to include the interceptor certification and design approval process and to
require that approvals provide specific information with regard to the treatment works being approved.
* "Construction"was modified to allow design-build contracts to be executed for domestic wastewater
treatment works projects. The definition in 25-8-701 is repeated; however, a sentence was also added to
exclude the portion of such a design-build contract, that covers the site application and design work, from
being considered to be "construction." Usually, in these circumstances, the Division has worked with the
entity to approve portions of the design in a stepwise fashion, approving each portion of the design before
actual construction activities of that portion of the treatment works commence. The Commission finds this
to be an acceptable practice. The Commission still intends that no actual erection or physical placement
of materials, equipment, piping, earthwork, or buildings which are to be part of a domestic wastewater
treatment works may be commenced unless the full site application and at least that portion of the design
to be constructed has been approved by the Division.
" "Comprehensive Plan"was added to distinguish this plan from the 208 Water Quality Management Plan
and other local government plans and address the situation when comprehensive plans overlap the
subject property. Since cities, towns and counties can formally adopt comprehensive plans or master
plans for areas that extend beyond their legal boundaries, it is possible that the site for a wastewater
22
treatment facility will be addressed in more than one comprehensive plan. The revised definition allows
the Division to consider each of these overlapping plans and gives direction when these plans are in
conflict. There are instances in Colorado where local governments have addressed overlapping planning
areas through Intergovernmental Agreements. The Division should be made aware of such agreements
by the local governments in their review so that the site application can be found consistent with the
plan(s) as addressed in the agreement.
* "Design Capacity"was modified to be more specific and allow for the possibility that a parameter other
than flow or biochemical oxygen demand may limit design capacity. Additionally, the design capacity for
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS)that are subject to the site location approval process was
defined.
* "Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works"was modified to conform with the definition provided in 25-8-
103 C.R.S., except that the revised definition includes facilities with a design capacity equal to two
thousand gallons per day. The definition in the Water Quality Control Act includes facilities that receive
more than two thousand gallons per day. The Guidelines on Individual Sewage Disposal Systems
adopted by the Board of Health cover systems with design capacities of less than two thousand gallons
per day. Thus, a facility with a design capacity of exactly two thousand gallons per day could potentially
be excluded from regulation altogether. The Commission finds that including such systems in this
regulation is appropriate.
"'Effluent Limitation"was added. The definition references Colorado Discharge Permit Regulations, 5
CCR 1002-61.
* "GPD" (gallons per day) or"MGD" (million gallons per day)was modified so as not to conflict with the
definition of design capacity.
* "Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS)"was added for clarification. Furthermore, an ISDS with a
design capacity equal to or greater than two thousand gallons per day is considered to be a domestic
wastewater treatment works.
" "Interceptor Sewer"was modified to mon? clearly list the actual functions of an interceptor sewer that
make it subject to the regulations.
* "Lift Station"was clarified because any lift station receiving less than two thousand gallons per day
would not be subject to this regulation, not just lift stations associated with small clusters of single-family
residences.
* "208 Planning Agency"was added to clarify that this is specifically one of the agencies established in
the Water Quality Control Act with authority to comment during the site application process. Previously
this was defined only as "Planning Agency" which created confusion. Thus, in numerous places
throughout the regulation, "Planning Agency"was changed to "208 Planning Agency."
* "Outfall Sewer,"a type of domestic wastewater treatment works, was modified to exclude reclaimed
domestic wastewater distribution and transmission system piping because it is not appropriate to require
site location and design approval for these piping systems, as the reuse does not result in a discharge to
state waters.
"Preliminary Effluent Limitations (PELs)"was added because this term is used in the regulation and
PELs are required to be submitted as part of an application.
* 'Reclaimed Domestic Wastewater"was added because the site application procedures applicable to
domestic wastewater treatment works for reclaimed domestic wastewater were clarified in the regulation.
The definition is consistent with 25-8-103 C.R.S.
23
*"Site"was added. The definition is consistent with the Colorado Discharge Permit Regulations, 5 CCR
1002-61.
* "Treatment Process Modification"was added because the site application procedures applicable for
such modifications were clarified in section 22.8.
* "Vault"was modified to clarify that if the building(s)it serves will generate more than two thousand
gallons per day of domestic wastewater, then the vault is a domestic wastewater treatment works.
Declaration of Policy, (Section 22.3): The title of this section was changed because this Policy
Declaration is applicable for the overall site location approval process, not just to construction or
expansion situations.
Section 22.3(2)(e)was changed to be more specific and focus on water quality impacts. Section
22.3(2)(f)was modified to allow the Division to consider the applicant's capability, including legal authority
and financial capability, to adequately construct the treatment works rather than just their operational
management capability after the facility is constructed,
Sections 22.3(3) and 22.3(4)of the previous regulation were moved to the newly-created section 22.10
which addresses the design review process. Sections 22.3(5)and 22.3(6)were added to the Declaration
of Policy for clarification. Section 22.3(7)was moved from section 22.4(5)of the previous regulation
because it is a more general policy statement applicable to the entire site location approval process and
not just the site location approval process for new treatment works, which is the topic of section 22.4.
Sections 22.3(8), (9), (12), (13), (14)and (15)were moved from section 22.8 of the previous regulation
because they are general policy type statements and are not factors in decision-making (which is the
substance of the previous section 22.8). Section 22.3(10)was created by moving the text from section
22.4(1)(b)(ix)of the previous regulation because the concepts expressed therein apply to the overall site
location approval process and not just the legal control of the site aspect covered in section 22.4(1)(b)(ix).
This same text was repeated in section 22.6(2)(e)of the previous regulation and has been deleted from
that location. The approval period provided in section 22.3(12)is now more flexible and can be extended
past one year, if merited, and shown as necessary in the schedule provided with the application. The first
sentence in section 22.3(15)was also modified to improve clarity. The last sentence of section 22.305),
regarding the need for applicants to obtain all required approvals from other state and local agencies,was
moved from the previous text to create section 22.3(11) because that concept applies to the overall site
location approval process and not just the appeals process that is covered in section 22.305).
Application Procedures - New (Section 22.4): The title of this section was changed because it applies to
more types of domestic wastewater treatment works than only treatment plants, and this is further clarified
by the changes to section 22.4(1). The site application procedures in section 22.4 also apply to outfall
sewers moving from the approved site to another location and new facilities being constructed to produce
reclaimed domestic wastewater at a site location not previously approved by the Division or at a different
site from the secondary treatment plant. It is now clarified in section 22.4(1)(b)that a full design report is
not needed to support the site application. Also, a detailed evaluation of alternative treatment sites and
treatment techniques will not be required for small systems. This change is being made to lessen the
burden of the site application process on small systems based on stakeholder feedback. However, small
systems must consider the feasibility of consolidation. A discussion of the applicability and the possible
need to confirm or change PELs during the site application process has been added to section
22.40)(b)(iii)to make applicants aware of these considerations.
A sentence was added to the end of sections 22.4(2)(b)and (c)to clarify the meaning of a
recommendation for approval from local agencies. Section 22.4(3)of the previous regulation was moved
to section 22.4(2)as subsection (f) because this completes the listing of other agencies involved in the
process and includes all of them within section 22.4(2). The text in section 22.4(2)(f)was also modified
slightly to be more consistent with the other elements in section 22.4.
24
r
Section 22.4(4)of the previous regulation w was moved to the beginning of section 22.4(2) because it is a
better fit with that portion of the regulation covering coordination and signatures from other agencies.
Section 22.4(5)in the previous regulation was moved to section 22.3(7), as discussed above, because it
is more consistent with a policy statement. Minor clarifications were added to the posting requirements in
section 22.4(3)and it is now clear as to haw meeting the posting requirement can be met and how this
can be demonstrated in the application.
Application Procedures-Expansions (Section 22.5): The title of this section was changed because it
applies to more types of domestic wastewater treatment works than only treatment plants, and this is
further clarified by the changes to section 22.5(1). Additionally, inclusion of facility modifications in this
section was not appropriate. Treatment process modifications are now covered explicitly in section
22.8(2)(b). Section 22.5(4)was modified so that the comment and review process for an expansion is
equivalent to that in section 22.4(2).
Certification Procedures-Eligible Interceptors (Section 22.6): This section was added to more clearly
segregate the two possible site location approval mechanisms for interceptors: certification (described in
section 22.6)or application (described in section 22.7). Certification is the simpler of the two processes
but is not possible in all circumstances. Section 22.6(1)provides the circumstances when an interceptor
sewer is eligible for certification. Sections 22.6(2) and (3)discuss the certification process and the
Division's response in these situations. The text in section 22.6(2)was also modified to more closely
parallel the provisions in 25-8-702(3) C.R.S.
Application Procedures- Interceptors Not Eligible for Certification and Lift Stations (Section 22.7): The
title of this section was changed to clarify that the requirements therein apply to interceptor sewers that
cannot be certified as provided for in the newly-created section 22.6 and to all lift stations. Changes were
made to sections 22.7(1)(c)and (f)0i)to allow a more complete analysis of the overall flow and loading
projections associated with lift stations and of the accepting treatment plant to ensure that the treatment
plant has or will have adequate capacity over time. It is acceptable for the treatment plant to rely on
expansion or phased construction, provided that such is presented in the Water Quality Management
Plan, or appropriate planning and engineering studies. Section 22.7(1)(f)(iii) has been modified to provide
appropriate means for reviewing proposed lift stations in these circumstances. Section 22.7(1)0)was
added to require posting as required in section 22.4(3). Leaving this requirement out of this section was
an oversight when this section was created during the last update to the regulation.
Clarifications to the local agency review process were incorporated into sections 22.7(2)and 22.7(3).
Additionally, the same path forward provided in section 22.4(2)for new or expanding treatment works
specifying how applicants can proceed when the local authorities or the 208 planning agency do not
review an application within 60 days has been added to sections 22.7(2)and 22.7(3). This was done
because site applications for lift stations and interceptor sewers not eligible for certification should not be
subject to local agency review requirements that are different from site applications for new or expanding
treatment works. A sentence was also added to the end of section 22.7(4)to allow the Division to act on
a site application that is not reviewed by the 208 planning agency. Additional text was added clarifying
that the Division will review and act on an application in accordance with section 22.9 in the event that the
review agencies do not agree on the recommendation to approve or disapprove the site location approval
application.
Application Procedures -Amendments (Section 22.8): Experience with the site location approval process
has shown the applicability and efficiency of the relatively simple amendment process to be beneficial.
Changes were undertaken in this section to clarify the amendment process for reviewing agencies and to
more fully develop the circumstances when a proposed treatment process modification requires that the
previous site location approval be amended. Modifications were also made to section 22.8(1) to allow for
certain types of changes in disinfection process, specified in section 22.8(2)(b)(ii), to proceed without
review agency comment. The application form for these types of amendments will be simplified as
compared to the standard amendment form. The Commission determined that this is an appropriate
simplification of the amendment process since these changes would not significantly alter the approved
site or pose any additional off-site concerns. However, the ability for such agencies to appeal the
25
amendment approval would remain the same as the current regulation. Section 22.8(2)(b) provides a list
of physical treatment process changes that the amendment process will apply to and a process for
resolving other similar changes. The Commission contemplates,for amendments described in section
22.8(2)(b)(ii), that the application form can be submitted concurrently with the design documents and that
the Division will act on both submittals simultaneously. Changes to the secondary treatment system that
would require an amendment under section 22.8(2)(b)(iii)are limited to physical changes that significantly
alter how the facility accomplishes secondary treatment, e.g., changing from lagoon treatment to
activated sludge treatment, adding clarifiers and sludge re-circulation to Rotating Biological Contactors to
improve ammonia removal, etc. Treatment process modifications that do not involve construction of
facilities, e.g., changing chemical flocculants,would not require site location approval (or amending the
existing approval). Section 22.8(2)(c)was modified to cover capacity rating changes more explicitly and
to highlight the need to consider any potential impacts to effluent limitations. Section 22.8(2)(d)was
added to allow the addition or expansion of domestic wastewater treatment works generating reclaimed
domestic wastewater at the same site as the secondary treatment plant(provided that the plant has prior
site location and design approval)to proceed via the relatively simple amendment process.
The modifications to Section 22.8(2)(e)clarify when amending a site application would apply to a change
in the type of discharge employed. Section 22.8(2)(e)of the previous regulation conceming changes in
discharge location has been deleted. This section was deleted because changing the discharge location
within the same receiving water segment and within the same site does not require site location approval
or amending a previous site location approval. However, changing the discharge point to another site,
even within the same receiving water segment would involve constructing new domestic wastewater
treatment works, specifically the outfall sewer, at a new site. This activity is subject to the requirements of
section 22.4.
Decision Making- (Section 22.9): The title of this section was changed because specific, i.e. numeric,
criteria for decision-making are not provided. The Commission agreed with the stakeholders and the
Division that developing specific criteria is not warranted because circumstances associated with
constructing new or expanding treatment works or amending a site location approval vary widely. Thus,
developing specific criteria would jeopardize the flexibility currently exercised by the Division to work
through site location issues with applicants while still protecting public health and water quality. Section
22.9(1)(e)was changed to be consistent with the policy in section 22.3(2)(e)as discussed above.
Section 22.9(1)(f)was changed to clearly show that the Division will consider public comment, as this has
always been the case. Section 22.9(2)(g)was added because the ability of a proposed treatment plant to
meet the preliminary effluent limits is one of the key factors that the Division has always considered when
reviewing a site application. The rest of section 22.8 after subsection (1)was moved to section 22.3
because these elements are more consistent with policy statements.
Design Approval - (Section 22.10): This section was added so that the regulation would fully encompass
the statutory provisions of 25-8-702 C.R.S that require approval for the design of domestic wastewater
treatment works as well as the site location. General requirements, policy statements and procedures
were added. The Commission decided that further detailed, specific regulatory elements were not
needed, again because the Commission did not wish to limit the Division's flexibility to resolve design
issues with applicants, while still protecting public health and water quality.
Reserved - (22.11 to 22.15): These sections are reserved for potential future use.
Parties to the Rulemaking Hearing
1. Air Park Metropolitan District
2. Parker Water and Sanitation District
3. Colorado Wastewater Utility Council
4. Denver Regional Council of Governments
26
COLORADO
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
AND DRINKING WATER PROTECTION
HANDBOOK
r
A Continuing Planning Process
Commission Policy#98-2
Updated: October 15,2002
Expiration Date: December 31,2006
EXHIBIT E
For additional information regarding the programs and topics addressed in this Handbook,please contact:
Colorado Water Quality Control Division (303)692-3500
or
Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (303)692-3469
Additional information regarding the Water Quality Control Division and Commission is available on
their web sites, which can be accessed from the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment's web site, at http://www.cdnhe.state.co.us/.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
A. Purpose of this Handbook 1
B. Historical Perspective 1
C. Overview of this Handbook 2
PART 1 —WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT 3
I. INTRODUCTION 3
II. INSTITUTIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4
A. Water Quality Control Commission 4
B. Board of Health 4
C. Water Quality Control Division 5
1. Clean Water Program 5
2. Drinking Water Program 5
3. Integrated Water Quality Management 7
D. Other State Implementing Agencies 8
E. Plant Operators Certification Board 10
F. Regional/Areawide Planning Agencies 10
G. Watershed-based Water Quality Authorities/Associations/Forums 11
H. Local Health Departments 11
I. Informal Advisory Organizations 12
J. Environmental Protection Agency 12
K. Other Federal Agencies 13
L. General Public 13
III. WATER QUALITY MONITORING,ASSESSMENT AND REPORTING 14
A. Monitoring 14
1. Routine Monitoring 14
a. Standards Review 14
b. Trend Monitoring 14
2. Lakes and Reservoir Monitoring 15
3. Biological and Habitat Monitoring 15
4. Special Study Monitoring 15
a. Synoptic Studies 15
b. Point-Source Monitoring 15
c. Probability-Based Monitoring 15
5. Monitoring Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program 16
6. Monitoring Partnerships 16
7. STORET Database 17
B. Assessment 17
1. Overview 17
2. Listing of Impaired Waters 18
� i
PAGE
C. Water Quality Management Plans and Reports 19
1. Section 305(b)Report 19
2. Section 208/Regional Water Quality Management Plans 20
3. Watershed and Basin Plans 21
4. WQCC/WQCD Report to the Public 22
IV. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 23
A. Overview of Water Quality Classifications, Standards,and
Designations 23
1. Surface Water Standards 23
a. Overview 23
b. Statewide Standards 23
c. Site-Specific Classifications and Standards 23
d. Antidegradation Provisions 26
e. Wetlands Provisions 26
2. Ground Water Quality Standards 27
a. Basic Standards 27
b. Site-Specific Standards 27
B. Water Quality Standard-Setting Process 28
V. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS (TMDLs) 30
A. Overview of Federal Regulatory Requirements 30
B. TMDL Process for Listed Waters 30
1. Prioritization of segments 30
a. Severity of Water Quality Impairment 31
b. Secondary Considerations 31
c. Removal of listed TMDLs 32
• d. Monitoring and Evaluation List 33
e. TMDL Completion Schedule 33
2. Methods for development of TMDLs 34
C. Expiring Water Quality-Based.Permits 36
VI. ESTABLISHMENT OF SOURCE CONTROLS 37
A. Site Approval Process 37
B. Point Source Discharge Permit Program 38
1. Municipal and industrial wastewater discharges 41
a. Technology-based and water quality-based controls 41
b. Mixing Zones 41
c. Pretreatment program 42
d. Biosolids management 43
e. Reuse 44
2. Storm water discharges 45
3. Discharges to ground water 45
C. Section 401 Certification 46
ii
PAGE
D Control Regulations 46
E. Nonpoint Source Management Program 47
VII. COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE AND ASSURANCE 50
A. Compliance Assistance 50
1. Technical Assistance 50
2. Pollution Prevention 50
B. Compliance Assurance 50
1. Monitoring and Evaluation 50
2. Enforcement Activities 51
VIII. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE 53
A. Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund 53
B. Domestic Wastewater Treatment Grants 54
C. Funding Coordination Committee 54
D. Nonpoint Source Project Grants 56
E. Other Funding Sources 56
PART 2—DRINKING WATER PROTECTION 58
1. INTRODUCTION 58
II. INSTITUTIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 59
A. Board of Health 59
B. Water Quality Control Division 59
C. Environmental Protection Agency 59
D. Local Health Departments 59
HI. REGULATION OF PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS 60
A. Overview 60
B. Drinking Water Standards 60
C. Compliance Assistance 60
1. Capacity Development 60
2. Source Water Protection 61
D. Compliance Assurance 62
1. Operator Certification 62
2. Monitoring and Evaluation 63
3. Enforcement Activities 63
4. Consumer Confidence Report 64
IV. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE 65
A. Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund 65
B. Drinking Water Grants Program 66
iii
PAGE
Appendix A—Colorado Water Quality Control Act History 68
Appendix B—Bibliography of Other Important Water Quality Management Documents 70
Appendix C—Common Abbreviations 73
Appendix D—Section 208 Planning Requirements 76
iv
INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose of this Handbook
This handbook has two primary purposes. First, it is intended to provide a concise, readable summary of
the water quality management and drinking water protection system in Colorado, and the roles of the
major participants in that system. Second,it is intended to help satisfy the requirement in section 303(e)
of the federal Clean Water Act that the State maintain a water quality"continuing planning process,"by
describing the process currently applied in Colorado.
B. Historical Perspective
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act(now commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act)was
originally adopted in 1948. Amendments to this Act in 1965 for the first time required states to adopt
water quality criteria for interstate waters and a plan for implementation and enforcement of the criteria.
The Colorado Water Pollution Control Act was adopted in 1966, creating authority to establish water
quality standards consistent with the federal Clean Water Act.
In 1972, Congress adopted a major overhaul of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The 1972 Act:
(1) Established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)' permit program to
regulate point source discharges of pollutants,by requiring that dischargers meet both water
quality-based and technology-based effluent limitations;
(2) Authorized the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)to establish technology-based effluent
limitations for certain categories of dischargers;
(3) Required states to develop a comprehensive and continuing planning process for water quality
management, including the adoption of"areawide waste treatment management plans"(section 208
plans);
(4) Authorized EPA to establish water quality standards where any state fails to adopt standards that
meet the requirements of the Federal Act;and
(5) Substantially expanded a program to provide federal grants for the construction of domestic
wastewater treatment plants.
In 1973, the Colorado Water Quality Control Act was completely rewritten(and renamed), to bring it into
compliance with the new federal law. A second total rewrite of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act
was adopted by the Legislature in 1981 (Senate Bill 10). A brief history of some of the major revisions to
the Colorado Act is included as Appendix A to this handbook.
•
A list of common abbreviations is included as Appendix C to this Handbook.
The next major changes to the federal Clean Water Act were adopted in 1987. These changes included
provisions that:
(1) Established new requirements regarding the permitting of stormwater discharges;
(2) Required that states develop management programs to address nonpoint source water pollution
(section 319);and
(3) Phased out the previous federal construction grant program,while authorizing initial federal
funding for state revolving loan funds to address water quality management infrastructure needs.
A second federal statute of major importance to the structure and content of water quality management in
Colorado is the federal Safe Drinking Water Act(SDWA). Waterbome illness, throughout the early
history of the state, was one of the primary reasons for the establishment of the Colorado Department of
Public Health in the 1940's. The formation of the Department was quickly followed by regulations to
protect public drinking water supplies. The major drinking water problems were related to
microbiological contamination from human and animal wastes, and heavy metal contamination due to
heavy metal mining. By the time the federal Safe Drinking Water Act was passed in 1974, the state had
become a leader in the use of advanced drinking water treatment for micro-organism control. The state
adopted provisions to implement the federal act in 1979, and has continued to expand drinking water
protection through adoption of provisions to implement the SDWA amendments of 1986 and 1996. The
1986 amendments established an ambitious schedule for the adoption of federal drinking water standards
for additional pollutants and established a voluntary "wellhead protection program"for community water
supplies that rely on ground water. The 1996 amendments adopted several important changes,including:
• A more realistic schedule for adoption of new federal drinking water standards;
• New consumer notification provisions;
• A new drinking water revolving loan program designed to help fund both water system
infrastructure improvements and state drinking water programs including:
o New source water assessment and protection provisions;
o Capacity development for new and existing systems;
o Minimum certification requirements for water and distribution system operators;
o Small system training and technical assistance; and
o Program management.
C. Overview of this Handbook
Part 1 of this Handbook addresses water quality management
in Colorado. Traditionally, the term"water quality overview of Handbook
management"refers to efforts to assess the quality of water This Handbook prov des an overview of
in the environment, set water quality standards for such waters water quality management in Colorado.
to protect beneficial uses,and to control sources of pollution Part I describes the programs associated
that may adversely impact water quality. Part 2 of this with the Clean Water Act. Part 2
Handbook addresses drinking water protection in Colorado. describes the programs associated with
"Drinking water protection"has focused principally on setting the Safe Drinking Water Act Where
applicable,web sites are identified.
standards that apply"at the tap"to control the quality of Otherwise,further information can be
the drinking water provided by public water systems. obtained by calling the Water Quality
Control Division at(303)692-3500.
r
2
PART 1-WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
Colorado's approach to water quality planning and management has evolved substantially over the last
three decades, largely in response to the changing federal and state statutory mandates described above.
At present, these efforts are evolving toward more of a watershed protection focus. (In this context, the
term"watershed"is intended as a flexible concept,referring to an identified geographic area affecting a
water body or water segment.) That is,planning and management are moving toward a holistic strategy
to protect or attain the desired beneficial uses and levels of water quality within a watershed,including,
where appropriate,protection of human health and aquatic ecosystems. A successful watershed
protection approach must be founded on cooperative interaction between the federal, state, and local
levels of government,and between the public and private sectors. The remainder of this Handbook
describes how these groups currently interact to address water quality management in Colorado.
Section II of Part 1 provides a brief summary of the institutional roles and responsibilities of the major
participants in the Colorado water quality management system. Understanding who these entities are and
what they do is essential to understanding how the management system functions.
Sections III through VIII of Part I provide a summary of Colorado's approach to implementation of what
can be referred to as the"water quality management cycle." The concept of a watershed-based water
quality management cycle is based on the observation that there is a logical sequence to most of the steps
in the water quality management process,and that this process is an iterative one, where the major steps
are repeated over time. Specifically, the major steps in this cycle can be summarized as:
• Water Quality Monitoring,Reporting and Assessment
• Water Quality Classifications and Standards
• Total Maximum Daily Loads(TMDLs)
• Establishment of Source Controls
• Compliance Assurance
• Financial Assistance
After this final step,the process returns to monitoring,reporting and assessment. Although this model is
largely conceptual and in many instances provides only a very general relationship to day-to-day water
quality management, it provides a useful framework for understanding how the planning and management
process works
3
II. INSTITUTIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Water Quality Control Commission
The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission is the administrative agency responsible for developing
specific water quality policy in Colorado,in a manner that implements the broader policies set forth by
the Legislature in the Colorado Water Quality Control Act. The Commission's nine members are
appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Colorado Senate for three-year terms. Appointments are
to"achieve geographical representation"and"reflect the various interests in water in the state." At least
two members are to be from west of the Continental Divide.
The Commission adopts water quality classifications and standards to protect beneficial uses of waters of
the state,as well as various regulations aimed at achieving compliance with those classifications and
standards. In addition to its formal rulemaking role,the Commission serves as a forum to facilitate and
advance a statewide policy dialogue on a variety of important water quality topics.
The Commission also serves a quasi-judicial role in administrative One exampleofa cooperative,multi-party
hearings concerning appeals of certain decisions of the Water Quality effort relates to an Individual Sewage
Disposal System(ISDS)Steering
Division, including: domestic wastewater treatment plant site Committee. In 2001,the Executive
approvals; approval of design plans and specifications for domestic Director of the Public Health and
wastewater treatment plants; determinations regarding antidegradation Environment,in conjunction with the
reviews;and section 401 certification decisions. These Division Board of Health and he Water Quality
Control Commission .established this
actions are described further in section VI of this Handbook. The Steering Committee to address important
Water Quality Control Commission's web site is located at issues that bad been raised regarding
http://cdphe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/wqcchom/asp. onsite wastewater systems,such as septic
tanks. The Steering Committee,which
B. Board of Health included participation from a wide range
of stakeholders,held:a total of ten
meetings over.the course of a year. The
The State Board of Health was established by an act of Colorado's first committee developed a set of 13
General Assembly on March 22, 1877. The Board's nine members are recommendations for the enhancement of
appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Colorado Senate for current state and local efforts to address
the potential publicltealth and water
four-year terms. One member is appointed from each of the state's quality impacts of onsite wastewater
seven congressional districts and two at large. One member must be a systems in Colorado. These
county commissioner. No business or professional group may recommendations were presented to the
constitute a majority and no more than five members may be from the Board and the Commission in March,
same political party. The Board is responsible for adopting rules and 2002.
regulations and general policies to administer the public health laws of
the state. Two specific roles of the Board of Health affect water quality management.
First, the Board has adopted Guidelines on Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (septic systems and other
on-site wastewater treatment systems). These Guidelines establish minimum standards for the location,
construction,performance, installation,alteration, and use of individual sewage disposal systems(ISDS)
in Colorado. These Guidelines are implemented principally through rules and regulations adopted by
local Boards of Health.As the result of ajoint meeting in 2000, the Board and the Water Quality Control
Commission initiated a joint effort to review the adequacy of current ISDS management in Colorado to
protect public health and the environment,which resulted in the ISDS Steering Committee effort noted in
the sidebar.
Second,the Board has adopted Regulations Pertaining to the Beneficial Use of Water Treatment Sludge
and Fees Applicable to the Beneficial Use of Sludges. These regulations establish requirements
applicable to land application of water treatment plant sludge, and establish a fee system for beneficial
use of these water plant sludges as well as a fee system for biosolids from domestic wastewater treatment
plants. These regulations are implemented by the Water Quality Control Division. The Board of Health's
web site is located at http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/bh/bhhom.asp.
4
C. Water Quality Control Division
The Water Quality Control Division(Division)is the agency responsible for implementing and enforcing
the regulations adopted by the Water Quality Control Commission, and applicable regulations adopted by
the Board of Health. Moreover, the Division provides the principal source of technical expertise available
to the Commission in its rulemaking and other policy-setting activities. By statute the Division is
authorized to act as staff to the Commission in proceedings other than adjudicatory or appellate
proceedings in which the Division is a party. See Water Quality Control Division Organization Chart on
the following page.
The Water Quality Control Division's web site is located at http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/wghomasp.
The Division assists the Commission in developing water quality classifications and standards,regulates
discharges for compliance with those standards through discharge permits issued,performs site
application and design and specification reviews of new or expanding domestic wastewater treatment
facilities,and undertakes monitoring and enforcement of the statutes and permits. The Division also
oversees water quality management planning, manages state and federal construction grant and loan
assistance programs which provide financial support to municipalities for construction or improvement of
wastewater treatment facilities, manages the ground water quality protection program with the goal of
protecting the public health and beneficial ground water uses, and provides technical assistance to local
governments regarding water and wastewater treatment.
The Water Quality Control Division has the challenging and vital responsibility of maintaining,restoring
and improving the quality of the state's waters and assuring that safe drinking water is provided from
public water systems for the people of the state. In short,the Division's mission is to ensure that this
state's waters are safe and clean.
1. Clean Water Program
A complete"clean water"water program consists of the following seven strategic functional elements:
ambient water quality monitoring,water quality assessment and standards development(e.g.,providing
scientific support for adoption of standards and other control regulations by the Water Quality Control
Commission); compliance assurance; water quality management planning and TMDL development;
permitting and other pollution control mechanisms (including activities such as facility siting approval,
wastewater treatment plant design review and approval, compliance evaluation of self-reported data,
compliance sampling and inspections, compliance assistance and enforcement activities); water quality
restoration and enhancement efforts; and,wastewater facility planning and financing. Of course, each of
these functional elements depends upon an internal management and administrative structure to provide a
wide range of general support functions and services.
2. Drinking Water Program
The safe drinking water program, which has historically been viewed as a separate entity from the clean
water program, is composed of similar program elements requiring staff with much the same professional
and technical expertise. Drinking Water Program elements include: regulatory development(i.e..
developing treatment standards and performance requirements for public water systems for adoption by
the Board of Health);compliance surveillance monitoring;compliance inspections(i.e.,sanitary surveys);
engineering plan review;technical assistance,and implementation of, the drinking water state revolving
loan fund(DWSRF). In Colorado,the safe drinking water functions and clean water functions have been
5
Water Quality Control Division FY 01/02
Division Director I Water Quality
Control Commission
Watershed Section -Drinking Water Program Water Quality
Protection Section
Section Manager -Facility Operator Program Section Manager
Monitoring Unit Assessment Unit Outreach&Assistance Administration Unit Permits Unit Drinking Water& Compliance Assurance
Unit Wastewater Technical &Data Management Unit
Services Unit
r---1---� ---1--- ---J----�
I South East I I West Slope I I Denver Staff
Regional Office I li Regional Office i i Regional Office i
I L J I L J L J
,—
integrated. This has been timely,particularly in view of the several new program elements which
emerged following the 1996 reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act(e.g., source water
protection, vulnerability assessment, and the DWSRF program)which will rely upon ground water and
watershed sciences expertise as well as the financial assistance program which has long been functioning
within the Division's clean water program.
3. Integrated Water Quality Management
The totality of these integrated program elements form a complete water quality management program for
ground water and surface water. Monitoring provides data to form a picture of the current status and
trends in this state's water quality; i.e.,where we are now with our water quality. Assessment evaluates
the monitoring data and provides the scientific support for establishing the goal framework for water
quality including standards for surface water and ground water; i.e., where we want to be with our water
quality. Water Quality Management Planning and TMDL Development is the process of translating the
standards goal framework into specific terms for identified water bodies in relation to the threats and
impacts presented by point source discharges and nonpoint source discharges,which result in non-
attainment with water quality standards. Water quality management planning may also result in source
water protection strategies to ensure the safety of drinking water supplies while minimizing the costs for
required treatment and monitoring. Permits and Control Mechanisms translate the standards framework
(including total maximum daily loads(TMDLs)),along with applicable technology-based requirements,
into very specific terms and conditions for regulated entities. Compliance Assurance includes all of the
activities that go into assuring regulated drinking water and pollution control facilities know what
requirements must be met and have the necessary facilities and operational capabilities to maintain
compliance with regulatory requirements. Water Quality Restoration and Enhancement Efforts result in
actual improvements to water quality through nonpoint source projects and voluntary cleanup projects,
and through education and outreach efforts. Financial Assistance Programs provide funds through grants
and low interest loans to drinking water systems and publicly owned pollution control facilities.
The Division consists of two major sections: a Watershed Section and a Water Quality Protection
Section. The Watershed Section consists of three units: Monitoring Unit;Assessment Unit;and
Outreach and Assistance Unit. The Water Quality Protection Section also consists of three units:
Drinking Water and Wastewater Technical Services Unit; Permits Unit; and Compliance Monitoring and
Data Management Unit. In addition,there is an Administrative Unit that operates under the Division
Director's Office. A key element of this structure is also the creation of"watershed teams" for each of
the major watersheds in the state,drawing on staff from each of the units listed above. Beyond the
watershed teams, the Division makes extensive use of interdisciplinary teams to address ad hoc issues as
they arise and economic sector-based concerns.
7
Table 1
Organization Units Functional Water Quality Management Elements
Watershed Section: Ambient water quality monitoring(including chemical,
Monitoring Unit physical and biological sampling and field investigations as
well as laboratory-based toxicity bioassays). Compliance
sampling in conjunction with watershed scale investigations
and targeted facility inspections.
Watershed Section: Standards development,TMDL development(including data
Assessment Unit analysis,interpretation and reporting;source water
vulnerability analysis,water quality modeling,
antidegradation reviews,401 certification,etc.).
Watershed Section: Community-based water quality management planning,
Outreach and Assistance Unit financial assistance(including watershed partnerships,
nonpoint source cooperative projects,drinking water and
pollution control facility grants and loans).
Water Quality Protection Section: NPDES Programs(including industrial and domestic
Permits Unit discharge permits,stormwater permits,biosolids
authorizations,pretreatment control mechanisms and CDPS
ground water discharge permits).
Water Quality Protection Section: Compliance Assurance and Technical Assistance for
Drinking Water and Waste Drinking Water and Wastewater(DW/WW)Facilities
Water Technical Services Unit (including areawide WW facility planning and DW capacity
development,facility siting approval,engineering plan
review,facility construction inspection,compliance
sampling and inspection,compliance assistance and
comprehensive performance evaluation,spill response and
enforcement case support).
Water Quality Protection Section: Evaluation of self-reported DW/WW facility monitoring
Compliance Assurance and data,facility data management,enforcement of monitoring
Data Management Unit requirements and self-reported violations.
Division-wide Administration Unit Provides budgetary,
g ry,personnel,purchasing,fleet
management and general clerical support,as well as general
administrative support both internal and external to the
Department.
D. Other State Implementing Agencies
The Colorado Water Quality Control Act identifies several"implementing agencies"that have the initial
responsibility for implementing water quality classifications and standards adopted by the Water Quality
Control Commission for activities subject to their jurisdiction,except for point source discharges to
surface water. These agencies are: the Division of Minerals and Geology (formerly the Mined Land
Reclamation Division),the State Engineer, the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the Hazardous
Materials and Waste Management Division, and the Division of Oil and Public Safety at the Department
of Labor and Employment. Certain residual authority is preserved for the Commission to step in if it
R
determines that an implementing agency is not assuring compliance with water quality classifications and
standards.
Memoranda of Agreement with each of the implementing agencies are in place,to better define the
interagency relationships. Pursuant to these MOA's, each agency has submitted annual reports to the
Commission, describing the status of their efforts to implement water quality protection requirements.
These reports are discussed and an opportunity for public comment provided at a regular Commission
meeting.
Similarly, the Department of Agriculture has the initial responsibility to address potential ground water
contamination from agricultural chemicals(pesticides and commercial fertilizers). Pursuant to section
25-8-205.5 of the Water Quality Control Act,that Department is to develop voluntary best management
practices and, if necessary,mandatory agricultural management plans to control this potential pollution
source. Again, some residual authority is preserved for the Commission to act if it determines that
additional regulatory requirements are necessary.
Finally, it should be noted that the Commission and the Division are required by section 25-8-104(2)(d)
of the State Act to consult with the State Engineer and the Water Conservation Board, which are part of
the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, "before making any decision or adopting any rule or
policy which has the potential to cause material injury to water rights." These agencies receive copies of
all Commission rulemaking hearing notices,and all notices include a provision requesting information
from the public regarding potential impacts on water rights. In addition, in recent years the Commission
and Division have initiated several informal efforts to work toward better integration of Colorado's water
quality and water quantity management systems, including:
(1) Quarterly meetings between Commission members, the Commission Administrator, the Division
Director,the State Engineer, the Water Conservation Board Director, and members of the Water
Conservation Board.Representatives of the Division of Wildlife and Department of Agriculture
also participate in these meetings;
(2) Periodic joint meetings between the Water Quality Control Commission and the Colorado Water
Conservation Board;
(3) Briefings of the Water Conservation Board or the Commission by staff of the other agency on
topics of mutual interest; and
(4) A cooperative effort in the early 1990's by the Departments of Health, Natural Resources,
Agriculture, and Local Affairs to develop a joint Colorado Executive Branch Statement Regarding
Clean Water Act Reauthorization.
More information can be found on these implementing agencies at their respective web sites:
Colorado Department of Agriculture: httn://www.ag.state.co.us.
Division of Minerals and Geology: http://www.mining.state.co.us.
Division of Oil and Public Safety: http://oil.cdle.state.co.us
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/hmhom.asp.
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: http://oil-gas.state.co.us.
State Engineer's Office: http://www.water.state.co.us.
r
9
E. Water and Wastewater Facility Operators Certification Board
The Colorado Water and Wastewater Facility Operators Certification Board(Operators Certification
Board)maintains a program for the certification of operators of water treatment plants,municipal and
industrial wastewater treatment plants, water distribution systems and wastewater collection systems. The
Operators Certification Board establishes experience and examination requirements for separate
categories of certification,and establishes training requirements for renewal of certifications.
The Board contracts with two nonprofit corporations to carry out the principal day-to-day administration
of the program. In addition,the Water Quality Control Division maintains a liaison responsible for
compliance and enforcement activities related to the operators certification program. The Operators
Certification Board is responsible for disciplinary actions regarding water and wastewater facility
operators. It also serves as an appellate body with respect to program implementation actions by the
Water Quality Control Division and the nonprofit corporations that implement the program. The
Operators Certification Board web site is located at http://www.cdnhe.state.co.usiop/ocb/ocbhom.asp.
F. Regional/Areawide Planning Agencies
Section 208 of the federal Clean Water Act provides that the Governor of a State must identify areas of
the State which, as a result of urban or industrial concentration or other significant factors,have
substantial water quality problems. The Governor may designate regional planning agencies for these
areas, after consultation with local governmental officials having jurisdiction over the area,to conduct the
planning required by section 208. The planning in these areas must be done by a single regional planning
agency representing local elected officials. Section 208 calls for the preparation of"areawide waste
treatment management plans,"which are now more commonly referred to as"regional water quality
management plans"
In Colorado, regional water quality management planning has occurred in each of the fourteen planning
and management regions. The Governor has designated regional planning agencies to conduct 208
planning in five of these regions:
• Denver Regional Council of Governments(Denver,Boulder,Broomfield, Jefferson,Adams,
Arapahoe,Clear Creek, Gilpin and Douglas Counties)
• North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association(Larimer and Weld Counties)
• Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (Pitkin,Eagle, Summit, Grand,Jackson and Routt
Counties)
• Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments(El Paso, Teller and Park Counties)
• Pueblo Area Council of Governments(Pueblo County)
Water quality management planning for the remaining areas of Colorado(nondesignated areas)is the
responsibility of the state and is being coordinated through the Water Quality Control Division in
cooperation with local governments.
The regional water quality management planning agencies serve as the local link in the overall water
quality management program. The actions of these agencies, and their collective local governments, in
regard to stream classifications, wasteload allocations, grant and/or loan priority information,planning
to
reviews, and site application comments provide essential information to ensure that local water quality
goals and objectives are considered in state and federal water quality decision making.
The water quality management planning process also identifies roles for"management agencies"and
"operating agencies." Management agencies are identified under the law as implementors of section 208
plans. The primary responsibility of the management agency is to assure that the point and nonpoint
source control programs which have been assigned to them are accomplished within prescribed time
frames.
In Colorado,general purpose local governments and special districts have been designated as
management agencies for point sources. General purpose local governments, such as counties and
incorporated cities and towns, are considered preferable in this management role since the opportunity to
coordinate point source, nonpoint source, and planning decisions can be vested in one specific entity.
Several water quality management plans prepared under section 208 have identified operating agencies.
Operating agencies,as distinguished from management agencies,are those entities which are responsible
for specific activities for pollution control under the general direction of a management agency. For
example,water districts, sanitation districts, industries and municipalities who are holders of point source
discharge pernvts are operating agencies under some water quality management plans. They may be
responsible to a management agency(e.g., a city or a county within which they are located).
G. Watershed-based Water Quality Authorities/Associations/Forums
Over the last several years,increasing interest in a watershed-based approach to water quality
management has led to a number of local and regional initiatives in Colorado. These initiatives reflect a
great diversity of organizational models and functional roles. Some initiatives focus on implementation
of site-specific control regulations adopted by the Commission (e.g., Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality
Authority, Chatfield Watershed Authority, Bear Creek Watershed Association, Summit County Water
Quality Committee). Some initiatives have principally an information-sharing focus(e.g.,Upper
Arkansas Watershed Initiative; Colorado River Headwaters Forum). Some initiatives focus on source
water protection(e.g., Standley Lake/Upper Clear Creek Watershed). Other initiatives focus on
implementation of remediation and restoration projects(e.g.,Animas River Stakeholders Group).
The number and nature of these local and regional watershed initiatives in Colorado is evolving rapidly.
No effort is made in this Handbook to comprehensively catalogue or describe such initiatives. Whatever
the primary focus,organizational structure, scope and level of formality of these local and regional
initiatives, they are expected to play an increasingly important role in water quality management in
Colorado. This trend should be facilitated and accelerated by the organizational structure of the Water
Quality Control Division, described above. All local and regional watershed initiatives should be listed in
appropriate regional water quality management plans.To increase the effectiveness of watershed
initiatives, the Colorado Watershed Assembly was formed. It is an informal network which facilitates
communication between groups and agencies and serves as a clearinghouse for resource information. The
Assembly's web site is http://www.coloradowater_ore/.
H. Local Health Departments
Organized local health departments exist in many areas of Colorado. These agencies are authorized by
state law to provide health and environmental protection services at the local level. Through specific
u
authorization,local health departments can serve as agents of the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment. Over the last several years, CDPHE has been striving to create a more effective
partnership with local health agencies.
Among the functions which the local health departments can perform are water and wastewater
inspections, sampling and emergency assistance. Approval of individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS)
rests under law with counties. This function is generally performed by the local health department where
one exists. Local health departments are provided the opportunity to comment on site applications for
domestic wastewater treatment facilities and wastewater management planning aspects of regional water
quality management plans. In addition to these responsibilities, the local health departments assist the
Water Quality Control Division personnel in their routine functions.The Division contracts with four
local health departments to do biannual inspections of Housed Commercial Swine Feeding Operations
(HCSFO). Additionally,the Division contracts with 24 local health departments to conduct Sanitary
Survey Inspections of non-community ground water systems.
I. Informal Advisory Organizations
In addition to the governmental and quasi-governmental entities described above,a number of more
informal advisory organizations play important roles in the water quality management process. These
groups tend to fall into two categories: (1) standing committees that have an ongoing operation and role
in water quality management; and(2)short-term, issue-specific groups.
One example of the former is the Colorado Water Quality Forum. The Forum was created in 1992 to
provide an opportunity for an ongoing informal dialogue among diverse parties representing a broad
spectrum of stakeholder interests in water quality management. Participants include water suppliers,
industrial and municipal dischargers, environmental groups, and federal, state,and local governmental
agencies. The adopted mission of the Forum is: To achieve solutions to Colorado water quality issues
through communication and understanding,balancing use and protection of the resource. Forum
meetings are facilitated by the University of Colorado at Denver Center for Public-Private Sector
Cooperation, funded through participant contributions. To date,the Forum has experienced considerable
success in improving communication among stakeholders and fostering a more cooperative approach in
the administrative and legislative consideration of difficult water quality issues. The Forum's web site is
http://www.cwqlorg.
A second example of an informal standing committee is the Colorado Nonpoint Source Council, formerly
known as the Nonpoint Source Task Force. The Task Force was formed at the request of the Water
Quality Control Division in 1987. Since then it has served as an advisory work group for the Division in
the implementation of Colorado's nonpoint source management program, annually making
recommendations on which proposed projects should receive federal funding under section 319 of the
Clean Water Act. The current Nonpoint Source Council is made up of 25 members representing various
water interests, including governmental, environmental, and the resource development community. Two
other examples of informal advisory organizations are the Colorado Water Quality Monitoring Council
and the Groundwater Quality Protection Council. Both serve as a forum for information exchange on
water quality monitoring and protection efforts as well as a vehicle for exchanging data and databases.
J. Environmental Protection Agency
The federal Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)has several roles with respect to Colorado's water
quality control programs. EPA is required to approve water quality classifications and standards adopted
r
12
by the Commission, as well as total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)developed by the state. EPA
provides discharge permit program oversight both by approving overall program delegation and through
its ability to veto individual discharge permits or take independent enforcement action. EPA is also
responsible for approving section 208 plans (regional water quality management plans)submitted by
states as well as states' continuing planning processes prepared in accordance with section 303(e) of the
federal Clean Water Act.
EPA also plays a key role by providing approximately half of the funding for the Colorado Water Quality
Control Division's water quality programs. In addition to funding for general program administration,
substantial funds are provided for nonpoint source control projects and to capitalize the state revolving
loan funds for wastewater and water treatment plant construction. This funding from EPA requires the
Water Quality Control Division to prepare an annual work plan of its activities that is approved by EPA.
The work plan is called the Performance Partnership Agreement(PPA)and is tied to the Performance
Partnership Grant(PPG).The PPA outlines the Division's goals, objectives,performance measures, and
milestones and is updated biennially with status reports in the alternate years.
Finally, in addition to adopting regulations establishing water quality program requirements that must be
met by states,EPA frequently issues guidance documents or policy statements on a variety of topics.
While often useful,such documents have also led to controversy in a number of instances, due to
confusion or disagreement about their vohmtary vs.mandatory nature.
K. Other Federal Agencies
Several other federal agencies become involved in water quality management in Colorado in particular
circumstances. Federal land management agencies,such as the USDA, Forest Service, the Bureau of
Land Management, and the National Park Service, consider water quality protection in their management
programs. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers administers the Clean Water Act section 404 permit
program,which regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material that may adversely impact waters of the
United States, including wetlands. The Bureau of Reclamation has increasingly included environmental
protection considerations into its management of federal water projects. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture administers an Environmental Quality Improvement Program under the federal Farm Bill.
The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service consults with other federal agencies under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act regarding activities that may adversely impact threatened or endangered species.
The USFWS has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with EPA regarding consultation with
respect to water quality program activities. The U.S. Geological Survey undertakes a variety of studies
regarding water quality, including the National Water Quality Assessment(NAWQA)program.
L. General Public
Public participation is an integral part of water quality management in Colorado. All regulatory actions
of the Water Quality Control Commission and Division are required to follow the appropriate public
notice and hearing requirements. In addition, with respect to other policy-making and non-rulemaking
activities of the Commission and Division;an opportunity for public input is often provided; e.g.,through
informational hearings or public meetings. Information regarding opportunities for participation in
Commission activities is included in a Water Quality Control Commission Public Participation
Handbook, copies of which are available from the Commission Office. Local governments and regional
water quality planning agencies are required to provide opportunities for public input into their
deliberations regarding water quality management plan updates. Moreover, an important aspect of the
increasing trend toward a watershed protection approach is assuring a full opportunity for"stakeholder"
input into and participation in watershed planning and management activities.
13
III. WATER QUALITY MONITORING,ASSESSMENT AND REPORTING
A. Monitoring
Monitoring of water quality is an important component of the state's water quality management program.
Monitoring and data analysis are essential to identifying and characterizing water quality problems,
revising water quality standards, developing and evaluating the results of control programs. Monitoring
information is also essential for calibration of water quality models used for wasteload allocation studies.
Monitoring can also substantiate water pollution in connection with an enforcement action.
The goal of the monitoring program is to provide information needed to assess the surface waters and
provide information for the state's water quality management activities. The Division's surface water
monitoring strategy has many specific program objectives,which can be grouped into four categories:
routine monitoring, lakes and reservoir monitoring,biological and habitat monitoring, and special studies
monitoring.
1. Routine Monitoring
Routine monitoring is the collection of water quality samples at a network of fixed sites on a regular
schedule,such as monthly or bimonthly. These sites are sampled for multiple purposes,including
reviewing and developing water quality standards for rulemaking hearings, water quality assessments,
trend detection,and total maximum daily load(TMDL) development. The Division's routine water quality
samples are collected by four technicians stationed in Denver and one stationed in Grand Junction.
Samples are analyzed by the Department of Public Health and Environment's Laboratory and Radiation
Services Division. The Water Quality Control Division continues to maintain a fixed network of 75
permanent routine water quality sites; these are included in the total of 314 sites in the network.
a. Standards Review
The primary focus of the Division's routine monitoring is to provide an adequate,representative, and
current water chemistry database to verify and support changes to water quality classifications,
designations, and standards for surface water segments. Since 1992,the Division's routine monitoring
has been concentrated in a different major watershed each year,to provide a complete data set for the
triennial review of water quality standards. This approach involves retaining a minimum number of
permanent fixed sites in all watersheds and sampling an additional set of sites in the watershed of focus.
Each year monitoring efforts are rotated to the watershed next on the schedule for standards review. The
schedule for the water quality standards reviews is posted on the Commission's web site at
http:/iwww.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wgcciwucchom.asp. Generally, the Division's primary monitoring for a
particular basin occurs the year prior to the next major rulemaking hearing for a basin. The Division's
monitoring plan is presented at an Issues Scoping Hearing 20 months prior to the rulemaking hearing.
b. Trend Monitoring
Another important purpose for maintaining the statewide routine monitoring network is to obtain water-
quality data for the analysis of trends. Sites established to analyze trends are permanent and ensure that
there is an adequate database to identify and evaluate long-term changes in water quality, especially in
relation to anthropogenic causes. These sites are usually located on streams that are affected by point or
nonpoint pollution sources. A few trend sites,however, are allocated to more pristine waters; these act as
reference stations which may aid in identifying subtle changes in quality due to changes in climatic
patterns,atmospheric pollution, or land use.
14
2. Lakes and Reservoir Monitoring
The Division conducts monitoring at a limited number of reservoirs and lakes around the state to
determine their trophic status,develop TMDLs, and support changes to standards and classifications
during triennial reviews. Resources for lake monitoring are limited, as funds for such monitoring
originate from the overall surface water-monitoring program.
3. Biological and Habitat Monitoring
The Division conducts biological and habitat studies primarily to obtain data for use in stream standards
and classification reviews and for the future development of biocriteria. This monitoring typically
includes fish population surveys(where data are not available from the Colorado Division of Wildlife),
macroinvertebrate sampling,attached algae analysis, chemical sampling, and habitat evaluation.
4. Special Study Monitoring
Special studies include synoptic studies for the development of TMDLs,site-specific criteria development
studies,spill investigations,measurement of contaminants in fish tissue,fish-kill investigations,
compliance sampling inspections of dischargers, special water quality investigations, and in-depth
monitoring below specific wastewater treatment plants to develop information about effluent mixing
zones.
a. Synoptic Studies
Synoptic studies provide a"snapshot"of water quality conditions and constituent loadings in a particular
geographical area(watershed), during constant conditions,over a short period of time. Synoptic studies
are typically conducted on targeted watersheds to determine pollutant concentrations and loadings.
Watersheds are targeted for study based on(1)their priority in the schedule to complete TMDLs; (2) if
assessments are needed to develop the section 303(d)or monitoring and evaluation lists; (3)to develop
effluent limits; or(4)to detect nutrient or other water quality problems where site-specific concerns have
been raised.
In early 2000,the number of synoptic studies was reduced substantially. Reduced synoptic sampling
allowed resources to be shifted to the routine monitoring required for triennial review of water quality
standards.
b. Point-Source Monitoring
Under the Colorado Discharge Permit System, the state collects water quality data to use in calculation of
wasteload allocations on stream segments before discharge permits are issued or renewed. These
allocations ensure that the discharge of constituents to the stream segment will not affect the beneficial
uses of the water.
c. Probability-Based Monitoring
Colorado is currently involved in a probability-based approach to monitor and assess the status and trends
of ecological aquatic systems. In a cooperative effort between EPA, the Division and Division of
Wildlife,a program called"Western Pilot" will use probability design to measure ecological indicators in
wadeable streams across Colorado. EPA's Office of Research and Development is using this effort to
15
refine methods and techniques used in other ecosystems to assess the Intermountain Region aquatic
ecosystem. This effort should result in statistically based comprehensive assessment of the condition of
Colorado streams by 2004.
5. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program
The Division's monitoring programs follow standard operating procedures for sample collection, sample
processing,field data analysis,and quality assurance/quality control(QA/QC). The Division has a quality
management plan(Quality Management Plan(QMP)for the Collection and Utilization of Environmental
Data). This document represents an update of the Division's QA/QC procedures including the
development of a process for updating and developing Quality Assurance Project Plans, Sample Analysis
Project Plans and Standard Operating Procedures. It defines the quality assurance goals, and the
methodology and criteria for attaining the goals. The QMP is an "umbrella" under which all activities
involving the collection, manipulation,and utilization of environmental data are controlled. This QMP
satisfies EPA's requirement for an approved agency-wide quality system for all EPA funded or sponsored
activities generating or using environmental data. The QMP will be used to ensure that all data used by
the Division,not just that connected to EPA programs, is reliable and of a defined level of quality.
Mandatory use of Quality Assurance Project Plans and the associated Sampling and Analysis Plans and
Standard Operating Procedures, will be key elements in implementing this QMP. All activities that use or
generate environmental data will be subject to the requirements outlined in the Division's QMP.
6. Monitoring Partnerships
In 1999,the Colorado Water Quality Monitoring Council was established by a group of interested
stakeholders, including the Water Quality Control Division. The council was patterned after newly
formed councils at the state and national level. The Monitoring Council serves as a statewide
collaborative body to help achieve effective collection, interpretation, and dissemination of water quality
data and information. The goals of the Monitoring Council are to:
• Provide a forum for effective communication, cooperation, collaboration, and documentation
among individuals and organizations involved in monitoring.
• Promote the development of collaborative and cost effective watershed-based monitoring
strategies.
• Promote the use of quality assurance procedures and protocols related to sample collection,
analytical methods, assessment,data management, and distribution.
• Provide strategic direction for a statewide water quality monitoring network
Over seventy entities are now members, including a diverse group of policy-level individuals;
government, academic,citizen, and industry organizations; consultants,and watershed groups who are
involved in water quality or quantity issues. In 2000 the council hired a part time coordinator and
reestablished its long-term goals and objectives by organizing its committee structure to better accomplish
its charter goals. Important projects completed in 2000 and 2001 included the development of a web site,
participating in a jointly sponsored first annual conference in March 2001,holding the first "data swap"
where entities involved in monitoring in a particular watershed were invited to a council meeting to share
why, what, when, where and how they were monitoring water quality and quantity. The Clear Creek
Basin and a single site on the South Platte River were the areas included in the first swap,which was very
successful in identifying where there were monitoring gaps as well as duplication of monitoring efforts.
r
16
There are over 50 local watershed groups across Colorado, a number of which are involved in monitoring
activities. The Division has partnered with several of these groups by providing laboratory analysis of
samples collected by the watershed group. The Division has funded the sorting and identification of
macroinvertebrate samples collected by the Big Thompson Watershed Forum, the Roaring Fork
Conservancy, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. The Division has funded the analytical costs for
nutrient sampling by the North Fork Gunnison River Improvement Association in 2001.
7. STORET Database
The STORET database is a crucial piece in the support of local,state, and national water resource
monitoring and management strategies. The modernized version of STORET provides for effective
storage, retrieval,data analysis and presentation of water resource data, including chemical,physical, and
biological information. This system will also allow for linkage to other database systems and
applications,such as geographic information systems (GIS), global positioning systems(GPS) and
satellite remote sensing. Training and follow-up support for users, essential to the success of any
computer application, will be available at little or no cost. Cooperation among monitoring agencies and
other entities is critical to ensure that data presently being collected is useful to the community at large,
and that the expertise and methodologies used to obtain the data is reflected properly in the database.
Therefore, a strategic objective of the state will be to actively promote the widespread adoption of
STORET as the ambient water quality database of choice and to continuously increase the percentage of
users.
The STORET software is available from the EPA. Agencies and other entities interested in taking
advantage of the multi-faceted capabilities of STORET may need to make some modest hardware and
software investments in order to be ready to install STORET. The Division, as well as EPA, will provide
continuously updated information about hardware and software requirements and enhancements for
agencies and other monitoring entities interested in running STORET. STORET data is available for
downloading and review through the EPA web site: http://www.epa.govistoret.
B. Assessment
1. Overview
Assessment is the process by which water quality data is transformed into information. Assessment can
be characterized as the processes which lead to the interpretation of data,and the utilization of tools such
as computer modeling to simulate various conditions. Water quality information is then used as the basis
for water quality management decisions. Assessment activities support nearly all aspects of the water
quality management processes described in this document.
Assessment of water quality data is essential in determining whether use classifications and water quality
standards are being attained, and whether proposals to make changes to such standards and classifications
are appropriate. Permit limitations, for municipal and industrial dischargers, also require an assessment
of instream water quality conditions, the quality of discharged wastewater,and the allowable levels of
various pollutants to meet stream standards.
17
Other important water quality management processes which may require assessment include: reviews of
actions which require an antidegradation analysis to ensure that antidegradation requirements are met;
source water protection plans, designed to reduce pollutants and provide safe drinking water quality; and
certification of federal permits,and licenses under section 401 of the Clean Water Act to ensure that state
water quality standards are met.
2. Listing of Impaired Waters
**Note: A rule delaying implementation of the July 2000 TMDL/303(d)rule(i.e.,the"new"
TMDL/303(d)rule)was signed and published in the Federal Register in October 2001.The new rule will
become effective on April 30, 2003,unless further amendments occur. Submittal of the next 303(d) list is
required by October 1, 2002 and will follow existing procedures. EPA plans to publish a new draft
TMDL/303(d)rule by June,2002 and finalize it by April, 2003. Once the new rule takes effect,this
TMDL section will be updated. **
Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires that States periodically submit to EPA a list of
those waters for which technology-based effluent limitations and other required controls are not stringent
enough to implement water quality standards. Once listed,the state is required to prioritize these water
bodies or segments(rivers, streams, lakes,reservoirs)for analysis as to the causes of the water quality
problem,and for allocation of the responsibility for controlling the pollution. This analysis is called the
total maximum daily load"TMDL"process, which is described in Section V,below.
Segments are included on the section 303(d) list of impaired waters based on an evaluation of biological,
chemical or physical data demonstrating nonattainment of numeric or narrative standards or use
-impairment. The following guidelines were developed to assist during evaluation of water quality
information.
• Information is available to describe the methods used for sample collection, field,and laboratory
analysis.
• Chemical data should be supported by a Sampling and Analysis Plan(SAP), which identified
sampling locations, contains analytical method references, and incorporates Quality
Assurance/Quality Control(QA/QC)provisions.
• In-situ bioassay test results,or other ambient toxicity test results,must demonstrate adverse
effects as measured by a statistically significant response relative to a representative reference or
control.
• Physical and biological assessments must be performed in accordance with scientifically sound
methodologies. All such assessments should be performed by an observer who has training and
experience in performing such evaluations.
• In general, information and data should be no older than 5 years. Older data may be used on a
case-by-case basis if such data is representative of current conditions and reflects adherence to
acceptable protocols, or if the older data is used with newer data to demonstrate water quality
trends.
18
• Anecdotal information,in the absence of chemical,physical, or biological data,will not in and
of itself be adequate to support a listing decision unless such information provides clear and
convincing evidence demonstrating non-attainment.
• Data collected during or immediately after temporary events impacting the waterbody which are
not representative of normal conditions shall typically be discounted in making the listing
decision.
Additional information regarding Colorado's current approach to the development of the section 303(d)
list is set forth in the Division's Year 2002 303(d)Listing Methodology.
C. Water Quality Management Plans and Reports 305161 Report
Section 305(b)of the Clean Water Act requires
1. Section 305(b)Report states to assess and report on the quality of the
State's waters every two years. The 305(b)
Section 305(b)of the federal Clean Water Act requires Report,Status ofWater Quality in Colorado,
characterizes the waters of Colorado through
states to prepare and submit a report biennially to EPA he assessment of water quality data,and
on the status of water quality within the state. The report analyzes the extent to which the waters support
provides a means for States to report to EPA an designated uses.Thereportalso includes
assessment of water quality in their state, a summary updates on the status of water quality control
of water quality management programs,and an estimate 'Programs,including The:Colorado;Discharge
Permit System Program,Nonpoint.Source
of the environmental, social and economic impacts Management Program,Groundwater Program,
associated with achieving the objectives of the Clean Water Pollution:Control Revolving Fund,and
Water Act. the Drinking Water Program.
EPA uses the information contained in the section 305(b)report to report to the United States Congress
on:
• Progress toward, and the associated benefits and costs of,meeting the goals of the Clean Water
Act.
• Program plans and needs in areas such as permits, grants, effluent guidelines,etc.,and
mechanisms to implement needed changes.
The State is responsible for preparation of the 305(b)report and draws upon a number of sources of
information in preparation of the document. Particularly important information sources used in
preparation of the report include monitoring information from a variety of sources, special stream studies
conducted by a variety of public or private agencies, and the water quality assessment section of regional
water quality management plans.
Once the Division has prepared the 305(b) report, an informational public hearing is held by the
Commission to provide a forum for public comment on the contents of the report. Following
Commission approval, it is forwarded to the EPA.
19
2. Section 208/Regional Water Quality Management Plans
Section 208 provides that the Governor of a state must identify areas of the state which,as a result of
urban or industrial concentration or other significant factors,have substantial water quality issues. The
Governor may designate regional planning agencies for these areas,after consultation with local
governmental officials having jurisdiction over the area,to conduct water quality management planning.
The planning in these identified areas must be done by a single regional planning agency representing
local elected officials of the area. The state through the Water Quality Control Division is required to
conduct planning for areas outside the borders of designated planning agencies.
In Colorado,regional water quality planning has occurred in each of the fourteen planning and
management regions.The Governor has designated five regional planning agencies to conduct planning in
their respective regions. The planning agencies are the Denver Regional Council of Governments
(DRCOG) (State Management Region 3),the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments (PPACOG)
(State Management Region 4),the Pueblo area(State Management Region 7),the North Front Range
Water Quality Planning Association(NFR.WQPA)(State Management Region 2),and the Northwest
Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG)(State Management Region 12, except for Routt County).
In each area the planning is being conducted under auspices of the local council of governments or other
designated planning agency, representing the local governmental agencies within the jurisdiction of the
designated regional agency. Watershed overlaps between the jurisdictional boundaries of four planning
agencies(DRCOG,NFRWQPA,NWCCOG and PPACOG)has resulted in a memorandum of
understanding to cooperate on overlapping water quality planning issues.
Section 208 planning for the remaining areas of Colorado(non-designated areas)is coordinated through
the Water Quality Control Division in cooperation with the local governments. The Division does the
functional planning in these areas (Regions 1, 5, 6, 8,9, 10, 11, 13,and 14). The Division will
periodically review the need to update regional water quality management plans for the non-designated
20
regions of Colorado. Factors such as funding availability,regional interest in pursuing an update,
population growth, development pressure, support of local elected officials, and the commitment of local
and regional resources into continued water quality planning will be considered in this review. The
Division will identify potential funding that may be available to hire contractors or made available to
local and regional interests to develop an appropriate plan. Recent examples of update efforts in non-
designated regional water quality planning areas are the Upper Arkansas-Region 13, and the Yampa
Basin Watershed Plan for Routt and Moffat Counties,which covers two of the five counties in Region 11.
The role and uses of approved water quality management plans include,but are not limited to the
following:
1. The plans review the status of water quality within specific areas and report on progress in
meeting the local, state,and federal water quality goals as well as watershed management
objectives, which are established in approved plans.
2. The plans support and/or recommend revisions to water quality standards, stream classifications,
and total maximum daily loads, where appropriate.
3. The plans include priorities,processes and recommended solutions for addressing water quality
problems. The plans document results of local and regional TMDLs and special studies.
4. The plans identify priorities and permitting needs or wastewater utility/facility plans for
improving or constructing wastewater facilities,as required by Section 208(d)of the Act.
5. The plans identify the social, economic and environmental costs and benefits of implementing
portions of the plans,where appropriate.
6. The plans list existing or anticipated(20-year planning horizon)water quality problems,
assessments and solutions.
7. The plans identify data and information to support watershed restoration action strategies, source
water,TMDLs, stormwater and nonpoint source decision-making processes.
3. Watershed and Basin Plans
Watershed plans and basin plans are designed to consider water quality problems and solutions from a
broad perspective. Watersheds are geographic regions which are usually defined by natural drainage
areas and the waters within those drainages. Utilizing a"watershed approach" allows for an inclusive
appraisal of all potential sources of water pollution,both point and nonpoint source, and increases the
opportunities for finding solutions to those identified problems. In recognition of this potential,the
Colorado Water Quality Forum authored a July, 1994 paper on the watershed approach, which is entitled
"A Colorado Watershed Protection Approach."
Basin planning pursuant to section 303(e)of the Clean Water Act was initiated in 1973 with $1 million in
financial assistance from the State of Colorado. This broad planning effort was conducted by the Water
Quality Control Division at the hydrologic river basin level for a major portion of the state. Three
21
localized exceptions were the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas of Denver, Colorado Springs, and
Pueblo. These areas of the State were omitted from the basin planning process with the expectation that
they would be addressed through planning conducted under section 208. The basin plans for the
remainder of the state were completed and approved by the Water Quality Control Commission and the
Governor in 1975. The basin plans concentrated on water quality management for point sources.
Nonpoint source problems were assessed only briefly.
Watershed planning is a comprehensive approach to considering water quality problems and solutions in a
holistic framework. It generally is utilized when water quality problems cannot be solved at a single
location with a simple solution,but instead require analysis of many different possible sources which may
generate water pollution.
Watershed planning may vary in terms of specific objectives,priorities,elements, and resources, but
generally follows the guiding principles listed below:
1. Partnerships/Stakeholders—Those people most affected by management decisions are
involved throughout and shape key decisions.
2. Geographic Focus—Activities are directed within specific geographic areas,usually areas
that drain to rivers,streams,or lakes;
3. Sound Management Techniques Based on Good Science and Data—Sound scientific data,
tools, and techniques are used in an iterative decision-making process. This requires
characterizing the affected resources, setting goals and objectives, identifying priority
problems,developing management options, implementing selected options, and evaluating
effectiveness.
Watershed planning encourages long-lasting collaborative relationships, which are capable of establishing
and implementing goals and targets for water quality improvement while continuing to analyze and verify
problems for which information is incomplete.
4. Commission/Division Report to the Public
The Water Quality Control Commission and Division have developed a new type of report to the public
regarding Colorado water quality. The goal is a short,easy-to-read document that conveys an
understanding of current water quality in Colorado, as well as existing and future challenges. This report
is entitled "Water Quality in Colorado,2000." It is accessed on the web at
httn://www.cdnhe.state.co.us/wwwaterqualitybooklettpdf.
22
IV. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
A. Overview of Water Quality Classifications, Standards, and Designations
1. Surface water standards
a. Overview
"The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water"Regulation#31 (1) establishes a system for
classifying state waters to protect beneficial uses,for assigning numeric standards and for granting
temporary modifications,(2)establishes certain statewide standards that are applicable to all state waters,
(3)establishes a statewide antidegradation rule,and(4)includes certain provisions unique to wetlands.
The system for assigning surface water quality classifications and standards is based on adopting use
classifications that identify those uses to be protected on a stream segment, and then adopting numerical
standards for specific pollutants to protect those uses. The Basic Standards regulation constitutes the
framework that is applied on a site-specific basis to adopt classifications and standards in each of the
State's river basins. (Note: As used in Colorado, "classifications"refers to the use categories for which
specific state waters are to be protected, while"standards"refers to the narrative or numeric criteria that
are adopted to protect the classified uses. EPA uses somewhat different terminology.) See Water Quality
Standard-Setting Process flow chart on the following page.
Note that the State does not have jurisdiction to adopt water quality standards for land on Indian
reservations located within Colorado's borders. Water quality standards for those areas come under the
jurisdiction of the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute tribes.
b. Statewide Standards
Several narrative water quality standards have been adopted which are applicable to all state surface
waters. [Section 31.11(1)] A narrative standard is a general,non-quantified statement of conditions to be
met by state waters. For example,state surface waters are to be free from pollutants that"are harmful to
the beneficial uses or toxic to humans, animals,plants,or aquatic life."
Statewide numeric standards have been adopted for radioactive materials and organic chemicals. The
radioactive materials standards apply to all state surface waters, unless alternative site-specific standards
have been adopted. [Section 31.11(2)] The"water supply"and"aquatic life based" standards for organic
chemicals apply to all surface waters for which the corresponding use classifications have been adopted,
unless alternative site-specific standards have been adopted. [Section 31.11(3)] The "fish ingestion" and
"water+fish"standards for organic chemicals are intended to provide human health protection where fish
consumption is a consideration. The fish ingestion standards apply to all class 1 aquatic life segments
that do not have a water supply classification and any class 2 aquatic life segments without a water supply
classification designated by the Commission after rulemaking hearing. The water+fish ingestion
standards apply to class 1 aquatic life segments and designated aquatic life class 2 segments that also have
a water supply classification. [See footnotes 3 and 8 to the Basic Standards for Organic Chemicals table
in section 31.11(3)]
c. Site-Specific Classifications and Standards
Use classifications and numeric water quality standards have been adopted for streams, lakes and
reservoirs throughout each of the State's river basins. Within each basin,waters are divided into
individual stream segments for classification and standard-setting purposes. Site-specific water quality
classifications are intended to protect all existing uses of state waters and any additional uses for which
23
) ) )
Third party initial Informal discussions with Division,other
► Commission Issues ► rulemaking ► stakeholders Finalized
Scoping Hearing proposal rulemaking
or000sal
•
V —0 Review existing
classifications
Yes
and standards
Need for action before
next major rulemaking? 0
No Review revised
V legal requirements
I I I I I I V
Commission Issues I Additional Division prepares
Division P p
Formulation Hearing Assessment Unit water quality no finalized Commission
(or separate petition to initial rulemaking —
♦ data or rulemaking ♦ rulemaking
Commission) proposal analysis proposal hearing
Review new needed
information
regarding uses,
♦ protective criteria,
and water quality
data
Yes
Additional data
collected/analysis
Review 208 agency performed
and other
—0 stakeholders'input —
Incorporate into 208 plans,other water V
quality management initiatives Commission
4— final action
Incorporate into permits process
EPA review
and approval
waters are suitable or are intended to become suitable. [Section 31.13] The current use classification
categories are: (1)recreation class I a, class 1b or class 2; (2)agriculture; (3) aquatic life cold water class
1,warm water class 1, or aquatic life class 2; (4)domestic water supply; and(5)wetlands. A"seasonal"
qualifier can be adopted to limit applicability of a classification to certain periods of the year. A "goal"
qualifier can be adopted to indicate waters that are not yet fully suitable for a classified use.
The concern regarding appropriate classifications is heightened by the State and EPA downgrading rules.
Section 31.6(2)(b)precludes downgrading"unless it can be demonstrated that the existing classification is
not presently being attained and cannot be attained within a twenty year time period." A"use attainability
analysis"(UAA)needs to be performed to justify the downgrading.
For each classified stream segment,numeric water quality standards are adopted that are intended to
maintain water quality at a level sufficient to protect the classified uses. Even where classified uses can
be agreed upon,there can be substantial debate over the appropriate numeric standards for a site-specific
segment, largely because more stringent numeric standards can have a major impact on dischargers'
treatment costs.
There are three potential approaches to the adoption of site-specific numeric standards. [Section
31.7(1)(b)] First,table value standards(TVS) are based on criteria set forth in three tables contained in
the Basic Standards regulation. These are levels of pollutants determined to be generally protective of the
corresponding use classifications. They are applied in most circumstances, unless site-specific
information indicates that one of the following approaches is more appropriate.
Second, ambient quality-based standards--i.e., standards based on the existing in-stream quality—may be
adopted where natural or irreversible pollutant levels are higher than would be allowed by table value
standards but are determined adequate to protect classified uses. The third option is to adopt site-specific
criteria-based standards where an indicator species procedure (water effects ratio),recalculation
procedure,use attainability analysis or other site-specific analysis indicates that alternative numeric
standards are appropriate for protection of classified uses.
Temporary modifications to numeric standards may be adopted where an underlying standard is not being
met at the present time, but the Commission determines that the conditions causing lower water quality
are correctable. [Section 31.7(3)] For example, if the Commission believes that the existing quality of a
segment can be significantly improved with additional feasible point or nonpoint source controls, it may
adopt a temporary modification based on existing quality, with a more stringent underlying standard to
encourage clean-up. In addition, temporary modifications may be adopted where there is significant
uncertainty regarding the appropriate long-term underlying standard. Temporary modifications are re-
examined not less than once every three years.
Pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, EPA has established requirements that define acceptable state
surface water quality standards. All water quality classifications and standards adopted by the
Commission are submitted to EPA for review and approval. Pursuant to an EPA rule adopted in 2000,
revisions to classifications and standards adopted by the Commission and submitted to EPA for approval
now do not become effective for purposes of the federal Clean Water Act until approved by EPA. If EPA
disapproves specific classifications and standards, the State has an opportunity to reconsider its standards.
if appropriate modifications are not made, EPA has authority to adopt standards that will then apply
within the State. Although EPA has never exercised this authority in Colorado, the potential has had a
major impact on Commission decisions in a number of instances.
25
d. Antidegradation Provisions
Antidegradation provisions of the Basic Standards
Antidettradation : and Methodologies for Surface Water: (1)set forth
provisions regarding the adoption of water quality-
Colorado's antidegradation regulation provides based designations for certain surface waters; and
protectionof water bodies fromdegradation over (2) establish an antidegradation review process
a baseline water quality condition. Three levels
of protection apply to Colorado's waters: applicable to certain activities impacting the quality
Outstanding Waters—where no degradation is : of surface waters. [Section 31.8]
allowed,"Reviewable Waters"-where only
insignificant degradation is allowed without Either of two water quality-based designations may
further analysis,and"Use Protected Waters"
where degradation is allowed up to the water be adopted in appropriate circumstances. [Section
quality standard. Colorado's regulations 31.8(2)] An"outstanding waters"designation may
regarding what constitutes significant degradation be applied to certain high quality waters that
are further defined in a guidance document constitute an outstanding natural resource. No
available on the Division's website. degradation of outstanding waters by regulated
activities is allowed. A"use-protected waters"
designation may be applied to waters with existing
quality that is not better than necessary to support propagation of fish,shellfish, and wildlife and
recreation in and on the water. The quality of these waters may be altered so long as applicable use-based
water quality classifications and standards are met.
Waters that are not given one of these designations are referred to as"reviewable waters." Reviewable
waters are subject to antidegradation review requirements before any new or increased water quality
impacts are allowed. [Section 31.8(3)] The activities that are subject to the requirements are those that:
(1)require a discharge permit; (2)require water quality certification under section 401 of the Clean Water
Act; or(3) are subject to control regulations. The first step in the antidegradation review process is a
determination,in accordance with criteria specified in the regulation, whether"significant degradation"
would result from the activity. In 2001,the Division developed a guidance document entitled
"Antidegradation Significance Determination for New or Increased Water Quality Impacts"to help
explain how this significance determination is made. If significant degradation will not result from the
activity, the review ceases. If significant degradation would result, a determination is made whether the
degradation is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which
the waters are located. This determination is based on an assessment of whether there are water quality
control alternatives available that would result in less degradation of state waters and which are
economically, environmentally, and technologically reasonable. The proposed degradation is allowed
only if no such alternatives are available.
e. Wetlands Provisions
In 1993, the Commission added provisions to the Basic Standards regulation to address water quality
classifications and standards for wetlands. Note that these provisions are not intended to affect the
determination whether specific wetlands may be filled in,pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Rather, these provisions address the water quality to be maintained in wetlands that will continue to exist
as wetlands. Waters in wetlands are state waters,except for waters in"constructed wetlands,"which are
wetlands designed.constructed,and operated for the primary purpose of wastewater or stormwater
treatment or environmental remediation. [Section 31.501)]
26
Narrative standards have been adopted that are applicable to all wetlands that are state waters. [Section
31.11(1)(b)] Site-specific water quality classifications and standards may be adopted to protect wetland
functions. [Section 31.13(1)(e)(v),31.7(1)(b)(iv)] The regulation defines three subcategories of wetlands
to help distinguish which classifications and standards apply prior to adoption of any site-specific
classifications and standards.
"Compensatory wetlands"are those created to provide mitigation for adverse impacts to other wetlands.
[Section 31.5(10)] These wetlands initially have the classifications and standards of the water body
segment in which they are located.
"Created wetlands" are wetlands other than compensatory wetlands that are created in areas which would
not be wetlands in the absence of human modifications to the environment. [Section 31.502)] Unless a
site-specific wetlands classification and corresponding numeric standards have been adopted,only the
statewide narrative standards apply to created wetlands.
"Tributary wetlands"are wetlands that serve as the headwaters of surface waters or that are located within
a floodplain, and which are hydrologically connected to other surface waters. [Section 31.5(29)] These
wetlands are initially subject to most of the water quality classifications and numeric standards of the
segment in which they are located, except where the existing ambient quality is worse than those
standards.
Wetlands that are not tributary wetlands are often referred to as isolated wetlands and are initially subject
to the statewide narrative standards but not numeric standards.
2. Ground Water Quality Standards
a. Basic Standards
In 1987,the Commission adopted"The Basic Standards for Ground Water,"Regulation#41. This
regulation establishes a system to be applied on a site-specific basis to classify and set numeric standards
for ground water. This regulation also contains statewide ground water quality standards for radioactive
materials and organic chemicals,which are similar to the statewide surface water quality standards for
these constituents, except that aquatic life protection is not a consideration.
b. Site-Specific Standards
In contrast to the comprehensive classifications and standards in place for Colorado surface waters, site-
specific ground water quality classifications and numeric standards have been established to date in
approximately 50 specific areas. In most instances,these are adopted to protect public water supply
systems relying on ground water, Regulation#42. Due in part to the fact that it is likely to take many
years before more comprehensive site-specific ground water quality classifications and standards are in
place,the Commission has adopted an"interim narrative standard"for pollutants other than radioactive
materials and organic chemicals to provide an initial level of protection of existing ground water quality
throughout the state. [Section 42.5] The interim narrative standard states that in the absence of site-
specific classifications and standards ground water quality shall be maintained at the less restrictive of(1)
ambient quality as of January 1, 1994 or(2)table value criteria. This interim standard is intended to
assure that: (1)in relatively unpolluted areas,ground water quality adequate to protect all potential uses
is preserved through the application of table value standards; and(2)in contaminated areas,ground water
quality is not allowed to get any worse than its existing quality. This interim standard defines the
protection provided unless and until overridden by site-specific use classifications and numeric standards
adopted at a later date.
27
The major issue left open by the interim narrative standard is the determination as to what level of
remediation, if any,may be appropriate in the variety of circumstances where existing quality does not
meet table value standards,such as the 10 mg/1 nitrate standard. Therefore,this standard provides an
interim level of protection of the quality of the State's ground water, while leaving open the issue of how
much, if any, improvement of ground water quality may be appropriate and realistic in areas already
impacted. Such a determination of site-specific goals would occur through a site-specific standard-setting
hearing before the Commission.
B. Water Quality Standard-Setting Process
The Water Quality Control Commission is required by both federal and state law to review all existing
water quality classifications and standards at least once every three years. Because these triennial reviews
occur separately for each of the State's major surface water basins,and for the separately adopted ground
water quality standards,the review and update process is nearly continuous. Moreover, in addition to
these regularly scheduled reviews, any interested person can also petition the Commission to consider
new or revised standards.
The Commission has established a three-step process for triennial review of water quality classifications
and standards in Colorado. The first step is an Issues Scoping Hearing, which provides an opportunity for
early identification of potential issues that may need to be addressed in the next major rulemaking hearing
for particular regulations and an opportunity to identify any issues that may need to be addressed in
rulemaking prior to that time. The second step in the triennial review process—the Issues Formulation
Hearing—results in an identification of the specific issues to be addressed in the next major rulemaking
hearing. The third step is the Rulemaking Hearing, where any revisions to the water quality
classifications and standards are formally adopted. The timing of the three steps is as follows: (1) the
Issues Scoping Hearing—for the Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water or individual
river basin classifications and standards—is held in October of Year 1;(2)the Issues Formulation
Hearing is held in November of Year 2;and(3)the Rulemaking Hearing is held in July of Year 3. To
satisfy the triennial review requirement, an Issues Scoping Hearing is held in the third year following a
Rulemaking Hearing for a particular basin.
Water Quality Classifications and Standards
Year October November My
Issues Scoring Issues Formulation Rulemaking Hearing
Hearing Hearing
2002 South Platte(#38) Upper Colorado(#33); Arkansas(#32);
Lower Colorado(#37) Rio Grande (#36)
2003 Basic Standards(#31) South Platte(#38) Upper Colorado (#33);
Lower Colorado (#37)
2004 San Juan(#34); Basic Standards(#31) South Platte (#38)
Gunnison(#35)
2005 Arkansas (#32); San Juan(#34); Basic Standards(#31)
Rio Grande(#36) Gunnison(#35)
2006 Upper Colorado(#33); Arkansas (#32); San Juan(#34);
Lower Colorado(#37) Rio Grande(#36) Gunnison(#35)
2007 South Platte(#38) Upper Colorado (#33); Arkansas (#32);
Lower Colorado(#37) Rio Grande(#36)
28
For proposals brought forward by individual entities or members of the public, there typically will be
informal communication between the entity or person advancing the proposal and the Division staff prior
to filing a formal rulemaking notice and proposal,although the Commission is generally willing to
consider in rulemaking any proposal that a.member of the public wishes to advance. While not required,
this informal,pre-rulemaking communication frequently reduces or eliminates controversy at a
rulemaking hearing.
Proposals advanced by the Division as staff to the Commission typically result from: (1) identification of
errors in the previous classifications or standards; (2)changes in federal or state legal requirements; (3)
new information regarding existing or potential uses of water segments; (4)new scientific information
regarding protective levels for particular uses; or(5)new water quality data for particular water segments.
In preparing its proposals, the Division reviews the best currently available information regarding each of
these factors. The Division considers any input received from the applicable section 208 agencies, as well
as from other water quality stakeholders. In some instances,the Division may determine that there is a
need for additional data or analysis before proceeding with a rulemaking proposal.
Depending on the degree of complexity and controversy associated with a particular proposal, and within
the constraints of available time and resources, the Division attempts to consult with interested persons
regarding proposals prior to initiation of the formal rulemaking process. The rulemaking process
provides an additional opportunity for public input. For more information on both the informal pre-
rulemaking and formal rulemaking processes of the Commission, see the Water Quality Control
Commission's Public Participation Handbook, copies of which are available from the Commission Office
or on the Commission's web site at http://www.cdnhe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/wgcchom.asn.
One important component of the triennial review process is a requirement in EPA's current water quality
standards regulations that a"use attainability analysis"be conducted for any surface water segment that
lacks either an aquatic life use classification or a class I recreational use classification. This requirement
stems from a Clean Water Act goal of attaining"fishable, swimmable"water quality(i.e.,"protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and ... recreation in and on the water") in all of our nation's
surface waters. EPA has interpreted this provision to put the burden on states to justify any decision not
to protect specific waters for these uses. There has been and continues to be debate regarding how much
information is needed to constitute an adequate use attainability analysis. In 2002, the Division finalized a
guidance document regarding the preparation of use attainability analyses for recreational uses.
New or revised water quality classifications and standards adopted by the Commission after rulemaking
are incorporated into section 208 plans, factored into subsequent revisions of point source discharge
permits, and used as the basis for other water quality management planning, such as the development of
TMDLs,nonpoint source control efforts,and in watershed planning initiatives.
29
V. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS(TMDLs)
**Note: A rule delaying implementation of the July 2000 TMDL/303(d)rule(i.e.,the"new"
TMDL/303(d)rule)was signed and published in the Federal Register in October 2001. The new rule will
become effective on April 30,2003, unless further amendments occur. Submittal of the next 303(d) list is
required by October 1, 2002 and will follow existing procedures. EPA plans to publish a new draft
TMDL/303(d)rule by June,2002 and finalize it by April, 2003. Once the new rule takes effect,this
TMDL section will be updated. **
A. Overview of Federal Regulatory Requirements
Section 303(d)of the federal Clean Water Act requires each state to identify waters within its boundaries
for which technology-based effluent limitations and other required controls are not adequate to attain
water quality standards. In accordance with a priority ranking of those waters, states are then to establish
total maximum daily loads(TMDLs) for those waters"at a level necessary to implement the applicable
water quality standards with seasonal variations and a margin of safety which takes into account any lack
of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality."
B. TMDL Process for Listed Waters
1. Assigning Priorities
303(d)List and TMDLs
The Water Quality Control Division
Section 303(d)of the federal Clean Water Act requires that states (Division) must ensure that TMDLs are
compile lists of impaired waters. Impaired waters are those lakes or developed for all water bodies and
stream segments which do not attain one or more numeric or pollutants on the 303(d)List.
narrative standards,or classified uses. Recognizing that all TMDLs cannot be
completed at once,the Clean Water Act
Total Maximum Daily Loads,or TMDLs,are prepared for the directs the State to prioritize the waters
pollutant/water body combinations which are included on the 303(d)
List. TMDLs: on the 303(d)List. The Division uses
the prioritized 303(d)List to focus
*Quantify the overall reduction in pollutant loading which is resources to support the development of
necessary to attain assigned standards or classified uses, TMDLs. For more information on the
*Identify and characterize significant sources of the pollutants, Division section 303(d)/TMDL program
•Allocate the necessary loading reduction among those sources. see
http://www.cdphe.statc.co.us/wq//Assess
ment/TMDL/tmdl status.htm.
Section 303(d)(1)(A)of the federal Clean Water Act requires states to compile lists of impaired waters
and to"establish a priority ranking for such waters, taking into account the severity of the pollution and
the uses to be made of such waters." The State has also utilized the List prioritization process to identify
where the Division should concentrate its resources. Through this process useful information is provided
to other stakeholders when deciding how to focus their resources. The identification of a high priority
segment does not necessarily mean that the TMDL will be developed before any lower priority segments.
For some high priority TMDLs the development may have to await data collection or stakeholder
outreach.
30
I-.'
The segments on the 303(d)List will be at different stages on the path to an approved TMDL. Some will
need to have more data collected, some will need outreach to increase stakeholder involvement, some will
need scoping,additional data and problem identification. Some TMDLs are complex,multi-task
problems, some simply result in permit effluent limits. The development of these TMDLs may proceed at
different rates. Implementation of approved TMDLs is a separate process with separate authorities and
time frames.
Priorities are initially based on consideration of the severity of impairment to use classifications for the
segment. Use Classifications are described in"Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water"
Regulation No. 31 (5 CCR 1002-8, sec. 31.13). The initial prioritization will assign waterbodies(or
specific pollutant/waterbody combinations)either a high priority or a low priority. Secondary factors are
used to modify the initial prioritization to an overall or final prioritization which includes high,medium,
and low priority categories. Secondary factors may either elevate a water body into a higher priority
group(e.g., endangered or declining native species,public interest, administrative needs)or reduce the
priority(e.g.,pace of the stakeholder group development, CERCLA cleanup action in progress).
a. Severity of Water Quality Impairment
Initial High Priority: A high priority will be initially assigned in instances where there is:
1. non-attainment of multiple classified uses (based upon either narrative or numeric
criteria or both),
2. non-attainment of acute aquatic life-based standards,or
3. non-attainment of human health based standards. For purposes of 303(d) List
prioritization,determination of human health based standards impairment include:
A. non-attainment of primary drinking water standards,
B. presence of a fish consumption advisory, or
C. non-attainment of fecal coliform or Escherichia coli standards where a recreation
Class 1 or Class la use designation is in place.
Initial Low Priority: A low priority will be initially assigned to all other listed segments.
b. Secondary Considerations
The following factors may be used to modify the initial prioritization by elevating or reducing the priority
level.
1. Credible physical, chemical or biological data or studies relevant to the segment (e.g.
data shows increasing or decreasing fish populations).
2. Division action can support a local, regional or federal stakeholder group that is ready
to move on to the next step of TMDL development, or there is substantial public
interest and support, or a high priority will facilitate access to funding sources.
r
31
3. The water body is vulnerable or fragile as an aquatic habitat, or there are potentially
impacted aquatic species of special concern present.
4. The water body is of particular importance for recreational, economic, and aesthetic
uses.
5. The Division can realize efficiency savings (for example, synchronization of permits,
linking segments within a watershed).
6. There are immediate programmatic needs such as waste load allocations for permits
that are due to expire or for new or expanded discharges.
7. There is a court order, CERCLA action, voluntary cleanup, or other mechanism in
progress that will change the contribution of pollutants.
8. There is uncertainty with respect to the assigned use classifications or numeric criteria
which may result in a change to the assigned uses or standards (for example, a Use
Attainability Analysis is underway, changes to federal criteria are proposed).
9. Weight of evidence approach to waterbody assessment supports a modification to the
initial prioritization.
10. The acute aquatic life based standard is as or more stringent than the chronic standard
(e.g.zinc).
c. Removal of listed TMDLs
In general,removal of waterbodies/pollutants from the 303(d)list is subject to requirements similar to
those utilized for listing decisions. Delisting is considered appropriate in instances where new
information is developed which indicates that water quality standards are being met and/or designated
uses attained. Considerations include more recent or more accurate data(in particular,chemical data
generated using clean sampling/analytical methodologies), more sophisticated analysis using a calibrated
model, identification of deficiencies in the original assessment,or changes in standards, guidance, or
policy.
Sampling frequency and number of sampling events should be similar to,or greater than, that which was
used as a basis to list the segment(an exception would be in instances where data collected utilizing
conventional methods is supplanted by clean data). Assessments demonstrating attainment of designated
uses should provide documentation of a nature similar to that used to support the listing decision.
Attainment of water quality standards and uses will result in removal of the waterbody, or one or more
listed parameters,from the list.
Similar data may be developed to document the underlying cause of non-attainment. Should information
indicate that the waterbody remains in non-attainment, but that the segment or pollutant is incorrectly
attributed to pollutants as opposed to pollution or some other stressor,the segment or condition will be
removed from the list.
EPA approval of a TMDL will result in removal of the segment/pollutant(s) addressed by the TMDL
from the list.
32
In instances where the WQCD determines that pollutant controls which have been completed or are
scheduled for implementation will result in attainment of water quality standards assigned for the listed
waterbody, the segment will be removed from the list,dependant upon the timeframe within which it is
believed attainment of standards or uses will occur. Any such determination will consider the following
specific information:
• The controls are specific to the solution of the problem and will result in attainment of applicable
water quality standards within ten years.
• The controls are required by permit, license, contract,grant conditions, or other means to assure
their completion,or there is a reliable basis for concluding that voluntary measures will be
implemented.
• The schedule or timeframe for implementation is identified and reasonable.
• Planned monitoring is identified and/or collected data are evaluated to check the implementation
and effectiveness of the controls towards meeting water quality standards.
d. Monitoring and Evaluation List
The Monitoring and Evaluation List is an administrative and tracking tool to identify segments where
there is reason to suspect water quality problems but there is uncertainty as to the degree of use support.
Segments are included on the Monitoring and Evaluation List when:
• there is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of control measures to determine if water quality
standards will be met in the future(this is particularly the case for Superfund sites); or
• data or current conditions must be evaluated to determine whether standards are exceeded or uses
are not supported.
e. TMDL Completion Schedule
As the result of settlement of litigation regarding TMDL development in Colorado, the State has
committed to the following schedule for completion of TMDLs for the segments and parameters on the
1998 303(d) List. "Percentage" indicates the cumulative percentage of total TMDLs from the 1998 List.
TMDL Completion Schedule for 1998 Section 303(d)
List
Number of TMDLs to be
Biennium End Completed
Date Percent Cumulative
Number of Total Percentage
lu 6/30/00 30 15 15
2°d 6/30/02 50 25 40
3'd 6/30/04 40 20 60
4t° 6/30/06 40 20 80
5th 6/30/08 38 20 100
33
2. Methods for development of TMDLs
The TMDL process results in the determination of: (1)the amount of a specific pollutant that a segment
can receive without exceeding water quality standards(the TMDL); and(2)the apportionment to the
different contributing sources of the pollutant loading(the allocation). The TMDL must include a margin
of safety,waste load allocation(for point sources)and a load allocation(for non-point sources and natural
background). The TMDL can include upstream loads in the assessment and apportionment.
The Division has overall responsibility to complete TMDLs for all segments on the 303(d)List.
However, the Division will rely upon local watershed groups and entities to participate and even develop
TMDLs for their segments. TMDLs must ultimately be submitted to EPA for review and approval. Once
a prioritized 303(d)List is finalized,the Division's principal responsibilities are: (1)to ensure that all
completed TMDLs will be protective of water quality standards; and(2)to submit TMDLs to EPA for
approval in accordance with the schedule for completion.
The Division has the following objectives for all individual TMDLs submitted by the Division to EPA for
approval. They must have:
• an adequate inventory of pollutant sources;
• accurate estimates of pollutant contributions;
• consideration of all readily available data;
• documentation of decisions regarding sources and data;
• appropriate verification or validation of assumptions and modeling; and
• opportunity for public participation representing a wide range of interests.
The Division's preference for developing TMDLs is that local stakeholders groups,representing a
diversity of backgrounds and interests,participate in TMDL development. The Division believes that
apportionment of the TMDL is most appropriately done with the full participation of local stakeholders.
Therefore, local entities or groups that decide that they want to pursue TMDL development with the
Division,must ensure that their membership adequately represents the diversity of interests in their
watershed. This is especially critical when an individual undertakes a TMDL. In areas where adequate
stakeholder groups do not exist, the Division will undertake to develop stakeholder involvement in its
preparation of TMDLs. The Commission may determine in reviewing a proposed update to a water
quality management plan(section 208 plan)that TMDLs recommended in the plan should be submitted to
EPA for approval.
In order to reduce duplication and to increase efficiency,the Division intends that all TMDLs that are
initiated should be of a quality that the Division can submit them to EPA without lengthy delays. To
ensure adequate Division consideration and timely submittal, initiation of TMDL development by outside
parties must be coordinated through the Division. The Division will support locally initiated TMDL
development projects,as long as the objectives discussed above are met and the Division is involved in
the process.
A rigid procedural approach to the completion of TMDLs is inappropriate. The wide variety of water
bodies,parameters and local stakeholder group evolution dictates that the Division retain a flexible
approach to problem solving. This is not a one-size-fits-all program; however, the common process
elements involved in all TMDLs are:
• Scoping(enough problem analysis to know what data to gather and what stakeholders to
involve);
• Stakeholder involvement;
• Data gathering;
34
• Data analysis;
• TMDL apportionment;and
• Public involvement.
Many TMDLs are simple dilution calculations that mix the pollutant concentration of a discharge with the
receiving stream. The new mixed concentration is not allowed to exceed a numeric water quality
standard. This model uses existing data for streamflow and water quality. Expected effluent flow is
provided by the discharger, and,based upon known factors, the allowable effluent pollutant
concentrations are identified.
A TMDL may be more complex when extensive preparatory work is required because data is missing,
limited,or must be extrapolated from another site. Sometimes streamflow data is missing for the site.
TMDLs for multiple discharges to a segment,nonpoint sources, stormwater discharges or unusual
background conditions may incorporate the use of more sophisticated models which consider kinetic
reaction rates,travel times, constituent partitioning, or constituent interactions. This type of TMDL may
require a special data collection program to explain the water quality or hydrologic system, and may
involve difficult negotiations among various stakeholders to arrive at an equitable wasteload allocation
for all entities.
Before the Division submits a TMDL to EPA for approval, there is a public comment period. The
Division attempts to resolve issues raised during this comment period and,if it is successful,does so
before formal submittal to EPA. In some cases,it is anticipated that the Division will not be able to
resolve issues to all parties satisfaction. In these cases, the preferred course of action would be through
Commission adjudicatory review of the TMDL decision in question. In this process,the Commission
would conduct an adjudicatory hearing to decide the disputed issues. The Division would submit the
modified TMDL,reflecting the Commission's decision, to EPA as the final TMDL.
A second alternative that may sometimes be appropriate to resolve a disputed TMDL would be through
traditional rulemaking processes. A party could ask the Division for a stay of the TMDL and propose a
TMDL in the form of a Control Regulation for consideration by the Commission. The final Control
Regulation,if adopted by the Commission, would be submitted as the TMDL.
TMDL wasteload allocations for point sources are implemented as effluent limits in a discharge permit.
Effluent limits are legal restrictions on the quantities,rates, and concentrations of chemical,biological,
physical, or other-constituents which are discharged from point sources. The wasteload allocation may
include both a flow rate and a concentration of the constituent, both of which are specified as effluent
limits.
Load allocations may also be assigned to nonpoint sources. The nonpoint source reduction program for
Colorado gives preference to nonregulatory solutions to nonpoint source problems over regulatory
options, as provided by the Colorado Water Quality Control Act and the Colorado Nonpoint Source
Management Program. Under this program,stream segments are prioritized for the application of best
management practices (BMPs)based on severity of the nonpoint source impact and amenability of
restoration. The purpose of BMPs is to reduce mass loading of pollution to a segment, but in some cases
BMPs may not produce sufficient load reduction to avoid exceedances of the standards. After BMPs
have been installed, a review of stream improvements may require that stream classifications and
standards be revisited, or that additional BMPs be identified. In such cases identification of nonpoint
source loading areas and parties responsible for reduction of these loads is necessary. Technological and
financial constraints may cause the application of BMPs to lag behind point source improvements. In
35
,--
some instances that lag may be shortened through control regulations for nonpoint sources if
nonregulatory efforts appear to be unable to produce pollutant reductions in a timely fashion.
C. Expiring Water Quality-Based Permits
Many discharge permits contain water quality-based effluent limitations(more stringent than technology-
based). These limitations serve to protect water quality and to attain applicable water quality standards.
As these permits expire and are opened for renewal, dilution calculations and predictive modeling may
reveal that TMDLs, wasteload allocations„ and effluent limits must be adjusted in order to provide
adequate water quality protection. The TMDLs resulting from discharge permit renewals will be
submitted to EPA for review and approval.
36
VI. ESTABLISHMENT OF SOURCE CONTROLS
A. Site Approval Process
The site approval process established by the Colorado Water Quality Control Act provides that
construction of a domestic wastewater treatment works, or enlargement of the treatment capacity of an
existing facility, shall not commence unless the site location and design have been approved by the
Division. As the site approval process includes elements which are also addressed by the regional water
quality management plan and by discharge permits, it is critical that applicants for site approval
understand that all three elements must be accomplished to allow construction of new or expanded
wastewater treatment facilities.
The Water Quality Control Commission has adopted Regulations for the Site Approval Process,
Regulation#22,defining policy and procedures for the submission and review of applications as well as
criteria for decision-making on the part of the Division and Commission. These regulations establish a
system of application requirements based on the nature of the proposed facility. The three categories of
application requirements are: new wastewater treatment plants; expansions of existing wastewater
treatment plants; and interceptor sewers and lift stations. The Commission has further created a process
for the amendment of previously approved site applications to deal with upgrades and modifications to
existing facilities. The basic steps in each of these processes are described below.
(1) The process is initiated when an applicant(individual, developer, district, community, etc.)
determines that the need exists for new or expanded domestic wastewater treatment works,as
defined in the Colorado Water Quality Control Act. The applicant,working through the local
planning process,the regional water quality management planning process, and the appropriate
Water Quality Control Division district engineer, defines the wastewater needs and prepares a site
application. This application consists of an application form and an engineering report. The
engineering report requirements vary from category to category but generally will address such
factors as treatment and/or location alternatives, water quality issues, and economic analyses. It is
critical that the designated planning and management agencies be involved early in the process to
ensure that the selected alternative is consistent with regional water quality goals.
(2) The completed site application is then circulated to the appropriate agencies for review and
comment,based on their respective responsibilities. The water quality planning agency's role
includes an evaluation of the proposal's consistency with relevant elements of the applicable
regional water quality management plan. If the proposal is not consistent with that plan, or is not
reflected in the plan,the applicant should be following a parallel track to amend the plan to reflect
the proposed wastewater facilities.
(3) The comments and recommendations of the various reviewing agencies are submitted, with the site
application form and engineering report, to the Division. The Division is responsible for
determining completeness of the submittal and evaluating suitability of the site, adequacy of the
treatment alternative selected, consistency with the water quality aspects of local or regional
planning efforts,management and institutional elements of the engineering report, feasibility of
consolidation and efforts to achieve those ends; and adequacy of the financial plan.
37
In the case of lift stations and interceptor sewers,the recommendation of the water quality planning
agency,as reflected in the approved regional water quality management plan,will be adopted as the
Division recommendation unless the Division is aware of potential adverse impacts to public health
and/or water quality which are not addressed in the application. For other categories of site
approval actions, the planning agencies will have the option to enter into an agreement with the
Division to establish a coordinated review and approval process. Under such a process,a new or
expanded wastewater treatment facility may,at the time of its inclusion in an approved water
quality management plan,be deemed to meet the requirements of the site approval process.
(4) The Division recommends approval.,conditional approval,or denial of the application based on the
results of its review as well as the comments and recommendations of the other review entities.
The applicant is notified in writing of the Division's action and the conditions of approval or the
rationale for denial. In the event of a denial,the notification also includes what actions, if any, can
be taken to rectify those issues which are the basis for the action. Notice of the Division's action
appears in the following monthly Water Quality Information Bulletin.
(5) For a period of 30 days after the date of mailing of the Water Quality Information Bulletin
containing notice of the Division action,that action may be appealed to the Water Quality Control
Commission by any person adversely affected by the decision.
(6) The Commission,within 90 days of the filing of an appeal, commences a hearing to consider the
appeal of the Division's decision. The Division's decision is stayed pending the outcome of the
Commission's hearing.
B. Point Source Discharge Permit Program
The federal Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a point source to surface water
without a permit. The NPDES permit program was established by the Act to regulate such discharges.
Because the State has developed a program that meets the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act,
the primary discharge permit program in Colorado is administered by the Division rather than by EPA
(subject to certain EPA review and oversight authority). The Commission has adopted"Colorado
Discharge Permit System Regulations,"Regulation#61 to govern this program. Note,however, that the
State has not yet received delegation of permitting authority for federal facilities in Colorado and does not
have jurisdiction for permitting discharges on Indian reservations. In these instances,permits are still
issued by EPA.
The processes used by the Division for review of applications and issuance of(1)individual permits and
(2) general permit certifications are set forth on flow charts on the following pages.
38
Individual Permit Flow Chart
Application Received
and Logged In 1.
2a. •
2.
2b.
Is Application No Request Additional I Receive Additional
Complete? Information Information
(45 days) (15 days to review)
2c.
Drafting and Review 3. Yes No
Stage Is Application
(60 days) Complete?
Public Notice Period 4.
♦ (30 days)
1
Public Meeting 5.
Requested and/or
Comments Submitted
1 5a.
6. —
Comments Ilr' Public Meeting Held
Considered (60 days after public
notice date)
Yes
7.
Does Permit
Require Re-
noticing?
♦
Issue Permit Effective in Code Permit Conditions
30 or More Days and Data into PCS
8. 9.
Process Wastewater and Stormwater General Permit Certification
Flow Chart
Application Received
1. and Logged In
2b.
2a.
2.
Is No Request Receive
Application ► Additional ► Additional
Complete?
Information Information
Yes 2c.
No
3. ♦ Yes
Drafting and Review Is
Stage t Application ►
(10 Days) Complete?
1
4 Issue Certification
Effective Immediately
1. Municipal and industrial wastewater discharges
a. Technology-based and water quality-based controls
The Discharge Permit System Regulations principally define the permit issuance process. The
substantive conditions included in permits are determined primarily by other regulations. These
substantive conditions fall into two principal categories: (1)technology-based effluent limitations; and
(2)water quality-based effluent limitations. Technology-based effluent limitations are intended to attain
certain minimum levels of pollution control determined to be technologically achievable by dischargers
within identified categories. These effluent limitations are based principally on nationally applicable EPA
effluent limitation guidelines and on the Colorado "Regulations for Effluent Limitations"Regulation#62.
Water quality-based effluent limitations are intended to assure compliance with site-specific water quality
classifications and standards, as well as statewide narrative and numerical standards. To implement
standards, the Division will either incorporate the appropriate waste-load allocation developed pursuant to
an applicable TMDL or will perform a"mass balance"analysis that determines what concentration of
pollutants can be contained in a discharge of a particular volume so that water quality standards are still
met instream during specified low flow conditions. In general, this allows dischargers to take advantage
of any assimilative capacity(dilution) available in complying with standards. However,this opportunity
may not be available where antidegration review requirements apply, as discussed in section IV.A of this
Handbook. The Division has the authority to reopen permits and revise effluent limitations whenever
applicable water quality standards are modified;however, the current routine practice is to incorporate
any such revisions at the time of permit renewal.
The Commission adopted the first Colorado whole effluent toxicity(WET)testing—also referred to as
aquatic life biomonitoring—requirements as part of the Discharge Permit System Regulations in 1988.
Rather than measuring the levels of specific pollutants in discharges,this form of testing assesses the
acute or chronic toxicity of effluent for certain aquatic test organisms. Thus, this technique may be
beneficial in detecting toxicity from pollutants for which no specific standards exist or from the
interaction of multiple pollutants. WET requirements therefore help implement the narrative"free from
toxics"standard contained in the Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water. [Section
31.11O)]
A several-year disagreement with EPA regarding the validity of Colorado's regulatory provisions
governing WET testing and how such requirements would be enforced was resolved by major revisions to
these provisions in February 1993. [Section 61.8(2)] The WET testing provisions in the regulation are
now quite brief,with most of the detail regarding implementation of these requirements set forth in
separate Division policy guidance documents.
b. Mixing Zones
In October of 2000 the Water Quality Control Commission adopted amendments to the "Basic Standards
and Methodologies for Surface Waters" at section 31.10 that incorporated substantial changes to the
provisions applicable to mixing zones for point source discharges to surface waters. Prior to that time.
permit limits for point sources of discharge in Colorado were based on the assumption that the discharge
and the receiving water mixed virtually instantaneously. Studies conducted by the Division and others
showed that the mixture of a point source discharge with a receiving water occurs over a period of time
and therefore results in an area within which full mixing has not occurred. This space, which is called the
41
'physical mixing zone," may show concentrations of regulated substances that exceed the acute or
chronic water quality standards applicable to the receiving water. The area within a physical mixing zone
where a water quality standard for a given constituent is exceeded is referred to in the regulation as the
"exceedance zone" for that constituent. To be fully protective of the designated uses of surface waters,
the revised mixing zone regulation limits the size of exceedance zones. In early 2002 the Division
finalized guidance that includes simple methods (exclusion tables) to determine if a point source
discharge will be able to use the entire low flow for calculation of water quality standards-based permit
limits.
The sizes of both chronic and acute regulatory mixing zones for streams in Colorado are based on an area
that is a function of the"bankfull"stream width rather than a distance from the discharge. Therefore,
exceedance zones for acute and chronic standards in streams are limited to a proportionally small area of
the aquatic environment in the vicinity of a discharge. The size of the mixing zone for lakes has been
limited to three percent of the surface area of the lake or a geographically identifiable aspect of the lake
such as a bay, so that,as with streams,the exceedance of water quality standards is limited to a relatively
small area of the aquatic environment. Furthermore,the mixing zone regulation limits the cumulative
area of exceedance zones resulting from multiple discharges along a reach of stream or in a lake. Finally,
the regulation allows for further limitation or denial of a regulatory mixing zone where the use of such a
zone, even though small,could create an unacceptable risk of impairment to beneficial uses or damage
aquatic habitat of special value.
c. Pretreatment program
The federal Clean Water Act and EPA regulations establish pretreatment requirements applicable to non-
" domestic sources of pollutants that discharge wastes into a publicly owned treatment works(POTW).
The Commission has adopted"Colorado Pretreatment Regulations",Regulation#63. The goals of the
program are:
• Prevent pass through and interference at the POTW;
• Protect the quality of the POTW's sludge; and
• Protect the workers at the plant and throughout the collection system from fires, explosions, and
other safety hazards related to industrial discharges.
The pretreatment program does not apply to industrial discharges to privately owned treatment works or
direct discharges to surface water or ground water.
The pretreatment program was developed with the intent that implementation would primarily be
delegated to local authorities, usually either a city or a water/sanitation district. There are currently 26
cities/districts which have approved pretreatment programs. Program development has been initiated by
two additional districts. These cities/districts are responsible for implementing all aspects of the
pretreatment program including: permitting, inspecting and monitoring industrial dischargers; enforcing
pretreatment program requirements; developing local limits; and identifying all industrial dischargers who
should be included in the program. The State pretreatment program steps in and regulates"categorical"
industries that are located in areas where no approved local pretreatment program exists. Currently, the
state regulates eight industries which are located in areas such as Berthoud,Fort Lupton,Monument,
Windsor,and Brush.
The other role of the State pretreatment program is to conduct oversight of cities/districts which have
approved pretreatment programs. Oversight inspection of the cities/districts includes: review of each
program's budget, local limits,compliance history,and program changes. The oversight inspection also
includes a review of a city's/district's management of their industrial users.
42
A business involved in operations described by one of the federal industrial point source discharge
categories is automatically subject to the pretreatment program. Categories are listed in 40 CFR Parts 405
to 471. Examples of categorical processes include metal finishing,pharmaceutical manufacturing,
plastics molding and forming,and steam electric power generation. In addition to categorical limitations,
local limits,which are effluent limitations designed for a specific POTW's capacity,apply to categorical
industries. Local limits may be more stringent than categorical standards and for some parameters may
be the limitation which is the most difficult for an industry to meet.
Businesses which are not involved in operations described by one of the categories may be subject to
local limits. Businesses which do any of the following may be regulated:
• discharge>25,000 gallons per day;
• contribute>5%of the POTW's hydraulic load;
• contribute>5%of the POTW's organic load;or
• present a reasonable potential for adversely affecting the POTW's operation or for violating any
pretreatment standard.
Generally a city/district which has more than two categorical industries will be a candidate for
development of their own pretreatment program. Also, a POTW with a history of pass through or
interference due to industrial discharges may be required to develop a program. A city/district with
unusually high potential to be adversely affected by an industrial discharge may also be required to
develop a program.
Because Colorado has not yet been formally delegated authority to implement the federal pretreatment
program,EPA retains ultimate authority over the program. EPA plays a substantial role with respect to
program implementation for municipalities but currently has little involvement in day-to-day industrial
implementation of pretreatment requirements.
d. Biosolids management
The Commission has adopted a Biosolids Regulation,Regulation#64,that establishes requirements
regarding land application of domestic wastewater treatment plant sludge(or"biosolids"). The purpose
of this regulation is to establish requirements,prohibitions, standards and concentration limitations on the
use of biosolids as a fertilizer and/or organic soil amendment in a manner so as to protect the public
health and prevent the discharge of pollutants into state waters. Disposal of residuals/sludge from water
treatment plants in Colorado are not included in the definition of biosolids,but are regulated under
Colorado solid waste laws.
The biosolids management program regulates the beneficial use of biosolids. Beneficial use is
accomplished primarily through the application of biosolids to land as a fertilizer or soil conditioner.
Application is typically made to agricultural land or to disturbed land for reclamation. Municipalities,
sanitation districts,and contractors practicing land application must receive permits for application sites
and are subject to oversight inspection and compliance monitoring by the Division. The program also
regulates the sale or distribution of composted or heat dried biosolids through similar permitting and
oversight mechanisms.
The Colorado regulations governing beneficial use of biosolids identify allowable levels of heavy metals
and pathogens in the biosolids,siting restrictions,and management requirements. The regulations require
43
that application rates be based upon the nutrient requirements of the crops under cultivation. The
regulations also specify maximum long term application limits which are determined by the metal content
of the biosolids. Permittee monitoring of biosolids quality and application site soils is required and is
supplemented by compliance monitoring performed by the Division.
Approximately 80 percent of the biosolids generated by municipal wastewater treatment facilities in
Colorado is regulated under the program. This is equivalent to approximately 110 to 120 dry tons of
sewage sludge per day.
Because Colorado has not yet been formally delegated authority to implement the federal biosolids
program,EPA retains ultimate authority over the program. However,Colorado currently exercises
substantial autonomy in implementing the land application portion of the program in Colorado, since its
program is consistent with federal requirements.
e. Wastewater Reuse
In October of 2000 the Water Quality Control Commission adopted the "Reclaimed Domestic
Wastewater Control Regulation", Regulation #84, pursuant to revisions to section 25-8-205(1)(f) of the
Colorado Water Quality Control Act that were adopted by the General Assembly in its 2000 session.
This regulation applies to the direct application of treated domestic wastewater without discharge to
"waters of the state." Irrigation using domestic wastewater at domestic wastewater treatment facilities is
excluded from meeting the requirements of the regulation.
Regulation #84 is modeled on the Biosolids Regulation, Regulation#64, and requires submittal of letters
of intent by the entity that treats the domestic wastewater ("treaters") as well as each entity that irrigates
with the reclaimed water("applicators"). Notices of authorization issued to treaters include conditions for
the type of treatment and quality of the reclaimed water that are based on the potential for the public to be
present when irrigation occurs. The regulation distinguishes between two types of use in this regard —
restricted use (application when the public is not present in the irrigated area or inside a barrier that
prevents public access to the area) and unrestricted use. Additional treatment (filtration) is required for
unrestricted uses, and limitations for turbidity also apply to ensure that the filtration process is being
properly operated. A limitation for E. coli applies to both unrestricted and restricted uses and was based
on the allowable level in surface waters that EPA has established to protect swimmers.
Notices of authorization for applicators include conditions for the application of the water,many of which
are based on whether public access to the irrigated area is restricted or unrestricted. Conditions common
to both uses include: a requirement to post signs notifying the public that reclaimed water is in use; a
requirement for precautions to be taken to ensure that reclaimed domestic wastewater will not be sprayed
on any facility or area not designated for application (such as occupied buildings or domestic drinking
water facilities), and a requirement that runoff from irrigated areas be strictly minimized. Additional
conditions for unrestricted irrigation may include a requirement that irrigation only occur only during
periods approved in the notice of authorization so as to strictly minimize public contact with reclaimed
domestic wastewater. Where the applicator has installed barriers, irrigation may occur at any time that
the barriers are fully secured except that irrigation shall cease one hour prior to the barriers being totally
or partially removed.
44
r-
Irrigation of landscape with treated domestic wastewater has been regulated under the Colorado
Discharge Permit System in the past. As notices of authorization are issued,the entity's discharge permit
will be amended to remove any condition relative to irrigation with reclaimed water unless there are
specific wasteload allocations for parameters contained in the treated wastewater,such as phosphorus.
2. Stormwater discharges
Stormwater runoff was traditionally considered nonpoint source pollution and therefore not regulated by
the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations. In August 1993, Colorado established regulations
for the control of stormwater from specific municipal and industrial sources to implement 1987 revisions
to the federal Clean Water Act. [See particularly sections 61.3(2), 61.4(3),and 61.8(4)(n)-(o)of the
Regulations.] These regulations redefined stormwater from these sources as point source discharges
instead of nonpoint source runoff and required stormwater permit coverage. Under the regulations
(referred to as"Phase I"),permits are required for the discharge of stormwater from municipalities
exceeding 100,000 population(Denver,Aurora, Lakewood and Colorado Springs, as well as the Colorado
Department of Transportation), certain industrial facilities and construction sites that disturb five or more
acres of ground.
Most industrial stormwater discharges are covered by general,rather than individual,permits. The
principal substantive requirement of all stormwater permits is the development of a stormwater
management plan. The major element of such plans is the identification of best management practices
(BMPs)that will be implemented to reduce the amount of pollutants entering state waters from
stormwater runoff.
In December 1999, EPA promulgated"Phase II"stormwater discharge permit requirements that
substantially expand the applicability of this program. Colorado adopted its version of the Phase II
regulations in January 2001. [See particularly sections 61.3(2)(f) and(h), 61.4(3)(d), and 61.8(11)and
(12).] The program will now cover construction sites from one to five acres,and municipally-owned
industries (most of which had been under a temporary exemption). In addition,many smaller
municipalities will be required to have permit coverage for their storm sewer systems. The chief
requirements of the municipal permits will be the development and implementation of six minimum
measures:
• Public education and outreach on stormwater impacts;
• Public participation and involvement;
• Detection and elimination of illicit connections and discharge;
• Construction site stormwater runoff control;
• Post-construction stormwater management in development/redevelopment;
• Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations
Information about the Stormwater Program, including a program summary, applications, guidance
documents, and permit copies, is available on the Division's website at
http:/iwww.cdphe.state.co.usnivq/PermitsUnit/wucdpmt.html.
3. Discharges to ground water
Discharge permit regulation provisions addressing discharges to ground water first became effective in
1993. These provisions, which are tailored in a manner to avoid overlap with other existing regulatory
programs,require permits for land disposal., land treatment, and discharges to ground water from
45
impoundments. One of three alternative levels of permit conditions may be established by the Division,
depending on the site-specific facts. These three levels are: (1)effluent limitations at a point of
compliance,with verification monitoring; (2)ground water monitoring only; and(3)discharge
monitoring only.
C. Section 401 Certification
Pursuant to section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, issuance of a federal license or permit for an
activity which may result in any discharge into waters of the United States requires a certification from
the state that authorization of the activity will not result in a violation of water quality standards. The 401
certification process in Colorado is governed by a Commission regulation entitled"401 Certification
Regulation,"Regulation#82. The federal permits that require section 401 certifications in Colorado are:
1)Clean Water Act section 404 permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material(404 permits); 2)licenses issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC); 3)Clean Water Act section 402 permits issued for federal facilities by the Environmental
Protection Agency; and 4)other federal permits or licenses that may be determined to require a section
401 certification.
The 401 Certification Regulation sets forth the process to request a section 401 certification in Colorado,
and identifies the procedures and criteria that will be used by the Division in acting on certification
requests. Based upon the information provided by an applicant,the Division may approve, conditionally
approve or deny 401 certification requests. Denial of certification triggers denial of the federal permit or
license for which certification is requested.
The Commission revised the 401 Certification Regulation in 2000 with the adoption of a new approach to
the utilization of best management practices(BMPs)in section 401 certifications. BMPs involve: first,
the proper design and construction of the water quality protective features of projects; and second,
appropriate operation and maintenance of these features to ensure the long term success and compliance
of projects. These changes provide for a more proactive process in the selection of BMPs.
Applicants for section 401 certification,except for federal section 402 NPDES permits,must select BMPs
and commit to the operation,maintenance and replacement of these water quality protective measures for
all aspects of their project, for the life of the project
D. Control Regulations
Section 25-8-205 of the Water Quality Control Act authorizes the Commission to adopt"control
regulations"for a variety of water quality control purposes. Control regulations may be adopted to
establish prohibitions,standards, effluent limitations and/or precautionary measures applicable to
facilities or activities that may adversely impact water quality.
Current control regulations of statewide applicability include:
1. Regulations for Effluent Limitations,Regulation#62
2. Pretreatment Regulations,Regulation#63
3. Biosolids Regulation,Regulation#64
4. Regulations Controlling Discharges to Storm Sewers,Regulation#65
46
5. Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation, Regulation#81
6. Passive Treatment of Mine Drainage Control,Regulation#83
7. Reclaimed Domestic Wastewater Control Regulation,Regulation#84
Current watershed protection control regulations include: Cherry Creek Reservoir Control Regulation
Extensive revisions to this control regulation
1. Dillon Reservoir Control Regulation, were adopted by the Commission in 2001. The '..
Regulation#71 Commission expressed concerns about the
deterioration of water quality in the reservoir at
2. Cherry Creek Reservoir Control this time. Theydeteimiked that it was
Regulation,Regulation#72 appropriate to adopt the control as a
"phased.TMDL":consistent with EPA guidance.
The phased process provides for the
3. Chatfield Reservoir Control Regulation, implementation of point source and nonpoint
Regulation#73 source controls of phosphorus that will provide
protection:to the res voirwhile additional
investigative studies are undertaken and any
4. Bear Creek Watershed Control Regulation, additional necessary control programs are
Regulation#74 identified.
5. Cheraw Lake Control Regulation,Regulation#75
E. Nonpoint Source Management Program
Nonpoint Source Pollution
The principal federal and state water quality regulatory
programs have focused to date on discharges of pollutants Nonpoint source pollution results from rainfall or
snowmelt moving over and through the ground.An
from point sources.Pollution from less discrete sources, example of nonpoint source pollution is when
such as diffuse stormwater runoff from agricultural runoff picks up and carries away natural and
operations and inactive mining activities, is referred manmade pollutants,finally depositing them into
to generally as nonpoint source pollution. in contrast lakes,rivers,wetlands,and groundwater.These
pollutants include:
to the point source discharge permit program, the current • Excess fertilizers and pesticides from
approach to nonpoint sources of water pollution in agricultural lands and residential areas;
Colorado is largely voluntary and nonregulatory. • Oil,grease,and toxic chemicals from
urban runoff and energy production;
The federal Clean Water Act originally envisioned • Sediment from improperly managed
that nonpoint source pollution would be dealt with at construction sites,crop and forest lands,
and eroding streambanks;
the state and local level pursuant to "areawide waste • Heavy metals in acid drainage from
treatment management plans"mandated by section 208 abandoned mines;
of the statute. However, the section 208 planning • Bacteria and nutrients from livestock,pet
process by itself was not sufficient to address nonpoint wastes,and faulty septic systems.
sources of water pollution. To date in Colorado,regulatory
provisions addressing nonpoint sources have been adopted
only in limited site-specific contexts.For example, the Dillon Reservoir,Cherry Creek Reservoir,
Chatfield Reservoir and Bear Creek Watershed Control Regulations referenced above each address the
relationship between point and nonpoint sources of phosphorus.
r
47
The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act included a new section 319,providing for the development
of nonpoint source management programs by the states. States are to identify waters not attaining water
quality standards without additional nonpoint source controls and to identify best management practices
for categories of nonpoint source problems, along with programs to implement BMPs. This section is
intended to operate principally through financial incentives,providing federal matching funds for
nonpoint source projects in states with approved management programs. Adoption of this management
program was preceded by adoption of a Nonpoint Source Assessment Report,evaluating the extent of
current nonpoint source pollution in Colorado.
The Colorado Nonpoint Source Management Program was first approved in May 1989. Programs for
agriculture, silviculture, urban runoff, construction runoff,and mining were adopted at that time. These
management programs were updated in October of 1990. The Hydrologic Modification Nonpoint Source
Management Program was adopted in June, 1992.
By the mid 1990's,the milestones established in the original management program had been essentially
completed. At about the same time,EPA issued new guidance for updating state management programs,
identifying nine key elements considered to be the keystones of nonpoint source management. The new
guidance was used to develop a major update to Colorado's Nonpoint Source Management Program,
which was approved by EPA in January of 2000.
The new program,with the goal of restoring waters impaired by nonpoint sources and preventing future
impairments,includes significant ties to the TMDL program,with on-going activity on several 303(d)
listed waterbodies,including the Gunnison, the Animas,and the Rio Blanco Rivers.
As with TMDLs, EPA expects the nonpoint source program to link to other water quality programs,
including the Clean Lakes Program. States are encouraged to use Section 319 funding for eligible
activities that might have been funded in previous years under Section 314 of the Clean Water Act. The
Clean Lakes Program has received total appropriations of$145 million since 1976; however,the current
expectation is that Section 319 funds will be used for lakes activities. Examples of program integration in
Colorado include the Three Lakes study in Grand County and an emerging effort on Barr Lake/Milton
Reservoir in Adams and Weld Counties.
Since the nonpoint source program relies on voluntary efforts to implement needed actions,partnerships
are critical to success. Those partnerships exist on two levels: the programmatic level and the project
level.
Programmatic partnership is displayed through the Colorado Nonpoint Source Council, formerly the Task
Force,which was established by the Division in 1987 to act as an advisory group and work group in
preparation of the Nonpoint Source Assessment and Management Programs discussed previously. The
Council is comprised of a consortium of federal, state,and local governmental agencies, and public and
private interest groups. The Council meets five to seven times a year. It assists the Division in
determining program direction and recommending projects for section 319 funding. Rules of Operation
adopted by the Council determine membership,leadership,and responsibilities for the organization.
The Council also has five committees which relate to the primary nonpoint source pollutant categories:
(1)mining; (2)agriculture/silviculture; (3)urban and construction, (4)hydrologic modifications; and (5)
information and education. These committees have open membership,meet as needed throughout the year
and advise the Council on the technical issues of these particular nonpoint source concerns, especially on
the best management practices appropriate to each category.
48
Partnerships at the project level are critical to success on the ground. Many nonpoint source issues cover
broad areas within a watershed.Land ownership is typically mixed,with private land interspersed with
public lands, resulting in a range of land uses, from agricultural production to recreation to resource
extraction and transportation. The most successful projects have active and diverse stakeholder groups,
with representatives from all the various land uses and ownerships. Another hallmark of a successful
project is its sustainability after the nonpoint source funding is gone.
Owl Mountain Partnership The reliance on partnerships also means the nonpoint source
program has the opportunity to be a part of many successful,
The Owl Mountain Partnership was formed in ! locally-led efforts to improve the aquatic resources in a
1993. The mission of the Partnership is to community. In several instances section 319 funding
serve the economic,cultural and social needs provided the"seed"money to start an initiative; while in
of the community by developing adaptive,long ` other cases,section 319 was the primary source of funds.
term landscape management programs, Examples of these successful partnerships are displayed in
policies,and practices that ensure ecosystem the efforts of the Badger Creek watershed restoration,the
sustainability. The first five years were Gunnison Basin Selenium Task Force,the restoration of the
extremely challenging to develop a working Rio Blanco River,the James Creek Initiative and the Owl
group with the trust and credibility to make Mountain Partnership.
meaningful decisions and recommendations on:.
managing the:land and its resources.Their
process for ecosystem management provides
an effective template for others with the desire
to coalesce divergent views to a cohesive
approach. Their success can be measured by
the community desire to:expand the project
area beyond the original boundaries to include
most of North Park.
49
VII. COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE AND ASSURANCE
A. Compliance Assistance
1. Technical Assistance
Compliance assistance is the first step in a process of escalating responses to non-compliance. If
compliance assistance activities are not successful, the actions taken by the Division escalate in formality
until compliance is achieved or formal enforcement action is pursued. The Enforcement Escalation
Policy is the Division's procedure for determining the appropriate compliance activities. Prior to
initiating form enforcement action, technical assistance is provided to all regulated systems that are in
violation of the applicable regulations,if it is determined that the situation is not egregious or willful.
The Division assists small communities in the use of the self-assessment guidance document for planning
improvements necessitated by growth or planned development.
The Division continues to play a role in implementing Colorado's Small Community Environmental
Flexibility Act since most small towns with multiple public health and environmental compliance
priorities are concerned with drinking water and wastewater issues.
2. Pollution Prevention
The Division provides relevant targeted information to local municipal pretreatment authorities and to
industrial users to encourage worthwhile pollution prevention projects.
The Division endeavors to identify small-to-medium size industries which have the potential to
significantly impact water bodies, or which have a history of non-compliance, and provide them with
pollution prevention information and encouragement to employ pollution prevention concepts.
B. Compliance Assurance
1. Monitoring and Evaluation
The Division generally performs compliance sampling inspections in conjunction with watershed scale
monitoring investigations in each of the four river basins unless there is cause for such sampling
elsewhere, such as targeted facility effluents. Compliance inspectors are prepared to sample effluent at
locations they are inspecting throughout the state where grab samples are adequate to characterize the
source. Compliance inspections are targeted to a portion of the public drinking water systems and
wastewater treatment facilities in the state,taking into account the length of time since the last inspection,
size of the facility, timing of permit renewal and recent compliance history.
The Division continuously reviews self-reported data for NPDES and public water systems and enters the
data into the EPA Permit Compliance System(PCS)and the Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS),respectively. Routine reports are generated and reviewed to assess the compliance status of
regulated facilities. The Division's Enforcement Management System is a comprehensive document
which reflects each element of the compliance assurance and data management process,providing the
underpinning for enforcement activities for each program.
50
2. Enforcement Activities
Under the authority of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act and the Colorado Primary Drinking Water
Regulations,the responsibility for issuing Notices of Violation,Cease and Desist Orders,Clean Up
Orders,Enforcement Orders, and for recommending penalties for imposition,rests with the Division. The
process for determining the Division's enforcement response to various types of violations is fully
described in the Enforcement Management.System. The role of local governments and areawide agencies
in the enforcement process is not defined formally in statute. Any person or agency may request to have
suspected or alleged violations investigated. The Division also supports the enforcement efforts of local
governments/agencies.
An important component of the Enforcement Management System is the statutory authority to collect
civil and/or administrative penalties. The Civil Penalty Policy defines in detail the process for evaluating
violations and developing preliminary penalty calculations. The protocol for calculating penalties ensures
consistent, equitable penalty determinations. The penalty policy recognizes mitigating circumstances
with respect to the potential environmental damage associated with the violation and provides the
opportunity for additional credit for good faith efforts to comply.
The"typical"enforcement process proceeds through the following steps:
1. Any suspected or alleged violation of statute(or regulation promulgated under that authority),
discharge permit, or compliance order may cause the enforcement process to begin. Violations
may be noted through the Division's review of self-reported monitoring data or through a report
received from any person or agency.
2. The Division determines whether an alleged violation has occurred. In the case of a third party
report, if no violation has been detected, the requested action is terminated. If the self-reported
data or an investigation indicates that a violation has occurred,the alleged violator is notified of
the violation in accordance with the process outlined in the Division's Enforcement Management
System.
3. Once an entity is informed of the alleged violation,the issue or problem which caused the
violation may be resolved and the action terminated. Where the violation is particularly serious
or of a persistent nature, a Notice of Violation is issued to the alleged violator. Additional
monitoring is sometimes necessary to substantiate a violation.
4. Once the Notice of Violation has been issued,either the alleged violator or the Division may
request a public hearing to determine if the violation actually occurred.
5. If no hearing is requested,or if a hearing determines that a violation has occurred, either legal
orders may be issued or a penalty assessed, or both.
6. Judicial action may ensue if a party receiving an enforcement action fails to comply with the
order. Such action includes contempt motions filed in District Court and may include criminal
referrals to the EPA or State Attorney General.
See the figure on the following page.
51
) ) )
Wastewater Violations/Enforcement Process
Compliance Advisory Enforcement Order
(informal action) (formal action)
Discharge \ Monthly/ Effluent
Monitoring Quarterly Limit
\ Report / Effluent Violation
\ Limits — Letter(s)
•Notice of
Violation
Permit Permit
I I I permit I I Notice of *Cease and
Condition Significant Desist
Compliance --.P.--.P. Conditions
C C —HI. Deficiency Non- Order
Schedule i.e., BMPs Letter(s) conmpliance
•Cleanup
Order
rInspection- Inspection-
Identified Identified
Inspections Violation
\\ Violation
Letter Penalties or
Settlement
Database
VIII. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
A. Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund
Financial Assistance for Wastewater The federal Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund
Treatment Facilities (WPCRF)is a low-interest loan program for funding
The federal Water Pollution Control publicly owned treatment works. In addition,a feature of
Revolving Fund(WPCRF)is a low- the WPCRF called the"funding framework" enables the
interest loanprogramfor finding fund to make loans for"non-traditional"projects such as
wastewater treatment infrastructure nonpoint source projects. The fund was created by the 1987
projects. (A special provision of the amendments to the federal Clean Water Act and
WPCRF also allows it to fund nonpoint ` corresponding state legislation.
source projects.) The.state Domestic.
Wastewater Treatment Grant Program,
is a grant program for small Applicable requirements for the WPCRF are described in the
communities(less than 5;000 following regulations:
population)for funding wastewater • Regulation#51: Water Pollution Control Revolving
treatment infrastructure projects. To be
eligible for a grant or loan under this . Fund Rules; and
program,a facility must be a • Regulation#52: Water Pollution Control Revolving
governmental entity,and be listed on Fund: Intended Use Plan.
the legislatively-approved "eligibility
list."
Governmental agencies, which include cities and towns,counties and special districts,are eligible to
receive funds. A proposed project must be identified on the current WPCRF Eligibility List,which is
updated annually by the Water Quality Control Division, subject to approval by the Water Quality
Control Commission and Joint Resolution by the Colorado General Assembly.
To receive a WPCRF loan, in addition to being identified on the current eligibility list, governmental
agencies must comply with the following basic requirements:
• Possess an approved planning document that demonstrates the economic, environmental,and
engineering feasibility of the proposed project and that the project is consistent with any approved
water quality management plan;
• Complete and submit a WPCRF loan application packet;
• Determination by the WPCRF Committee that the minimum standards for acceptance into the
program have been achieved and the governmental agency is financially solvent;
• Enter into a loan agreement with the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority;
• When bidding the project, solicit participation from Disadvantaged Business Enterprises;and
• Initiate construction of wastewater treatment project in accordance with applicable State
requirements/approvals.
53
Three State agencies are involved in the implementation of the WPCRF program. The Water Quality
Control Division is the primary contact for loan applicants and will assure that technical reviews are
coordinated and that projects comply with all applicable requirements. The Division of Local
Government is responsible for analyzing the applicant's financial condition. The Colorado Water
Resources and Power Development Authority provides Colorado's required 20 percent match for federal
funds by using available funds or by issuing revenue bonds, enters into loan agreements and is
responsible for the administration and management of the financial aspects of the WPCRF. (See attached
WPCRF Operation Chart.)
B. Domestic Wastewater Treatment Grants
The state Domestic Wastewater Treatment Grant Program provides funds for communities,or to counties
on behalf of unincorporated areas,of less than 5,000 population with wastewater treatment needs. The
grant program regulations establish priority for communities based upon public health and water quality
needs. Financial need is used to determine the amount of assistance provided to applicants. The
following steps describe the grant process.
1. The Domestic Wastewater Treatment Grant Funding System(Regulation#53)and the Domestic
Wastewater Treatment Grant Program: Intended Use Plan(Regulation#54)describe the planning
and design requirements necessary for grant awards. These requirements result in an engineering
report which describes a proposed project for wastewater treatment improvements.
2. A community with a project listed on the Project List(for governmental agencies) in the current
Intended Use Plan can apply for funds when they are ready to proceed.
3. The Division must approve the facility plan(as recommended in a section 208 plan,where
applicable),provide site approval, and approve plans and specifications before a community can
begin construction of its project.
4. The Division will disburse payments on the grants as costs are incurred and will perform
inspections of the construction to ensure compliance with conditions of the grant.
The grant program was established in the early 1970's. In recent years the Division has received$1.5
million annually from the State Legislature to distribute to small communities through this program.
C. Funding Coordination Committee
In addition to the Division's wastewater loan and grant programs, other state and federal agencies fund
wastewater treatment and related facilities. Funding for priority projects is coordinated by the Funding
Coordination Committee which meets quarterly to discuss partnering and pooling funds. Participants
include: the Division, Division of Local Government,Colorado Water Resources and Power
Development Authority, USDA Rural Development, Colorado Water Conservation Board,and Colorado
Municipal League.
54
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUND FLOW CHART
Intended Use Plan
WQCD
WQCC
LEGEND
AUTHORITY= Colorado Water Resources&
Power Development Authority
WQCD= Water Quality Control Division
Joint Resolution WQCC= Water Quality Control Commission
Colorado General •
Assembly
Authority
State Match,and
Leveraging Funds
(bonds,other sources)
Authority
1
EPA Operating State Revolving Fund Administration Costs
Agreement and Authority Authority
Capitalization Grant
Authority
WQCD
T
Loan Application Repayment of Loan
Governmental Agency Governmental
1 Agency
Construction Funds
Tech/Admin Review of
Project Governmental
WQCD Agency
Financial Review of Loan Agreement with
Governmental Agency Governmental Agency
DLG Authority
Nonooint'Source Grant Program D. Nonpoint Source Project Grants
The Nonpoint Source Program receives an The first federal funds were appropriated under section
annual allocation from'the Environmental 319 for nonpoint source projects in 1990. Through
Protection Agency fora grant program. 2002 Colorado has received over$17 million of
The funds require a 40:percent state or
local match. The match can be cash or in- section 319 funds. These funds have supported both
' kind services. Funds are distributed staffing in the Division, as well as implementation of
through a competitive process to local dozens of projects related to agriculture, silviculture,
project sponsors to implement projects urban runoff, construction runoff, abandoned and
which restore impaired waters, prevent
future impairments,or raise public inactive mines,hydrologic modifications, and
awareness. Project sponsors may be information and education. These projects have
nonprofit organizations,government provided on-the-ground demonstrations of technologies,
agencies,for-profit companies or watershed-based water quality improvement, and
individuals. The Colorado Nonpoint
Source Council reviews all proposals and information and education benefits.
provides a recommendation on which
oroiects to fund.
Recently section 319 funding has been subdivided into two categories—"base"funding and"incremental"
funding-and the appropriation has been augmented. The state receives slightly over$1 million annually
in base funding devoted to the traditional demonstration and information and education projects. The
state also receives slightly over$1 million annually in incremental funding, which is targeted for TMDL-
related projects. To assist prospective project sponsors in understanding the section 319 grant process,
the Division offers an annual"how to"workshop on applying for section 319 grants. For successful
applicants,the Division also offers an annual"how to"workshop on contracts and other procedural
requirements associated with successfully administering a section 319 grant.
All projects funded in Colorado are reviewed and prioritized by the Colorado Nonpoint Source Council.
The Water Quality Control Commission holds an annual informational hearing to approve the proposed
projects prior to submitting a funding request to EPA.
E. Other Funding Sources
The "Consolidated Funding Process"was created in response to numerous requests that the agency
simplify the process of seeking ecosystem and water quality protection project funding. A project
proponent may now apply for multiple sources using a single application. Grant programs included in the
process are: Wetlands Protection Project Grants; Water Quality Cooperative Agreement Grants;Regional
Geographic Initiative Grants; and Total Maximum Daily Load Program Grants. Grants are awarded on a
competitive basis. For-profit organization.s are not eligible to apply directly for the funds.
56
NONPOINT SOURCE GRANT PROGRAM FLOW CHART
^' Priorities for funding
established on an
annual basis
WQCD and
Council WQCD executes contracts for
approved projects
1 •
Application period
announced;guidance
distributed by
WQCD
1
Prospective project sponsors
encouraged to meet with
Council prior to EPA awards grant and approves
application deadline work plans
I
WQCD submits work plans and
Sponsors submit funding grant applications to
Proposals to WQCD EPA
r
1 T
Council reviews and ranks
proposals, Approved projects develop
and develop funding work plans and submit to
recommendation WQCD
NiFunding recommendation presented
to
WQCC by
/
WQCD
WQCD=Water Quality Control Division
WQCC=Water Quality Control Commission
EPA= Environmental Protection Agency
Council= Colorado Nonpoint Source Council
PART 2—DRINKING WATER PROTECTION
I. INTRODUCTION
Under the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations,public water supplies are required to monitor
for the presence of a number of contaminants,to comply with established maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs)and to provide the necessary treatment to assure that the water supply is continually safe to drink.
Public water supplies,by definition,have at least 15 service connections or serve an average of at least 25
persons for at least 60 days per year.
Public water systems(PWS)are those that serve 25 or more people daily for at least 60 days of the year.
There are two kinds of public water systems: Community and Non-Community.
• Community PWS (e.g.,cities, towns,subdivisions,etc.)serve 25 or more residents.
• Non-community systems are defined as those that are not community PWS. There are two
categories of non-community PWS:
o Transient(e.g. restaurants, campgrounds, etc.)serve 25 or more different people daily
o Non-transient(eg., school, business, etc.)serve 25 or more of the same people daily for
six or more months of the year.
Section II below discusses the institutional roles and responsibilities of the major participants in the
provision of safe drinking water.
Section III explains the various regulatory aspects of the program, including standards,monitoring and
the protection of ground water supplies.
Section IV describes financial assistance available to public water systems.
58
II. INSTITUTIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Board of Health
The State Board of Health has two major roles with respect to drinking water protection in Colorado.
First, the Board adopts the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations, which establish requirements
intended to assure the safety of public drinking water supplies. These regulations establish drinking water
standards for potential pollutants, monitoring requirements for public water systems, requirements for
treating drinking water supplies,siting requirements for such systems,and other requirements. The Water
Quality Control Division administers the drinking water program implementing these regulations.
Second, the Board adopts an annual priority list for financial assistance for the construction of public
water system facilities. This assistance is in the form of(1) loans from the Drinking Water Revolving
Fund(DWRF), which has been established in large part by appropriations under the federal Safe Drinking
Water Act, and(2) state grants for small communities.
B. Water Quality Control Division
The Division is the agency with primary responsibility (primacy) for implementing all aspect of the
federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
Functional elements of the SDWA program include regulatory development, implementation of control
mechanisms,compliance assistance, compliance assurance and program management and reporting.
C. Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA provides an oversight role to the Division to assure that the provisions of the SDWA are being
enforced. EPA headquarters is responsible for establishing national standards,regulations, and guidelines
that the state adopts as applicable to maintain primacy. The EPA Region 8 office in Denver works with
the state program to provide guidance, oversight activities and potential enforcement action if warranted.
D. Local Health Departments
Many local health departments are active iin drinking water regulatory efforts, especially for these systems
that serve small nonresidential populations such as campgrounds, restaurants and day care centers. Often
it is the local authorities that receive the first public complaints on drinking water quality. They may
follow-up by evaluating the complaint with respect to the condition of the drinking water system, water
source, and treatment. They may resolve the complaint by talking to citizens, notifying the Division, or
possibly taking samples to assure that the system is safe. When the Division detects an exceedance of an
acute MCL, the local health department is notified immediately, and may become involved in answering
public concerns and assisting the water system in implementing measures to ensure public safety. Some
remote local health departments also provide services to the drinking water systems in their systems in
their community, such as sampling and sample analysis, and provide the Division an immediate response
to any unsafe samples detected by their laboratory.
59
III.REGULATION OF PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS
A. Overview
Pursuant to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act(SDWA) and corresponding state legislation, EPA had
delegated primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for the SDWA in Colorado to the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment. The state Board of Health must establish regulations and
standards that are at least as stringent as the corresponding federal regulations and standards. In addition,
a number of programs and duties related to the protection of public health through the provision of safe
drinking water must be implemented by the state. These regulations are applicable to all public water
systems.
B. Drinking Water Standards
Primary (health-related) standards for drinking water are established by EPA and may include MCL's,
maximum residual disinfection levels, and treatment techniques. The state must adopt standards that are
at least as stringent. There are presently78 MCLs for drinking water, including those for microorganisms,
turbidity, inorganic chemicals, organic chemicals, and radionuclides. Contaminants for which it is
difficult to establish an MCL may require a treatment technique to by established. Contaminants such as
protozoan microorganisms and corrosion by-products have a federal treatment requirement. In Colorado,
there are several treatment requirements for public water supplies. All systems, except for a limited
number of protected ground water systems, are required to disinfect the water supply to control bacteria
and viruses. Surface water supplies are required to filter to remove other microorganisms that cannot be
controlled by disinfection. Treatment requirements are applied to systems that have been shown to have
high lead or copper levels at the tap to control the corrosivity of the water. Systems that cannot meet an
established MCL, or find an alternative water supply, are required to treat the water so that compliance
with the MCL is attained. Under the 1996 amendments to the SDWA, new standards will be developed
by EPA from a federal list at a rate of approximately 5 standards every 5 years. EPA has also established
a list of secondary standards related to the aesthetic quality of the drinking water. Federal and state law
provides that these secondary standards are not enforceable in the state.
C. Compliance Assistance
1. Capacity Development
Under the 1996 SDWA amendments, the state is required to create a Capacity Development Program to
assure the long-term compliance by public water systems in order to receive full funding for the Drinking
Water Revolving Fund(DWRF). States may use DWRF set-aside funds for their capacity development
and implementation efforts. States that do not meet the provision's requirements are subject to a 20
percent withholding from their DWRF allotment. For Colorado,this loss of capitalization grant would
amount to approximately$2.6 million dollars per year.
The State has designed a program to ensure that all new community and new non-transient, non-
community water systems commencing operation after October 1, 1999 demonstrate sufficient technical,
managerial, and financial capacity to comply with national primary drinking water regulations. The
Division,with input from an open stakeholder workgroup has developed a strategy to assist existing
public water systems in acquiring and maintaining the technical, managerial, and financial capacity to
comply with SDWA requirements.
60
Capacity Development is an important component of the SDWA focus on problem prevention in drinking
water systems. The goal of the Colorado Capacity Development program is to assist public water systems
to eliminate capacity weaknesses. The Colorado Capacity Development program aims to identify
technical,managerial, and fmancial capacity weaknesses both in systems that are currently in compliance,
and in systems that are not in full compliance. Once a system's capacity weaknesses are identified,
specific resources will be directed to assist the system to eliminate the weakness. The Division expects
that this capacity development program will better enable Colorado's public water systems to consistently
provide safe drinking water, thereby preventing waterborne diseases.
2. Source Water Protection
:well head'Protection:and Source Water Assessment In Colorado, the Source Water Protection Program
and Protection Program (collectively referred to as encompasses both the wellhead protection and surface
swAP
water source water protection efforts. The Division
SWAP is a water supply protection program The implemented a wellhead protection program for several
"Assessment'phase which is the state's responsibility,
consists of fourelements: years beginning in the late 1980's, as part of its ground
Delineation of a public water system's source water water protection strategy. This protection strategy was
area extended to surface water sources with the 1996
• A contaminant inventory to identify potential sources
of contamination within the source water area. SDWA amendments. The 1996 SDWA amendments
• A susceptibility analysis to determine the potential ` require states to develop and implement a Source Water
risk to a system of a release from a facility or activity ' Assessment and Protection (SWAP) program designed
In their source water area.
• Public involvement to inform the public of the to evaluate the vulnerability of public drinking water
vulnerability of their drinking water supply. systems to possible sources of contamination, as well as
The'protection'phase is voluntary and is the work with these systems in developing protection and
.responsibility of local government.
management plans.
a. Wellhead Protection Program
Wellhead protection is a series of preventative actions designed to protect public ground water wells from
contamination. Wellhead protection requirements were established by the 1986 amendments to the
SDWA. Under the amendments, each state was required to develop a program that would protect its
public groundwater sources of drinking water. As used in the law, a `wellhead protection area' refers to
"the surface and subsurface area surrounding a water well or wellfield, supplying a public water system,
through which contaminants are reasonably likely to move toward and reach such water well or
wellfield."
Colorado responded with a voluntary,non.-regulatory approach to wellhead protection,the goal of which
is to protect existing and potential wellhead areas from contaminants which may have adverse effects on
the health of people. Recognizing that the success of a voluntary approach would require broad public
knowledge and support for the concept,the Division launched an extensive publics education effort on
wellhead protection.
Wellhead protection is to be achieved through the voluntary development of management and
contingency programs at the local level. Development and administration of the program has been
overseen by the Water Quality Control Division. Approximately 500+community public ground water
suppliers have been targeted for participation. Although the program does not apply to e private wills,
such well owners are invited and encouraged to use the wellhead protection approaches to protect their
water sources.
r
61
I-\
EPA guidelines specify the basic elements that are to be included in a wellhead protection plan. These
basic elements are:
• Define institutional roles;
• Delineate wellhead protection areas;
• Identify potential contaminant source;
• Develop management approaches;
• Formulate contingency plans;
• Address new well siting; and
• Invite public participation
In recognition of the role of the local ground water supplier in protecting the drinking water source,the
Colorado Wellhead Protection Plan leaves primary responsibility for developing the local plan with the
public water supplier. The state is prepared to provide technical assistance upon request, and will furnish
information to the water supplier that will be needed to develop the individual elements of the plan.
b. Source Water Protection Program
As in the wellhead protection program, the area contributing water to the public water system is to be
defined through specific delineation processes. Once the"source water area"is defined,potential sources
of contamination that could impact the drinking water within the source water area are identified. The
susceptibility of the public water supplies to these potential sources of contamination is then evaluated. It
is this susceptibility evaluation that sets source water assessment and protection apart from the wellhead
protection program, in that it will provide public water suppliers with a valuable framework that will be
useful in developing protection a d management approaches specific to their needs for those contaminant
sources considered in the evaluation.
Because the state is required to complete assessments for approximately 2,100 public water supplies in
the state, the success of the program is ultimately dependent upon the level of public participation. As
with the development of the wellhead protection program, advisory teams were used in the development
of the source water assessment and protection program. From the time of its initiation,public education
has continued throughout the state to raise the awareness of source water assessment and protection and
its implications.
The assessment phase of the source water assessment and protection program is being funded from a one-
time set-aside from the 1997 Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund capitalization grant. Additionally,
annual wellhead protection set-aside funds are being utilized to complete source water assessments for
ground water-based systems.
D. Compliance Assurance
1. Operator Certification
Another requirement of the 1996 SDWA amendments was that states have a certification program for
operators of drinking water treatment plants and water distribution systems. hi 200, Colorado's existing
plant operator certification program was expanded to include mandatory certification of water distribution
system operators and to meet all of the new federal requirements. The requirements to have certified
operators of public water systems is an additional means of assuring compliance with the requirements to
provide adequate drinking water quality.
62
2. Monitoring and Evaluation
Public water systems are required to perform microbiological, chemical,physical,and radiological
monitoring of their drinking water to determine the presence of any regulated contaminants. The levels of
detected contaminants are used to determine compliance with an MCL,and to evaluate the need for
additional treatment. Detection of a contaminant in a finished water supply may require public
notification,and,in the case of an MCL violation,the notification must include health effects information
and the need for an alternate water supply.
The frequency of required monitoring is dependent on the type of water system,the water source, and the
presence of contaminant generating activities in the area surrounding the water source. All public water
systems must test for microbiological contaminants. Because of the short-term exposure of the
population at non-community transient systems, the only chemical monitoring requirement is for nitrate,
since this is generally the only common acute chemical contaminant. Non-transient non-community
public water systems and community public water systems must monitor for chemical contaminants
because of the potential long-term exposure of the water users. Systems using surface water supplies
have different monitoring requirements than ground waters due to the different paths of contamination
that the water sources are exposed to.
Monitoring requirements may be reduced through an assessment by the Division of the vulnerability of
the water supply. These vulnerability assessments are an evaluation of any existing sources of
contamination that may affect the quality of the source water prior to treatment.
3. Enforcement Activities
The escalating enforcement process for drinking water is similar to that employed by the Division for
wastewater discharges
• Identification of violation
• Informal notification of public water system
• Formal notification of PWS
• Legal action
This predictable escalation of response to violations is predicated on the assumption that regulated entities
generally desire to be in full compliance and that violations are generally the result of accidents or
ignorance of all requirements. Egregious violations resulting in environmental harm or disease outbreaks
or willful violations(such as those associated with data falsifications)demand the immediate and full
application of the Division's enforcement and penalty authorities.
63
Drinking Water Violations/Enforcement Process
Compliance Advisory Enforcers eat Order
(Inform al action) (form al action)
Id ninthly/ Failurett to
Self Quarterly Mannar
M cohering ac, — Letter's(a
B )
Report Bea
Chem
Rod eerie Persistent �nrder ant
'� Exc tlence Vials en _y Order
Violation
TSU Inspection- Letter(s) Letter
Inspections
Identified \
V ioluion �a
Inspection Penalties o.
1 l do nation S ettlem cni
iolation
letter
dB
(SD W IS)
4. Consumer confidence Report
Another mechanism to help assure long-term compliance by public water systems is the requirement to
provide consumer confidence reports. The consumer Confidence Reports Rule is the centerpiece of the
right-to-know provisions in the 1996 SDWA. It allows customers to know what is in their drinking water,
how the water was treated, and where the water comes from. The reports are designed to assist
consumers to make informed choices that affect their health and the health of their families. Every
community public water system must provide a report to each of its customers annually. The report must
include:
• required information, including the telephone number and name of the system's local contact;
• the telephone number of the EPA Hotline
• all sources of drinking water used by the system;
• the treatment techniques used;
• definitions of terms used in the report;
• a list of all contaminants tested for;
• a table of all detected contaminants listing the name,date of sample, the applicable standards, the
level detected and most likely source of the contaminant; and
• any violations for the reporting year listing the type of violation, length of the violation, any
pertinent health effects information,and steps the system is taking to correct the violation.
The report provides the opportunity for public water systems,the State of Colorado and the EPA to work
together to educate consumers about the sources and quality of their drinking water, and to increase their
involvement in decisions about it. Educated consumers are more likely to help protect their drinking
water sources. The state program provides extensive assistance to water systems to ensure compliance.
r
64
IV. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
A. Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund
The federal Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund(DWRF)is a low-interest loan program for funding
eligible public water systems projects. The fund was created by the 1996 amendments to the federal Safe
Drinking Water Act and corresponding state legislation.
Financial Assistance for Drinking Water Treatment
Facilities Applicable requirements for the DWRF are described
in the:
The federal Drinking Water Revolving Fund(DWRF)is a
low-interest loan program for funding drinking water
treatment infrastructure projects.(A special provision of • "Drinking Water Revolving Fund Rule', and
the DWRF also allows it to fund water quality protection the
programs.) The state Drinking Water Grant Program is a • "Drinking Water Revolving Fund: Intended
grant program for small communities(less than 5,00'. Use Plan."
population).for funding drinking water treatment
infrastructure projects.To be eligible for a grant or loan,a
facility must be a governmental entity(or in the case of The project priority system is intended to establish
the grant program,nonprofit entities are also eligible).and priorities for financial assistance from the DWRF in
be on the legislatively-approved"eligibility lest". order to protect and improve the health, safety,and
reliability of drinking water supplies in Colorado.
Eligible entities include governmental agencies with
prioritized projects that are included on the Eligibility
List. Eligibility criteria consist of the agency having or anticipating having a planning document
completed during the funding year. The DWRF Eligibility List is updated annually by the Water Quality
Control Division,approved by the Board of Health and passed by a Joint Resolution of the Colorado
General Assembly.
To receive a DWRF loan, in addition to being identified on Special Features of the Drinking Water
the current eligibility list governmental agencies must Revolving!Fond
comply with the following basic requirements:
The Drinking.Water Revolving Fund is much
more than a low-interest loan program. Up to
• Possess an approved planning document which 31 :percent of the fund is dedicated to "set-
demonstrates the economic,environmental, and :asides" which fund water quality protection
engineering feasibility of the proposed project; programs such as Capacity Development and
the Source Water Protection . .Assessment
• Complete and submit a DWRF loan application
Program, described above. Additionally, up to
packet; '30 percent ofthe-fund-can be used for loan
• Demonstrate that the system has technical, assistance to disadvantaged communities.
managerial, and financial capacity;
• Determination by the DWRF Committee that the
minimum standards for acceptance into the program have been achieved and the agency is
financially solvent;
• Enter into a loan agreement with the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development
Authority;
• Solicit participation from Disadvantaged Business Enterprises when bidding the project;and
• Initiate construction of the drinking water treatment project in accordance with applicable State
requirements and conditions of approvals.
65
I-
Three State agencies are involved in the implementation of the DWRF program. The Water Quality
control division is the primary contact for loan applicants and assures that technical reviews are
coordinated and that projects comply with all applicable requirements. The Division of Local
Governments is responsible for analyzing the applicant's financial condition. The Colorado Water
Resources and Power Development Authority provides Colorado's required 20 percent match for federal
funds by using available funds or by issuing revenue bonds, enters into loan agreements and is
responsible for the administration and management of the financial aspects of the DWRF. (See attached
DWRF Operation Chart.)
B. Drinking Water Grant Program
The state Drinking Water Grant Program provides funds to communities with a population of less than
5,000 with drinking water treatment needs. The grant program rules establish funding priorities for
communities based upon public health and compliance needs. Financial need is used to determine the
amount of assistance provided to applicants. The following steps describe the grant process.
1. The"Drinking Water Grant Program: Plan for Distribution of Funds"and the"Drinking Water
Program Rules"describe the planning and design requirements necessary for grant awards.
These requirements result in an engineering report which describes the proposed project for
drinking water treatment improvements.
2. A community with an eligible project listed on the Project Lists(for governmental agencies or
not-for profit organizations)in the current Plan for Distribution of Funds can apply for funds
when they are ready to proceed.
3. Feasibility study, site application, and plans and specifications approval must be given by the
Division before a community can begin construction of its project.
4. The division disburses payments on the grants as costs are incurred and performs inspections of
the construction to ensure compliance with conditions of the grant.
The grant program was established in 1999. The Division receives$1.5 million annually from the State
Legislature to distribute to small communities through this program.
C. Other Funding Sources
In addition to the Division's loan and grant programs, other state and federal agencies fund drinking water
treatment and related facilities. Funding for priority projects is coordinated by the Funding Coordination
Committee which meets quarterly to discuss partnering and pooling funds. Participants include: Water
Quality Control Division,Division of Local Government, Colorado Water Resources and Power
Development Authority, USDA Rural Development, Colorado Water conservation Board,and Colorado
Municipal League.
66
DRINKING WATER REVOLVING FUND FLOW CHART
Intended Use Plan LEGEND
WQCD AUTHORITY= Colorado Water Resources&Power Development Authority
CBOH WQCD= Water Quality Control Division
DLG= Division of Local Governments
CBOH = Colorado Board of Health
Joint Resolution
Colorado General Assembly
Authority
1
Loan Application
Government Agency
1
Tech/Admin Review
WQCD
Financial Review
DLG
Committee Review
WQCD, DLG,Authority
Authority Board
Financial Committee Loan Agreement Construction Repayment of
Review With Funds Loan Loan
Board Approval of Governmental Disbursements Governmental
Loans Authority Agency WQCD, Agency
Authority Authority
Appendix A
Colorado Water Quality Control Act History
The major elements of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act largely pattern the major features of the
federal Clean Water Act—the establishment of water quality classifications and standards,implemented
principally through a point source discharge permit program. However,the scope of the Federal Act is
largely limited to surface water,whereas the State Act addresses surface water and ground water.
The Colorado Water Pollution Control Act was first adopted in 1966,creating authority to adopt water
quality standards consistent with the requirements contained in the 1965 amendments to the federal Clean
Water Act. As summarized in the text of this Handbook,major revisions to the Federal Act were adopted
in 1972,including a new discharge permit program,which was initially administered by EPA, but could
be delegated to states. In 1973,the Colorado Water Quality Control Act was completely rewritten(and
renamed),to bring it into compliance with the new federal law. Colorado chose to develop a delegated
discharge permit program,which was initially approved by EPA in 1975.
As mentioned in the text of this Handbook,the last comprehensive rewrite of the Colorado Act was
Senate Bill 10,adopted in 1981. Senate Bill 10 moved for the first time to a partially cash-funded
discharge permit system. Among the other innovations of Senate Bill 10 were provisions requiring that
"economic reasonableness"be taken into account at various points in the water quality regulation process.
EPA objected that certain provisions—for example, variances from water quality standards based on
economic impact—were inconsistent with provisions of the federal Clean Water Act,and could result in
EPA withdrawing authority for the State to administer the discharge permit program in lieu of a federal
program.
In 1985,the Legislature amended the State Act by adopting Senate Bill 83,which was aimed in large part
at eliminating the deficiencies in Senate B ill 10 alleged by EPA. One result of the 1985 amendments was
the adoption of section 25-8-207,creating a new basis for reconsideration of water quality classifications
and standards,in part because the Senate Bill 10 water quality standards variance provision was deleted.
Section 25-8-207 creates an automatic right to a rulemaking hearing to review classifications and
standards in certain circumstances. Senate Bill 83 also eliminated the Commission's authority to hear
certain permit appeals, to avoid a conflict of interest concern(since Commission members include
persons employed by dischargers).
In 1989,the Legislature further amended the State Act by the adoption of Senate Bill 181. Among other
changes,this bill included new provisions regarding the relationships between the Water Quality Control
Commission and Division and other state agencies. Section 25-8-104(2)(d)now requires the Commission
and Division to consult with the State Engineer and the Colorado Water Conservation Board before
taking any actions that have"the potential to cause material injury to water rights." In addition,new
section 25-8-207(7) identifies"implementing agencies" (Mined Land Reclamation Division [now the
Division of Minerals and Geology, State Engineer,Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and the
agencies responsible for implementation of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [now
the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division at CDPHE and the Oil Inspection Section at
the Department of Labor and Employment])that have the initial responsibility for implementing water
quality classifications and standards adopted by the Commission for activities subject to their jurisdiction,
except for point source discharges to surface waters. The roles of these other agencies are discussed
further in section 11 Part I of this Handbook.
68
In 1990,the Legislature adopted Senate Bill 126,establishing new provisions in the State Act to address
potential ground water quality contamination from agricultural chemicals (pesticides and commercial
fertilizers). Section 25-8-205.5 of the Act now gives the Department of Agriculture authority to develop
voluntary best management practices and,if necessary, mandatory agricultural management plans to
control this potential pollution source, subject to ultimate authority of the Water Quality Control
Commission to adopt regulatory requirements if necessary.
In 1992,the Legislature adopted House Bill 1200,which established a new section 25-8-209 regarding
water quality designations. This section provides for: (1) an"outstanding waters"designation for certain
waters for which no degradation will be allowed, and(2)a"use-protected waters"designation for waters
whose quality may be altered so long as applicable water quality classifications and standards are met.
All waters not given one of these two designations are subject to antidegradation review requirements
before any new or increased water quality impacts are allowed.
In 1993, subsection 25-8-205(1)(e)was added to the statute,to give the Commission the authority to
regulate the use and disposal of biosolids. In the 1998 general election,a citizen's initiative—known as
Amendment 14—passed,establishing a new section 25-8-501.1 regulating housed commercial swine
feeding operations. This provision requires that such facilities obtain an individual discharge permit. It
also sets forth detailed requirements regarding the construction and operation of these facilities,and
establishes a separate permit fee specific to these operations.
In 2000, subsection 25-8-205(1)(f)was added to the statute,to give the Commission the authority to
regulate the reuse of reclaimed domestic wastewater for purposes other than drinking.
In 2001,the Legislature adopted House Bill 1032 that provides for the renewal of discharge permits using
a risk-based approach that limits the amount of work required to renew permits that have minimal or no
change in permit conditions. This bill also removed the state requirement that discharge permits expire
every five years.
In 2002,House Bill 1344 increased point source discharge permit fees and required that the Division
conduct a study regarding whether revisions to Colorado's water quality classifications and standards
system are appropriate due to the unique attributes of Colorado water bodies.
69
Appendix B
Bibliography of Other Important Water Quality Management Documents
This Appendix lists a number of documents of general interest related to water quality management in
Colorado. Copies should be available from the entities identified below. In some cases, there may be a
charge.
In addition certain current information related to water quality management in Colorado is available on
the Water Quality Control Commission's web site,which can be found at:
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wgcc/wqcchom.asp. Information currently available on the Water
Quality Control Commission's Homepage., which can be accessed via the Colorado Homepage, includes:
• The Colorado Water Quality Control Act,Commission regulations and policies
• Monthly Commission meeting agendas
• Commission long-range schedule and explanatory notes
• Summaries of Proceedings/Motions from prior Commission meetings
• Informational Hearing and Rulemaking Hearing Notices
• Commission member roster and biographical summaries
• A calendar of upcoming water quality meetings
Documents available on the web and/or in hard copy:
1. The following policies adopted by the Water Quality Control Commission:
• Policy 87-2;Policy Concerning Approval of Section 208 Water Quality Plan Amendments.
• Policy 96-1;Design Criteria for Wastewater Treatment Works.
• Policy 96-2;Human Health-Based Water Quality Criteria and Standards.
• Policy 98-1; Provisional Implementation Guidance for Determining Sediment Deposition Impacts
to Aquatic Life in Streams and Rivers.
• Policy 98-2; Colorado Water Quality Management and Drinking Water Protection Handbook.
2. Status of Water Quality in Colorado 2002—Section 305(b)Report
http://www.cdphc.state.co.us/on/wqcc/waterstatus2002/305(b)tableofcontents.pdf(Water Quality
Control Division;2002)
3. Water Quality Limited Segments—Colorado's 1998 303(d)List
(Water Quality Control Division; 1998)
4. Colorado Nonpoint Source Assessment Report [Hard copy only]
(Water Quality Control Division; 1988)
5. Colorado Nonpoint Source Management Program
(Water Quality Control Division; 2000)
70
6. Colorado Watershed Protection Approach [Hard copy only]
(Colorado Water Quality Forum; 1994)
•A Special section on water quality classification and standards reviews
•Information regarding selected special topics
7. Colorado Wellhead Protection Program[Hard copy only]
(Water Quality Control Division; 1994)
8. Colorado Source Water Assessment and Protection Program
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/Perrnits Unit/wgcdpmt.html#Stormwater
(Water Quality Control Division; 2000)
9. Guidelines for Conducting Whole Effluent Toxicity Tests [Hard copy only]
(Water Quality Control Division; 1993)
10. Colorado Water Quality Control Division Biomonitoring Guidance Document [Hard copy only]
(Water Quality Control Division; 1993)
11. WQCD Enforcement Management System [Hand copy only]
(Water Quality Control Division; 1993)
12. Water Quality Control Commission Public Participation Handbook
htm://www.ednhestate.co.usion/wqcc/98-2.pdf
(Water Quality Control Commission; 1998)
13. Water Quality Control Commission Index for Policies,Regulations and Guidelines
htm://www.cdphe.state.co.usion/wucciwqccindex1201.pdf
(Water Quality Control Commission; 2002)
14. Senate Bill 89-181 Implementing Agency Memoranda of Agreement
htm://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/sb89-181moa.html
(Separate MOAs with State Engineers Office,Oil and Gas Conservation Commission,Hazardous
Materials and Waste Management Division, Division of Minerals and Geology, and the Oil
Inspection Section of the Department of Labor and Employment)
15. Section 208 Water Quality Management Plans [Hard copy only]
• Region 1 —Northeastern Colorado(Morgan,Logan, Yuma, Sedgwick,Phillips,and Washington
Counties)
Last Update— 1997
• Region 2—North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association
(Designated Planning Agency; Larimer and Weld Counties)
Last Update—1999
71
• Region 3—Denver Regional Council of Governments(Designated Planning Agency; Adams,
Arapahoe,Boulder,Douglas,Denver,Jefferson,Clear Creek, and Gilpin Counties)
Last Update—1998
• Region 4—Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments(Designated Planning Agency; El Paso,
Park, and Teller Counties)
Last Update— 1989
• Region 5—East Central Colorado (Elbert,Lincoln,Kit Carson,and Cheyenne Counties)
Last Update— 1987
• Region 6—Lower Arkansas Region(Kiowa,Crowley, Otero,Bent,Prowers,and Baca Counties)
Last Update—1984
• Region 7—Pueblo Area Council of Governments(Designated Planning Agency;Pueblo County
only)
Last Update— 1993
• Region 8—San Luis Valley(Sagauche, Mineral, Rio Grande, Alamosa,Costilla, and Conejos
Counties)
Last Update— 1988
• Region 9—San Juan Region(Dolores,Montezuma, La Plata, San Juan,and Archuleta Counties)
Last Update— 1987
• Region 10—District 10(Gunnison,Hinsdale, Ouray, San Miguel, Montrose,and Delta Counties)
Last Update— 1990
• Region 11 —Northwest Colorado(Moffat,Bio Blanco,Mesa,and Garfield Counties)
Last Update— 1986
• Region 12—Northwest Colorado Council of Governments(Designated Planning Agency; Routt,
Jackson, Grand, Summit, Eagle, and Pitkin Counties)
Last Update— 1996)
• Region 13—Upper Arkansas (Lake, Chaffee,Fremont,and Custer Counties)
Last Update— 1988
• Region 14—Huerfano/Las Animas(Huerfano and Las Animas Counties)
Last Update- 1987
72
Appendix C
Common Abbreviations
APA Administrative Procedure Act
ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
ASIWPCA Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
AWT Advanced Wastewater Treatment
BAT Best Available Technology
BMP Best Management Practice
BPJ Best Professional Judgment
BPT Best Practicable Technology
CACI Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry
CAFO Confined Animal Feeding Operation
CCR Colorado Code of Regulations
CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
CDPS Colorado Discharge Permit System
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
CMA Colorado Mining Association
CRS Colorado Revised Statutes
CWA Clean Water Act
CWC Colorado Water Congress
CWCB CB Colorado Water Conservation Board
CWRPDA Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority
DIMP Diisopropyl methylphosphonate
DLG Division of Local Government
DMG Division of Minerals and Geology
73
DOLA Department of Local Affairs
DOW Division of Wildlife
DRCOG Denver Regional Council of Governments
DWRF Drinking Water Revolving Fund
EPA Environmental Protect:ion Agency
GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
HMWMD Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division
HCSFO Housed Commercial Swine Feeding Operation
ISDS Individual Sewage Disposal System
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
LA Load Allocation
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MDL Method Detection Limit
mg/I milligrams per liter
MLRB Mined Land Reclamation Board
NFRWQPA North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NWCCOG Northwest Colorado Council of Governments
OGCC Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
pCi/L picocuries per Liter
PPACOG Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PQL Practical Quantitation Limit
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
74
SEO State Engineer's Office
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SWAP Source Water Assessment and Protection Program
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
THM Trihalomethane
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TVS Table Value Standards
µg 1 micrograms per liter
UIC Underground Injection Control
UMTRA Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action
UST Underground Storage Tanks
WET Whole Effluent Toxicity
WHPA Wellhead Protection Area
WLA Wasteload Allocation
WQCC Water Quality Control Commission
WQCD Water Quality Control Division
WPCRF Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund
WWFOCB Water and Wastewater Facility Operators Certification Board
75
Appendix D
Section 208 Planning Requirements
Regional water quality management plans prepared under Section 208 of the federal Clean Water Act
should be updated regularly to reflect the progress of plan implementation and changes in regulatory
programs. The plans are a source of water quality assessment information for the preparation of 305(b)
reports. They also provide data, information and recommendations used for stream classifications,
TMDLs and waste load allocation studies,and permitting requirements necessary for regulatory decisions
in the water quality management process. The federal Clean Water Act states that plans must include,but
are not limited to,the following:
• The identification of treatment works necessary to meet the anticipated municipal and industrial waste
treatment needs over a twenty-year period, including treatment requirements,necessary wastewater
collection and urban stormwater runoff systems, financial arrangements, and relationship to potential
land use.
• The establishment of construction priorities for such treatment works and time schedules for the
initiation and completion of all treatment works.
• The identification of regulatory programs used to manage waste management and discharge facilities.
• The period of time necessary to carry out the plan,the costs of carrying out the plan within that time,
and the economic, social, and environmental impact of carrying out the plan.
r�
• Processes to identify nonpoint sources of pollution including apiculture, silviculture, mining,
construction activity, the control and disposition of residual waste, and the disposal of pollutants on
land or in subsurface excavations to protect ground and surface water quality.
• An identification of management and operating agencies to carry out appropriate portions of a water
quality management plan.
Uses of the Plans
Water Quality Management Plans provide guidance on water quality goals and objectives,the cost of
water pollution control, and social, economic, and environmental costs and benefits. Regional water
quality management plans assist local,state,and federal decision makers to focus on priority water
quality issues and provide local input and guidance to Colorado's overall water quality program. This
process helps assure that decisions made al the local and state levels are consistent with pertinent statutory
and planning requirements. The role of the regional plans and the planning agencies is,therefore, to
assure that the necessary information for water quality decisions is adequate and up-to-date and that there
is proper follow-through on the part of the management agencies designated in approved plans. The roles
of the planning agencies include,but are not limited to the following:
1. The planning agencies assist with the development and/or oversee the implementation of
nonpoint source,TMDLs and stormwater control programs.
2. The planning agencies assist designated management agencies with the review of wastewater
utility/facility plans and site approvals to assure consistency with approved water quality
management plans.
76
lam`
3. The planning agencies review discharge permits to assure that discharges to a stream segment are
consistent with approved plans, as required by Section 208(e)of the Act.
4. The planning agencies assist designated management and operating agencies in carrying out their
responsibilities established in approved plans.
5. The planning agencies provide information, assist with education,provide public participation
opportunities and serve as a water and environmental resource to local governments and
management agencies.
6. The planning agencies participate in regulation development processes and can provide local
government or management agency perspectives.
7. The planning agencies periodically review the performance of the designated management
agencies to assure that these agencies continue to fulfill their responsibilities.
For the plans to remain useful decision-making documents,it is necessary that specific components of the
plans be amended periodically. Amendments to plans recommended by planning agencies must be made
in accordance with the federal Clean Water Act and Colorado Water Quality Act. The regional water
quality management plan elements that need to be kept current through the update and amendment
process are as follows:
1. Facility needs—Discharge facility needs are those capital improvements, collection systems,
purchases,and construction programs for wastewater treatment, which will result in a change in
degree or method of treatment or an increase in capacity. These needs,covering a minimum
period of five years with a 20-year planning horizon,must be identified in the regional plan and
be supported by population and/or employment projections,degree of treatment requirements,
and facility timing criteria. New facilities must be consistent with the service area, location, and
capacity identified in the plan or in other locally adopted plans. The plan identifies regional
priorities for facility construction,improvement, or expansion.
2. Facility location-The regional plan locates existing and proposed(20-year planning horizon)
municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities. The plan lists the stream segment to
which a discharge occurs or is expected to occur. Stream segments are consistent with
prevailing state stream classifications.
3. Capacity-The capacity of a waste treatment facility is based upon design criteria. The plan shall
identify the allowable organic and hydraulic throughput of the treatment works for existing
conditions as well as projected needs through a 20-year planning horizon. The units of measure
for allowable organic and hydraulic throughput must be consistent with discharge permit
requirements.
4. Timing of expansion facilities -The Colorado Water Quality Control Act requires that domestic
wastewater treatment works pennittees "initiate engineering and financial planning for
expansion of the sewage treatment works whenever throughput and treatment reach 80 percent
of design capacity" and"commence construction of such sewage treatment works expansion
whenever throughput and treatment reach 95 percent of design capacity." The regional plan
identifies the existing throughput,treatment design capacity and years in which the facility is
expected to reach 80/95 %of design capacity.
77
5. Population and/or employment projections-Population and/or employment projections are to be
based on the best available information. Projections as adopted by the planning agencies and
supported by the management agencies will determine the 20-year size of the service area and
capacity of new or expanded treatment facilities.
6. Service area-The service area for a wastewater treatment facility is that area to which the facility
provides wastewater service, is required to provide service, or will provide service when the
facility reaches design capacity. It must be consistent with an adopted regional plan. Service
areas in the Denver metropolitan region are governed by an adopted urban growth boundary
7. Level of treatment-Prevailing stream standards, classifications and regulations will determine
the level of treatment. Treatment levels established by the Division will be listed for existing
and proposed facilities, which have gone through the site approval process. Recommended
changes to treatment levels based on approved TMDLs may be listed in the plan.
8. Social, environmental and economic impacts of carrying out the plan-The plan should contain
information on the costs and benefits of carrying out the plan in sufficient detail as to be able to
identify the costs to management and operating agencies. Other social,environmental and
economic information will be provided,as appropriate.
9. Permit conditions -The major factors in permit conditions for a municipality is determined by
effluent limitations. These limitations are subject to the prevailing stream classifications,
standards and regulations. Water quality management plans can identify appropriate special
permit requirements.
10. TMDLs/Wasteload allocations -The results of a TMDL/wasteload allocation,that has been
approved by the Environmental Protection Agency,may be assigned to an individual discharger
as an effluent limit contained in a State discharge permit. Water quality management plans may
assist in determining the need for and completion of TMDL/wasteload allocation studies by: 1)
evaluating stream flow,water quality, and existing and projected wastewater discharges; 2)
documenting the need for such studies; 3)recommending priorities for conducting
TMDL/wasteload allocation studies; 4)making recommendations regarding actual conduct of
such studies, including institutional and financial arrangements for carrying out the studies; and
5) coordinating and recommending the most politically acceptable means for allocating
wasteloads among multiple dischargers,where appropriate;and 6)providing planning agency
recommendations,where appropriate.
11. Nonpoint Source and Storm Water Information-The plan should update nonpoint source and
stormwater information of a regional interest as it becomes available either through wasteload
allocation studies, stream sampling projects,municipal control programs, or stormwater permit
programs. The plan may identify nonpoint source elements,priority watersheds,best
management practices,watershed restoration strategies,stormwater management programs and
other watershed-oriented information.
12. Management Agency Review-The designated planning agency is responsible for recommending
each designated management agency within its planning area to be identified in each plan
update.
13. Watershed Restoration Plans—The plan should identify information that may be applicable to a
specific watershed restoration strategy.
78
14. Source Water Assessment and Protection (SWAP)-The plan may identify information applicable
to source water assessment and protection efforts under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
15. Links to Other Water Oualitv Related Programs—The plan may provide links, including
strategies and recommendations,to other water quality related programs(e.g., Drinking Water,
Superfund,Brownfield redevelopment,Endangered Species Act).
16. Partnerships—The plan can identify other water quality partnerships in addition to management
agencies. These partnerships may include,but are not limited to,watershed associations,
conservancy districts,river and/or lake protection groups and agencies.
17. Water Quality Analysis and Assessment—The plan may include specific water quality and
environmental analysis and assessment results from special studies and efforts of management
agencies or other appropriate partnerships.
18. Standards and Classifications—The plan may contain recommendations related to potential
changes to water quality classifications and standards.
19. Regional Water Quality Policies—The plan may contain regional water quality or environmental
policies, implementation guidelines and recommendations adopted by local government
officials in the planning region.
Process for Amending and Updating Plans
The Clean Water Act and the Colorado Water Quality Control Act establish the update and amendment
process. The plan amendment process is ongoing. A formal plan update, which incorporates all
amendments as well as additional required information, should be done at regular intervals. The Division
reviews all requests for section 208 plan amendments after they are duly adopted at the local level,
determines whether the amendment is major or minor,and makes a recommendation as to whether the
amendment warrants an informational hearing by the Commission. The Commission has final authority
to approve,deny,or conditionally approve a section 208 plan amendment and to recommend that the
Governor certify the amendment to EPA.
Occasionally requests are made by regional planning agencies to amend a water quality management plan
between plan updates or outside the updating process. Sometimes the need arises for approval of a plan
amendment in a relatively short time frame, in order for a wastewater treatment project to proceed. Plan
amendments proposed outside of the normal update cycle are a particular problem as they affect the
overall water quality planning process.
In order to expedite the review process, when necessary,plan amendments can be classified as either
major or minor. Minor changes that are agreed to by the Division, the planning agency, and/or the
management agency are not required to undergo an extensive amendment process. Neither the planning
agency nor Division anticipates water quality impacts or major conflicts associated with a minor
amendment. Minor changes can include some technical update information used for permitting purposes
and water quality or environmental assessments from watershed studies. A periodic update of
management plans eliminates the need for minor amendments with any minor change elements
incorporated in the plan through a routine update process.
79
Major amendments warrant review by the Commission and require an informational hearing. These
major amendments include,but are not limited to:
1. Changes in planning or management agency designation or membership.
2. Periodic updates to the priority water quality management plan elements previously listed in this
section.
3. Changes that impact water quality or have generated public controversies.
4. Changes to stream standards, classifications or regulations approved by the Commission.
5. Changes that affect local,regional, state or commission policies and guidelines.
6. Changes that alter watershed management strategies.
7. Changes to discharge permits or permitting processes.
8. Other changes identified by the Division or Commission can be subjected to an informational
hearing process.
80
MEMORANDUM �V
J-R ENGINEERING
A Subsidiary of Worn
To: Michael Friesen, Town Manager
From: Jim B. Wright, PE
Date: February 8, 2005
Subject: Review of East I-25 Sanitation District Service Plan
The purpose of this memorandum is to convey my comments that resulted from review of the
above referenced document. Comments developed are as follows:
1. The service plan is missing a formal commitment from the St. Vrain Sanitation District
("SVSD"). It would appear prudent to this new district that they have a document from
the SVSD board that recognizes formation of the district and what the financial
commitments and association would be between the two entities. Without this
document, there are no guarantees that service will be provided.
2. The service plan does not include a cost for treatment plant capacity from the SVSD
sanitation district. The current plant investment fee (tap fee) that is being charged to
Mead customers through an IGA with SVSD is approximately $6,635. Combining the
East 1-25 Sanitation District proposed $1,750 tap fee (for constructing the infrastructure
to transport the wastewater flow to the SVSD treatment plant) with the SVSD tap fee
results in a total tap fee of$8,385. This tap fee would be $1,385 more than the Town of
Mead tap fee of$7,000.
3. This service plan should provide a comparison of costs to determine which entity, Mead
or SVSD, can provide the least cost for the wastewater collection and treatment system
According to CDPHE's Policy No. WQSA-X, "if the distance to the existing/proposed
wastewater treatment work.... is less than 5 miles, an analysis of the cost effectiveness of
consolidation with that treatment works is to be prepared. " The service plan does not
present this economic analysis.
The Town of Mead analysis shows that the SVSD alternative (11.2 million dollars) has
the highest present worth value by 3.8 million dollars and the highest capital cost by 3.8
million dollars when compared to the WCR 17 alternative (7.3 million dollars). The 3.8
million dollar increase represents a 52.8 percent increase required to have service
supplied by the SVSD. Therefore, constructing the Mead WWTP at WCR 17 is the
preferred alternative from a cost perspective, and there is enough difference in cost that
the CDPHE will not require consolidation of treatment plants. According to the CDPH
Policy No. WQSA-X, "If the cost of consolidation exceeds the cost of separate plant
construction by more than 30%, no further analysis of consolidation is required. "
EXHIBIT F
Review of East I-25 Sanitation District Service Plan Page 2 of 4
4. Under paragraph 1.5, Need for a Sanitation District, the first sentence states that, "the
proposed district is not within the boundaries of any special district or other entity that
provides wastewater collection services." This statement is not true. The proposed
district is located within the Town of Mead 208 planning boundary. Some of the
participants of this proposed district were advised back in 2001 that the Town could
provide service. Early drafts of the Town's WWTP Facility Study provided tables that
indicated the cash contribution that would be required for the Town to provide service to
the east side of I-25. The most current draft indicates that the east side landowners
would need to contribute $1,815,112 or the equivalent of pre-purchasing of 259 taps at
$7,000 each. This contribution would assure covering the cost of the loan debt service
should a downturn in the economy occur.
The second sentence states that, "no other existing municipal corporations are willing to
provide sewer collection & treatment in a reasonable time." This is also not true. Mead
must construct a new WWTP no later than November 1, 2009 to meet the state
compliance order for ammonia discharge. The fact is, Mead will need to construct the
new WWTP sooner in order to provide adequate hydraulic and organic loading capacity
for the continually increasing wastewater flow.
5. Tables 2, 3 and 4 show the flow calculations for each property owner. The tabulated
area identification numbers listed in the far left column are not indicated on any map
provided in the appendices. A map had to be prepared to identify the flows. Without
having the map, the sewer line sizes cannot be verified.
6. Table 5 shows the size of sewer pipe being provided, the length of each pipe size, and
the cost for each pipe size. The report does not provide an exhibit showing pipe sizes.
The pipe sizes should have been indicated on the exhibit in Appendix E. This missing
information does not allow for detailed evaluation of the service plan.
7. The 10,800 foot long 12" C900 PVC Pressure pipe as indicated in Table 5 is not shown
on the exhibit in Appendix E. It has been reported that this pipe is a pressure pipe acting
as a siphon to transport wastewater from the Maass property to the ridgeline, located
between SH 66 and CR 32, prior to flowing downhill to the SVSD treatment plant. The
ridgeline elevation is approximately 4900. Following this same elevation to the north
along the Phase I sewer line improvements indicates that a siphon having a length of
16,000 feet would be required. The indicated 10,800 foot long siphon would not be long
enough to transport the wastewater to the SVSD wastewater treatment plant. This
additional mile of 12" sewer would add approximately $212,000 to the cost of the
project, which includes 25% contingency and 28% for engineering, legal, administrative,
financing & construction interest.
8. Under paragraphs 2.1.3 and 2.2.3, it is stated that "...all components are typical of...
force main sewer systems." This is not true. The proposed siphon having a length of
10,000 plus feet is not a common practice in transporting wastewater. Typically, a
0 0 0 0
6020 Greenwood Plaza Boulevard 2620 East Prospect Raid,Suite 190 4310 MowsWe3Drive 12301 N.Grant Street_Suite 110
Englewml OO80111 Fret Collins,OO80525 Colorado Situp,CO 80907 Thornton,OO80241
303-740-9393•Fax:303-721-9019 970491-9888•Fax:970-491-9984 719-593-2593•Fax:719-528-6613 720872-9850•Fax:720872.9853
Review of East I-25 Sanitation District Service Plan Page 3 of 4
wastewater pumping station is used for this purpose. Siphons are generally used for
transporting wastewater under a river or canal. A long siphon would present numerous
operational concerns. Providing the proposed siphon has reduced the initial capital cost
by approximately $400,000.
9. A siphon must reach a velocity of greater than 2 feet per second (fps) each day to assure
that collected solids are flushed through the siphon. To achieve the 2 fps velocity, a 12-
inch siphon would require that the flow reach 764 gallons per minute (1.1 million gallons
per day). This would require that at least 1000 homes be connected to the 12-inch
siphon to assure proper cleaning (approximately 5.5 years at 180 homes per year). Until
such time as the required number of homes are connected, the siphon would need to be
cleaned frequently.
Cleaning of the siphon may also cause problems at the treatment plant. The settled solids
in the pipeline would cause high strength loading on the treatment plant and this could
cause a violation in the treatment plant effluent limits and significant odors would occur
from the septic solids.
10. The Phase 1, 2, & 3 sewer line construction is not clear on the exhibit in Appendix E.
What appears to be the Phase 1 lines total to approximately 36,500 feet on the exhibit in
Appendix E. The line length in Table 5 totals to 32,950 LF. This results in an additional
3,550 feet of line not being indicated on the exhibit. This additional line length would
add an additional 3,550 feet at $30.00 per foot for 10 inch piping. This results in a cost
of $170,400 which includes 25% contingency and 28% for engineering, legal,
administrative, financing &construction interest.
11. The exhibit in Appendix E does not show sewers to accommodate flows from the
northern portion of the Ray and Alma School Property, the southern portion of the Bill
Woods/Benson Farms property, and the entire Kenneth A. Williamson Lone Tree
Properties, although they are part of the proposed district.
12. The total acreage for each of the participating property owners is shown in Table 1 and
this acreage totals 3,052 acres. When compared to the acreage in Phase 1, 2 and 3 in
Tables 2, 3 and 4, the total is 3,585 acres. It is not known where the additional 533 acres
are located or if the flow calculation table is in error.
13. A peaking factor of 2 was used for all sewer line capacity calculations. This peaking
factor is on the low side when compared to standard design criteria for sizing sewers.
The peaking factor should have ranged from 2.5 to 3.5, changing from a higher peaking
factor in the upper end of the system and lowering as the flow reached the lower end of
the collection system Suggested design guidelines for peaking factors require that pipe
size selection use a higher peaking factor in the upper end of a collection system and the
peaking factor is reduced as the flow works its way down the collection system. A
peaking factor of 2 would typically be used when the population served is greater than
0 0 0 0
6020 GnetwoodPlaza Bailevanl 2620 EastProspedRmd Suite 190 4310 AnowsWe3lhive 12301 N.Grant Street,Suite 110
Englewood CO 80111 Fat Collins,CO 80525 Colorado Spings,CO 80907 Thcirntan,CO 80241
303-740-9393-Fax]303-721-9019 970-491-9888•Fax:970-491-9984 719-593-2593•Fax:719-528-6613 720-872-9850•Fax 720-872-9853
Review of East I-25 Sanitation District Service Plan Page 4 of 4
80,000 people. Phase 1 is based on an approximate population of 37,000 people at 6
SPE per acre. This would result in a peaking factor at the low end of the system being
2.5 rather than 2.0. The peak flow would increase from the 5,303,700 gallons per day to
6,629,625 gallons per day. In general, this would increase all pipe sizes by one pipe size
or approximately $3.00 per foot. This would increase the project cost by approximately
$158,000.
14. Under Section 5.0, paragraph d, it is stated that Mead doesn't have the fmancial capacity
to arrange for service. We have been in contact with the State Revolving Loan fund
manager and have been informed that the Town has the financial capacity. In fact, due
to the Town having no debt and appropriate sewer rates in place, the Town can qualify
for 100 percent fmancing at the current loan rate of 3.5 to 4 percent.
15. Under Section 5.0, paragraph g, the proposed East I-25 Sanitation District service plan is
not in compliance with the Water Quality Management Plan. The subjective conclusion
as stated does not stand up to an objective analysis.
0 0 0 0
6020 Gmarwood Plaza Boulevard 2620 East Prospect Reed Suite 190 4310 AnowsWaaDrive 12301 N.Grant Street,Suite 110
Englewood,CO 80111 Fat Collins,CO 80525 Colorado Sites,CO 80907 Thornton,CO 80241
303-740-9393•Fax:303-721-9019 970-491-9888*Fax:970491-9984 719-593-2593•Fax:719-528-6613 720-872-9850•Fan:720-872-9853
February 10, 2005
Mr. Edward M. Bendelow
Bendelow Law Firm, P.C.
Send via e-mail to: niconagel 2,bendelow.net
RE: East I-25 Sanitation District Service Plan
Dear Ted:
You have asked me to comment on the above referenced Service Plan being
proposed for consideration by the Weld County Commissioners on February 14, 2005.
Specifically, you asked that I pay particular attention to the financial analysis section
within the Service Plan, and comment on the overall viability of the finance plan and the
Service Plan.
Let me begin by addressing the financial analysis section.
• Section 3.1
o As proposed, the bonds are to be issued as general obligation
bonds, although throughout the Service Plan, reference is made to
a 20-mill limit on property taxes. And as shown in the finance
plan, only a small mill levy of 5 mills or less is being used to pay
annual operating costs, with the bonds "expected to be fully paid
by incremental tap fees to the District." I would suggest that the
Service Plan should be amended to only allow limited tax general
obligation bonds to be issued by the District, subject to a
maximum mill levy of 20 mills. This is consistent with the
proponent's discussion within Section 3.3, but should be further
elaborated within the Service Plan.
o Overall density does not seem consistent with the surrounding
area. Single family density of 6 D.U.'s per acre and
commercial/industrial development of 30% FAR seem too
aggressive given the current development patterns in the area; and
the development of 2,000 residential units and 3 million sq. ft. of
commercial/industrial development within the development seems
unreasonable within the 12 years for this area. Although the
absorption rate is based, in part, by a "Mixed Use Market Analysis
of the General Area", no copy of the report is included or
appended to the Service Plan. Additionally, the validity of a
report dated over three years ago is somewhat questionable.
• Section 3.2
o The proposed District has asked for bonding authority to be
granted to it to finance future Phases 2 & 3, adding that such
issuance of bonds would relate to successful inclusion added to
EXHIBIT H
Eu.� f-,
the tax base. Some safeguard should be incorporated within the
Service Plan to assure that this be the case. Either (1) only allow
the District to be formed encompassing the initial 3,300 acres (i.e.
Phase 1), rather than the entire 16,300 acres (i.e. Phases 1, 2 & 3),
with either or both subsequent phases being able to petition into
the District at a later date upon a material modification of the
Service Plan being approved by the County Commissioners; or (2)
subject the proposed District to regulatory approval, such as the
statutory Quinquennial Finding of Reasonable Diligence (C.R.S.
32-1-1101.5).
o I would agree with the petitioners that the timing of future bond
issues is unpredictable at this time, and that the development of a
detailed plan of finance for future phases is speculative.
Likewise, including bond schedules for Phases II and III is
useless, since no accompanying absorption schedules can be
developed that are meaningful, and thereby making it impossible
to quantify the financial impact on taxpayers within the proposed
District. However, all of these facts underscore the point that
including Phases 2 & 3 in the District at this time without a
detailed finance plan and without some parameters of how
additional debt is to be issued is problematic; since any
development and financing of such Phases would ultimately be
significant enough to constitute a material modification of the
Service Plan.
o Providing the schedules based upon 2004 construction costs while
otherwise factoring yearly inflation within the finance plan is
inconsistent, and distorts and underestimates the true financial
impact of future bond issues.
• Section 3.3
o Any purchase of bonds by the developers should be capped at
some reasonable maximum interest rate, such as 7.0%, with
provisions that such bonds be callable at any time at par (i.e.
100%). This will provide flexibility for the District to refinance
the Developer debt as conditions warrant without unduly
penalizing the District.
• Section 3.4
o All dollars in the Service Plan are not stated in 2004, uninflated
dollars. Construction dollars are, but revenue and expense
numbers are not. All should be done the same for consistency.
• Section 3.6 (Summary of Financial Analysis and Debt)
o No support documentation is provided to allow for verification of
numbers pertaining to Platted/Developed Lots. Calculated
assessed valuation within Table 1 of Service Plan, page 4,
indicates assessed valuation of Phase 1 property at $1,717,150;
which is inconsistent with the finance plan value of$2,088,180.
o Commercial development is shown occurring in 2005, although
District is not created until November 2005, with sanitation
services not available until 2007. How is this commercial
development possible without sanitary sewer?
o Title indicates 2005 Bonds are being issued as non-rated, 30-year
maturity. However, subsequent Bond maturity schedule shows a
14-year maturity schedule.
o Page 2, cumulative surpluses have accumulated to $1.4 million by
2007. Why is it necessary to have so much capitalized interest on
the 2005 Bond issue if these revenues are really realistic?
Eliminating unnecessary capitalized interest reduces the amount
of bond proceeds required to fund infrastructure and improves
cash flows.
o Source and Use of Funds, page 1, the par amount of bond
proceeds is significantly higher than the amount proposed in the
Service Plan on page 8 ($3,072,250 versus $4,495,000). The
majority of this difference occurs in capitalized interest ($144,000
in the Service Plan versus $976,900 in the finance plan). Again, if
the build-out numbers are realistic, why is it necessary to have so
much capitalized interest when you have accumulated $1.4
million in tap fee revenue by 2007?
o Series 2010 Bonds, Sources and Uses of Funds, page 1, the par
amount of the 2010 Bonds is significantly higher than the amount
proposed in the Service Plan on page 9 ($3,140,000 versus
$2,641,000). The majority of this difference occurs in capitalized
interest ($126,800 in the Service Plan versus $631,297 in the
finance plan). More importantly, why borrow so much money to
unnecessarily fund capitalized interest? There is no need for
capitalized interest. The principal amount of 2010 Bonds can be
reduced by $630,000, all of the capitalized interest can be
reduced, and yearly debt service can be lower than what was
originally planned when capitalized interest was used.
o Series 2020 Bonds, Sources and Uses of Funds, page 1, the par
amount of the 2020 Bonds is significantly higher than the amount
proposed in the Service Plan on page 11 ($4,720,000 versus
$3,903,400). The majority of this difference occurs in capitalized
interest ($184,000 in the Service Plan versus $1,011,242 in the
finance plan).
o As discussed earlier, there is absolutely no overall plan on how
either 2010 Bonds or 2020 Bonds fit into the overall financing
plan or the issuance of this additional debt on tap fees, mill levies
or the financial ability to repay.
o Lastly, it is my opinion that the operations and maintenance costs
included within the finance plan are unrealistic. The petitioners
have included $75,000/year in expenses commencing 2008 (with
substantially smaller amounts occurring in 2005-2007) for
maintenance of over 33,000 feet of sewer line within Phase I.
Absolutely no operational and maintenance expenses are included
within either the Service Plan or the finance plan for the
proportional operational and maintenance expenses that the
District will incur from their share of treatment costs from the St.
Vrain Sanitation District for the treatment of the effluent from the
District.
Although I have no more major comments on the finance plan, I could continue
with many additional comments regarding the Service Plan. However, I will assume that
you and I have similar comments, so let me finish by addressing my concerns with
Section 5.0, Statutory Compliance. I have serious concerns about how the information
presented within the Service Plan sufficiently establishes that all of criteria set forth in
Section 32-1-203, C.R.S. have been adequately answered. Specifically:
• The representation is made (section (a), page 17) that "Clearly 100% of
the property owners within the proposed District support its formation..."
Yet Table 1 of the Service plan shows the petitioners own 3,052 acres,
while Phase 1 includes 3,300 acres. That translates to 92%, not 100%.
Furthermore, if you initially include phases 2 & 3, that includes an
additional 13,000 acres that are not owned by the petitioners, which then
translates into 24%, not 100% of property owners supporting the
formation.
• Section (C), page 17, states that the "District is capable of providing
economical and sufficient sewer service..." Yet the proposed District, by
admission in the Service Plan, still does not have a definitive
intergovernmental agreement ("IGA") with the St. Vrain Sanitation
District ("SVSD"), whereby SVSD has agreed to accept the District's
proposed effluent. Nor has the District any idea of whether or not the
costs that SVSD will charge the District are economical. Until such
details are worked out within an IGA, no such conclusion can be reached.
• Section (d), page 17, the petitioners maintain that the Town of Mead can
not provide sewer service, nor does the Town have the financial capacity
to arrange for such service. They further maintain that sewer service
from the Town is not practical, and that the Town places unreasonable
conditions on the provision of such services, so as to make it
uneconomical. How can the County rule that the District will not be able
to obtain sewer service proposed from any other governmental entity
without the benefits of facts to back up the claims of the petitioners?
• Section (f), page 17, the proposal is in compliance with the County
Master Plan. Again, without an IGA, how can the County rule that the
proposed District can treat the effluent that it is proposing to collect?
• Lastly, how can the County Commissioners find that the organization of
the District will be in the best interest of the area proposed to be served in
absence of proof that the proposed District is the best method of
providing the service, when initially the only service the District can state
that it can provide today is collection service, and not treatment service?
Should you have questions regarding any of my comments, or want further
elaboration as to any issue, please feel free to give me a call.
Sincerely,
Stifel Nicolaus Hanifen Imhoff
/s/ Steven D. Jeffers
Managing Director
_ECEI PD NOV 1 8_2004
BENSON FARMS
c/o Gary A. Woods
4725 South Monaco Street, Suite 205
Denver, Colorado 80237
303-708-1105
November 15, 2004
VIA FAX & REGULAR MAIL
Mr. Michael Friesen
Town of Mead
P.O. Box 626
Mead, Colorado 80542
Re: Meadow Ridge Development
Dear Mike:
As you know, Benson Farms and the Reynolds family have not taken any action
on the petition to annex the subject property to the Town of Mead since spring 2004, and
indeed have recently filed a Sketch Plan Application with Weld County. Accordingly,
please consider this letter as a formal withdrawal of the petition to annex previously
submitted to the Town.
I do appreciate your cooperation and courtesies throughout our discussions.
Very ruly yours, '',�,,__,l,l
C0n42
Gary A. Woods
GAW:hja
cc: Richard E. Samson, Esq.
William B. Woods
Tom & Scottie Reynolds
EXHIBIT I
Town of Mead
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Board of Trustees
October 13, 2003
7:00 PM
1. The regular meeting of the Town of Mead Board of Trustees was called to order by
Mayor Richard E. Kraemer.
Roll call:
Mayor Richard E. Kraemer
Trustee John R. Heard
Trustee Elizabeth A. Knapp
Trustee Richard W. Macomber
Trustee Harry C. Walker
Trustee Ursula J. Morgan and Trustee Michael W. Schulz were absent.
Also present were: Town Administrator Michael D. Friesen, Town Attorney Richard Samson,
Town Engineer Jim Wright, Town Planning Consultant Thomas W. Rounds, and Public Works
Director Dan Dennison.
2. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
The assembly pledged allegiance to the flag.
3. Additions to/Deletions from Agenda
There were no additions to or deletions from the agenda.
4. Consent Agenda
a. Request Approval of the October 13, 2003 Bill List
Motion was made by Trustee Macomber, seconded by Trustee Knapp, to approve the
bill list. Motion carried on a 5-0 vote; Mayor Kraemer, Trustees Heard, Knapp,
Macomber, and Walker voting yes.
5. Reports
a. Richard Samson, Town Attorney
KN Franchise
Mr. Samson thought that an agreement for the KN Franchise would be ready for the Board's
consideration at this meeting but he said KN had sent the wrong version of the agreement so
the revised agreement will ready for consideration at the next meeting.
b. James Wright, Town Engineer
EXHIBIT J
Fifth Street Water Main
Mr. Wright reported that the Little Thompson Water District had awarded the bid for the
installation of the water main in Fifth Street and construction was scheduled to begin on
Wednesday morning.
The Board asked that the neighbors be notified of the scheduled construction.
Wastewater Treatment Plant Location
Mr. Wright is continuing to work on this report and anticipates having it completed by the end of
November.
6. Audience Participation
No one from the audience wished to speak.
7. Reports of Commissions and Committees
There were no committee or commission reports.
8. Public Hearings:
a. Proposed Ray & Alma School Annexation, Maass Annexation No. 1, and Maass
Annexation No. 2
Attorney Keirstin Beck appeared representing both the School and Maass property owners and
advised the Board Members that the School property owners wished to withdraw their
annexation petitions. With the withdrawal of the annexation of the School Property, the Maass
property loses contiguity and becomes an ineligible petition.
The petitioners have asked that the Board adopt resolutions that would reflect the withdrawal of
the School Property annexation petition and the subsequent loss of contiguity of the Maass
property.
RESOLUTION NO. 20-R-2003
A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE MAASS
ANNEXATION NO. 1 ANNEXATION HEARING
ADOPTING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS TERMINATING THE
ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS.
Motion was made by Trustee Macomber, seconded by Trustee Knapp, to adopt
Resolution No. 20-R-2003. Motion carried on a 5-0 vote; Mayor Kraemer, Trustees
Heard, Knapp, Macomber, and Walker voting yes.
Town of Mead Regular Minutes -2- October 13,2003
RESOLUTION NO. 21-R-2003
A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE MAASS
ANNEXATION NO. 2 ANNEXATION HEARING
ADOPTING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS TERMINATING THE
ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS.
Motion was made by Trustee Macomber, seconded by Trustee Knapp, to adopt
Resolution No. 21-R-2003. Motion carried on a 5-0 vote; Mayor Kraemer, Trustees
Heard, Knapp, Macomber, and Walker voting yes.
9. Consideration of Ordinances and Resolutions:
Since the petitions for annexation were withdrawn, items a through c were not considered.
a. Resolution No. - R —2003, A Resolution Regarding the Maass Annexation
No. 1 Hearing, Adopting Certain Findings of Fact and Conclusions Favorable to
the Annexation
b. Resolution No. - R — 2003, A Resolution Regarding the Maass Annexation
No. 2 Hearing, Adopting Certain Findings of Fact and Conclusions Favorable to
the Annexation
i. NOTE: three alternative versions of draft ordinance "c"below are in
the packet; only one version would be adopted
c. Ordinance No. , An Ordinance of the Town of Mead, Colorado, Submitting
to the Registered Electors of the Town of Mead at the Special Election to be Held
on Tuesday, January 6, 2004, the Question of Whether the Town of Mead
Should Annex the Properties Known as the Ray & Alma School Annexation, the
Maass Annexation No. 1, and the Maass Annexation No. 2
10. Old Business
a. Request Approval of an Agreement for Professional Services Engaging URS
Corporation as the Town's Planning Consulting Firm
The Board agreed to consider this agreement after the Executive Session.
11. New Business
a. Review of Proposed Submittals for Projects for Hazard Mitigation
The Board Members agreed generally with the list of capital equipment that was offered.
However, they encouraged staff to think in terms of larger projects with more benefits to the
community.
b. Review of Weld County Development Referrals:
i. RE-3680, Two-Lot Recorded Exemption — Barton & Mari Anderson
The Board expressed their desire to have this property annexed to the Town.
Town of Mead Regular Minutes -3- October 13,2003
.,YT h � .. '' ue' d€'P' - Ft .•
to ES. LL. 18 �pq��. rr� �t. 1 ‘421❑•
0 t
•
eta•4.•
t z " d1'......0,„ n rs ,
R#. "2-44r '� I • Iii 'rsr t+ s a f� -� '.3�i41214;•,:#41•
H •{(' N 3 f f 1 ..4 N4 R 4e'•' - n, ,. , • •1 a as .
,' '# 'A 114; _
T7 (y In -17- Iy � $� r`'5
tPrY1SyrI 4 i. �f u\ 5 , 'A......,,...,,, „„ .. ._, _._...,•, W ,�,.., .- '. ;y •
,4_,,,,, .., "J �. .,_ '^'w4r=>• nt�k' ir r, .�'>< . " �. ' CO RD 38'i
• elt,,, ...,,, ,,,i7, ,,,. „,:,,,, ,-.) „4-,,, , . :-- •p.
k. f r .yf .P.'141,... x t ,r�.` • f d' -4';'÷i,
, 1.....z _,C,',,. 2 ,, ,w
1. � FM '� ^ v ',.`..•44,1p4..„-‘4;74, : � .n p yea
V'f YAh S ^S 1 - j ; •
..t t,.''5`.^ 1,1, 1. . ..4
•
•
_ Ya •
} CO.• 1 jt s '; .y; -- .: 4' n 1 .'7'x,..�. . t t ..�r• .."Z5w .4 F•
Qi!!t`5 YC tt::::?„,:ii.,,,!vistilH:i:1/4,,fr,701: 7:77tk 'koVt i ...ft 1 i., N'...G"1TgA • "' , L
A ., .... t k x y n , Y•i : •3 /r' f ei`h ^ {:yr --Ti �` ,H e y«
••O1j'�:`,'�.' �vf",4',` • . - '; ,r,-744.t.er .'4` . .- -- } 1•M .,!„.1.•-•- �- _ b - arT. •
.,.� .10' . . CO RD 34
'A e > �, ""' ,'t' F r.,,' "„, t� '1 ) .gptt. Y�. S�✓,,. „0.,.(..?
� q � ."'�
set. ., ��.: i.“2,,,07,-e.. -t y`. ?ter S' ., . .,. ' .a4-' girt*
9•^� 's�` r`xs�yx.-`i-' ,,,yy -C ! '�uv-, `+�'dTeK
.° 1 r "'r�'! . ^h-{...—"K. {ni14 'a•' C °'(' „t, � r�5' -. µ ,', f,p,0.0.0,01,:-. . .a-'N ., y *rb`C 1f<n ...*:44:4;.4t.
4.i l �M�''t i ..a.. C L`�"a 'x r5 ,4 -';4-144V•t� r 2-�.-F x i W� ti i
1'f fr T4s' C E. 'far:.� r. .. ., a rzh„ :M,. ,- 3 'a, ! ✓ '.
�' ' t. .;:u+e" " r s ;'' , de�b 'c r ., —v � / + CO. RD. 32y
_ d.� it 4 '. a '� � F�*rmm '' -. t3� - w .r �+"" is,2ra. 4 �,--9-.„Fr:.,: .s r s,0".. ; ` ' :5' v•F y yr, a>,is ,' dM1 44: : .F �F £
g. P-' t hdk „ .._ '..e@! - yr, i„.",,t .5 - a
r �yy-t •
j��`"£dR�/y cOLO. 66:4 • P 1 g.:,.;11 ,...::;-..-;;
- t r ii-"7 .GYP : xt ,
, ik,
E `fit ''u+ {' ,. Yf z.a t,. II w' _ :: 31 fi.i `• .,...-"f,',.4:711•
A .. • Y:,Hy',
a, e se ( f N i�
Sc-'{ 4 ''t w r (
^x 3 t, i a' RRA�Y �. a .> 4 'r t, 8
f 1:11.
4 a 1 6 c< Otis s n z �� i�
rl ,�.— '+. t,.y. ,,'.'t. s� a• - �+rx.-"A'"4%
�('. "`,Y.�b k•�' 1 i-�inivt, ��,, -Ids_tlq• +i .. 'T .;..Ai.
.N.� a, x *!4 G"A y1 y t, j'�'l �'F uY ;n� •fby Y u'n
-Mead 208 Boundary Mead Colorado
s = •'Proposed Added Boundary Approximate Scale: 1"=800'
Ultimate District Boundary Date of Photo: June 2004
Properties Within MUD T
.915\M1'ecl:.li r.1�.�i'ur
n r ,1 1°, Scar°
n�3°ne��rnd'c .'� +9:fanol
EXHIBIT
IE - k
TOWN OF MEAD
LAND USE PLAN
HIS/„ 0 ARE& OF BHFLUEHCEI.
AREA OF PHOTO
- I .WUO 11 N �["�C"✓Po'{ r �ft
� o- ':
�. 3 , •`
I - o0
.
( (.4:.;'..-6 --_..___-_--
3 i {
/ems
_
/
W \
�1! AR's'AR's' u[u.m _
1 (IiJNIT PAk _____�._
FP :test fr,
S
I
i F 61iiiiill p
�. PII' r, I '
3 PE ESTATES j fr,
4CIAR9
e
.ruj” [ i. 1 LACY w
tis FOP r
VV.WTI q ;34', L
Fe GY �I f 3 or-
PPP N IA
yy 1
`� Y`-' '.' ^li f8 ..,4 ,aF LP
` SI 4`Y.rgr " '.: Iw�& : ;:r:'
PP
*pi^*BL .3' �` -5s .,.�..., e�v—
„ri � �tE �s= N
.a .o-x
w )-
nYIY.uPp. a•...v.
'- ', - ..
P
dal. ,/,://_;[-I4'.. 1 IT+
EU
la„r
wsz
S*fl
E
Fst
' 7 Ia�r '.NyI..
/
/
�� .., - mat PAS /
rtoost
I. H -3___________,_:______ __.— L��
i � ' : .
c�111.eit F- 0 ! ,
�,:
t'
iill 1
NCIE
liFecillaDa
ti
I . r� -a
Fats
riv_f� I I A.
_�,,
i Y �zT O.{ 'H. ..*
, p /�??—:z ,'1 ' , ', �ow!v OF MEA�r
li „I {VLH �ri _� I _AND USE PLAN
, .
w. MEAN AREA OF AL,,JENC'
q'' StP-FM REP 27, 20':.
I
I i
_� ) R ENC W 8P.ItING
9d
EXHIBIT
Hello