HomeMy WebLinkAbout820180.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: ACTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONCERNING THE
SITE APPLICATION OF THE ERIE WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,
Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home
Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the
affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the Erie Water and Sanitation District must upgrade
its existing aerated lagoon facility in order to meet the require-
ments of its new discharge permit, and
WHEREAS, the Erie Water and Sanitation District wishes to
begin construction in July, with the improvements being described
in the Site Application attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference, and
WHEREAS, the regulations of the Colorado Water Quality Control
Commission require a hearing for a Site Application approval be-
fore construction may be started and, further, that various local
and state agencies be given the opportunity to review and comment
on the Site Application, and
WHEREAS, said Site Application has been submitted to the
Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, for its review and
comment, and
WHEREAS, state law does not provide for a hearing before the
Board of County Commissioners on a land use matter such as this
one, which is presented by a public entity, and
WHEREAS, the Board feels it is in the best interests of Weld
County that the Board of County Commissioners recommend approval
on said Site Application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the Site Application
of the Erie Water and Sanitation District be, and hereby is,
approved.
82O18O
Page 2
RE: ERIE WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT
The above and foregoing Resolution was , on motion duly made
and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 16th day of
June, A.D. , 1982 .
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
J}(IiiMiartin Chairman
Ctruck C1s, Pro-Tem
ABSENT DATE OF SIGNING
Norman Carlson
7 ,,/ , a
>,
�/f� V. Kirby
fA
ATTEST: Nwri I nw: 4t ale � -107}22774:
K. Steinmark
Weld County Clerk and Recorder
and`"C1ek tO the Board
(`/ By: /eputy Co , 'erk
A P TO 20 -
County Attor y
DATE PRESENTED: June 23, 1982
0.4
ERIE WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT
P. O. BOX 386 �
ERIE, COLORADO 80516 19g2
{ cRCZ-4x. .00.4 C1
May 24, 1982
t4
Board of Weld County Commissioners
[ � 915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
3
Dear Sir:
The Erie Water & Sanitation District must upgrade its existing
aerated lagoon facility in order to meet the requirements of its new
discharge permit. Those improvements are described on the accompanying
Site Application. As it is intended to accomplish the upgrading work
this summer, please act on the Site Application at your next meeting in
order that construction may begin in July.
Your recommendation should be noted under item D, page 3 of the
application form. Please return the application to the district' s
engineer at the address below. If you have any questions, please call
me at 447-2525.
Very truly yours,
ERIE WATER & SANITATION DIST.
•
By: KEITH BELL & ASSOC.,INC.
Engineer for Erie W. & S. Dist.
1728 16th St. — Suite 1
Boulder, Colorado 80302
pc: file
Kb/ab
A : btit,t. 1.1ecQt -
DEPARTMENT OF HEAL"
/ lity Control Divis . .a
East 11th Avenue
Colorado 80220 •
^yer.
APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION OF:
A) SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT AND
B) LIFT STATIONS HAVING OVER 20,000 GPD CAPACITY
APPLICANT: Erie Water & Sanitation District
ADDRESS : P. 0. Box 386 Erie, Colorado 80516 PHONE:
Consulting Engineer's Name and Address: Keith Bell & Assoc., Inc.
1728 16th Street - Suite 1, Boulder, Colorado 80302 PHONE: 447-2525
A. Information regarding new sewage treatment plant:
1 . The proposed work consists of upgrading the existing aerated lagoon treatment
facility by deepening lagoons, providing additional aeration and installing a
disinfection system.
2. Size and type of treatment facility proposed:
Type Aerated Lagoon
GPD: 0.30 MGD PE design Present PE
(gal/day) capacity 3000 to be served 2200
% Domestic: 100 % Industrial : 0
3. Location of facility:
Attach a map of the area which includes the following:
(a) 10-mile radius: all sewage treatment plants and lift stations.
(b) 5-mile radius: domestic water supply intakes.
(c) 1-mile radius: habitable buildings , location of potable water wells, and
an approximate indication of the topography.
4. Effluent will be discharged: Coal Creek
(Watercourse)
Subsurface disposal : Land:
Evaporation: Other:
State water quality classification of receiving watercourse(s) : B-2
5. Will a State or Federal grant be sought to finance any portion of this
project? No
6. What is the present zoning for the proposed service area? T.DB MDR wnn (`y T
Present zoning of site area? Agricultural
Zoning within a 1-mile radius of site? Agricultural / Surburban Residential
WQ-3(rev. 1-78-40) - 1 -
fr-
? What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest domestic water/ -
supply intake? Twenty Seven miles
(name and address of supply)
Teton of T.a SallP, Cn1nrndo
What it t'`, e; 4Terhrna to tha t nrher point
of diversion Two miles
(name and address of user)
(melding 4- Plumb ditch
Q Mk.. be the racnnneThTliry for fnerprinn rho fnrii1tu? -
r,-- can4ta'4.2-t n;stri:ft
o '-R... e th. lenc1 „nnn which the facility will be constructed?
i,u� n_ c., .,a;. _. T e+,',n+.
Please attach copies of the document creating authority in the applicant to
construct the proposed facility.
-10. Estimated project cost: $ 100,000. ' . < •
Who is finamcially responsible for the construction and operation of the
facility? g,io Water & Sanitation District
11. Nar=s and addresses of all water and sanitation districts within 5 miles downstream
c: proposed wastewater treatment facility site. None
(Attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary.)
12. Is the facility in a 100 year flood plain? yes -
If so, what precautions are being taken? New equipment to be installed
above the level of the 100 year floodplain
Has the flood plain been designated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board,
n•. metro..♦ rt Qnen,.rreg?
If so, what is that designation?
13. Ple=se include all additional factors that might help the Water Quality Control
Commission make an informed decision on your application for site approval .
'.1-3(rev. 1-78-40) _ 2 -
(Information regarding lift stations:
1 . The proposed lift station when fully developed will generate the following
additional load:
Population Equivalent
Peak Hydraulic (MGD) to be served:
1 2. Is the site located in a 100 year flood plain?
1 If yes, on a separate sheet of paper describe the protective measures to be taken.
3. Where will the overflow be discharged?
4. Name and address of facility providing treatment:
5. The proposed lift station when fully developed will increase the loading of the
facility to % of hydraulic and % of organic capacity.
C. If the facility will be located on or adjacent to a site that is owned or managed by
a Federal or State agency, send the agency a copy of this application.
D. Recommendation of governmental authorities:
Please address the following issues in your recommendation decision. Are the proposed
facilities consistent with the comprehensive planning for the area and with other plans
including the 201 , 208, 209 and 303(e) plans? If you have any further comments or
questions, please call 388-6111 , Extension 378.
Recommend Recommend No
Date Approval Disapproval Comment Signature of Representative
Local Government (Cities or Towns, if inside
municipal boundary or within 3 miles , and
Sewer District)
"Board of County Commissioners
• Local Health Authority
City/County Planning Authority
Regional Planning Agency
Council of Government
State Geologist
I certify that signs have been posted in accordance with regulations entitled "Procedural
p' Date: Regulations for Site Applications for Sewage Treatment Works"
1 Signature of Applicant
District Engineer Action:
Recommend Approval : Recommend Disapproval :
Date:
Signature
4
( WQ-3(rev. 1/78-40) - 3 -
4- •
cc
-J I
- : 7' . --• • - ig L : -
a.
' ' 1 _-..m = t ii- _ _ -
o
iI Ni I ' i . ... ,
i = - ;'-, J
��JJ t
7
I. ' r e 'i jilt/
l�
Cr _( r 1 I If
\ (
r.. 1 [ f r
J
••.0 'i �' ia • I
t . ad!)
1 (CC19
June 15, 1982
Erie Water and Sanitation District
Site Application for Improvements to Existing Treatment Facility
The Department of Planning Services staff recommends the Planning Commis-
sion direct the Chairman to recommend approval to the Water Quality
Commission.
Materials submitted with the request and available
information comply with basic requirements of the
application submittal standards, and
The project appears to satisfy the review parameters
of part 2.2.4 (4) of the Regulations for Site Applica-
tions for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works. The
project, to provide upgraded water treatment at an
existing facility, appears to facilitate and comply
with the Comprehensive Plans of the County and the town
of Erie. Water quality will be benefited by the
improvements. No additional affect will be made to
the floodplain. The project will permit added capacity
to the present system.
TEH:rjg
ERIE WATER & SANITATION DIST.
SITE APPLICATION -
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
I. EXISTING FACILITY:
1. Location: The existing facility is located north of the platted Town
of Erie and lies between the Burlington-Northern Railroad right-of-way and
the centerline of Coal Creek. The south portion of the facility lies
within the Town of Erie and the northerly portion lies within an unincorp-
orated area of Weld County. A copy of the deed is attached hereto.
2. Physical Facility: The lagoon system was originally constructed as
waste stabilization ponds about 1959. This system served the Town for
approximately ten years until changing stream standards dictated better
treatment. A fixed aerator with recirculating piping was installed about
1970. The system has remained essentially unchanged since that time.
3• Floodplain: The existing lagoons are located within the one-hundred
year floodplain of Coal Creek.
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS:
1. Physical Constructien: The proposed improvements include deepening the
existing ponds from approximately three and one—half feet to approximately
six feet, depending upon the depth of the water table and the type of soil
present, widening pons as possible to increase detention time and to provide
geometry more conducive to uniform circulation patterns, installation of a
new aeration system to increase aeration and circulation, and installation
of flow monitoring and ultra—violet disinfection devices.
2. Equipment Selection: The equipment proposed to be installed is that
which will best achieve the degree of treatment dictated by the discharge
permit given the existing facilities. Specifically, the shallow water table
precludes the use of deep pond and deep vertical circulation aerators. The
absence of a process water supply and the specification of zero chlorine
residual dictate the selection of an ultra—violet disinfection system.
III. MANAGEMENT:
1. Financial: The district has funds on hand to cover the cost of improvements.
No bond issues or grants are required.
2. Operation: The Erie Water & Sanitation District will be responsible for
financial and physical operation of the facility. The district's operator
will be responsible for operation and monitoring of effluent. Effluent
• 4
ERIE WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT
PAGE TWO
monitoring has historically been preformed by a private testing laboratory.
This practice may continue on a reduced basis although a small laboratory
is to be incorporated into the design of the on site maintenance building.
IV: CONSTRUCTION:
1. Site Plan: A sketch plan is attached which indicates the limits of the
existing lagoons and the maximum limits of the proposed construction. The
existing and proposed discharge points are also shown. A typical cross
section through the lagoons is presented.
2. Construction Schedule: It is proposed to award construction contracts
in July 1982 assuming an expeditious review of the construction drawings by
the Colorado Department of Health. It is believed the system can be opera—
tional by fall.
BEFOkE THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI ` SIONERS
Moved by Bob Ehrlich that the following resolution be intro-
duced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission :
Be it therefore Resolved ay te Weld County Planning Commission
that the following be adoptea h; the Board of County Commissioners :
To be recommended favorably to the hoard of County Commissioners for
the following reasons :
The Planning Commission took the position of 'no comment' because no decision
could be made until the Special Use Permit application has been made and a
hearing held.
Motion seconded by Jerry Kiefer
Unanimous Voice vote:
Vote : For Passage Abstain Against
Members voting May 5, 1981 :
Bob Ehrlich
Don Billings
Bob Halleran
Jerry Kiefer
Bill Diehl
Jack Holman
Fred Otis
Th( Chairman declared the motion passed and ordered that a certified
copy of this Resolution be forwarded with the file of this case to the
Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings .
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I Jeanene Moore , Recording Secretary of the Weld County
Planning Commission , do hereby certify that the above and foregoing
Resolution is a true copy of the Resolution of the Planning Commission
of Weld County , Colorado , adopted on May 5, 1981 and re -
corded in Book No . VII of the proceedings of the said Planning
Commission .
Dated the 6th. day of May 1981
c-i/n
-
Secre ry
s
LARIMER — WELD REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
-�7� ROOM 201
^' 201 EAST 4th STREET
was. ,{Pi,c, ., LOVELAND, COLORADO 80537
it
Phone: 532-4480
:Vic
Nay 27, 1981 v% o'
v
46
4•
Mr. Keith Bell, P.E.
Bell & Associates
1728 16th Street
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Re: Erie Water and Sanitation District — Wastewater Treatment Plant Site
Approval
Dear Mr. Bell:
In response to our telephone conversation of May 21, 1981, the Larimer-Weld
Regional Council of Governments requests that additional information be
provided prior to our review of the above-referenced Water Quality Control
Commission application for site approval.
As I mentioned to you during this conversation, it is highly unlikely that
Erie Water and Sanitation District will receive EPA grant funds for Step 3
construction of their proposed wastewater facility within the next three years.
Unfortunately, relative to other priority projects in the State of Colorado,
the Erie Water and Sanitation District is far below the fundable portion
of the State-EPA Grant Priority List. Even in the unlikely event that a
large infusion of federal grant funds is made available to Colorado in
FY '82 or '83 the project would probably not be funded by EPA. Therefore,
the sizing, treatment processes, and wastewater treatment costs for this
facility are extremely important considerations in the determination of
whether the State of Colorado grants a site approval and whether the Erie
Water and Sanitation District can operate such a facility within the State
effluent requirements to protect public health and water quality.
The information provided in the District's application for site approval
shows a capital construction cost for this activated sludge facility of
$1 million dollars. This cost is significantly less than the cost figures
shown in the 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan for Erie Water and Sanitation
District, dated May 10, 1976, and in the EPA Negative Declaration for the
Erie Wastewater Treatment Facility, dated April 18, 1977. It is question—
able that the capital construction costs of this facility could have been
reduced without major design changes. The discrepancy appears to be even
greater given that the present proposal would involve additional flood-
proofing which, to my knowledge, was not considered in the initial waste-
water facilities plan. We would like a clarification on these matters,
including any design changes for the system.
(: 1
Mr. Keith Bell, P.E.
May 27, 1981
Page 2
I would also like to point out that the population figures for the present
and projected service area of this facility are far from being realized in
the short term. Further, it is my understanding that in addition to waste-
water needs, water supply for the Town of Erie is presently a major constraint
of future growth. The inability of the Town and/or the District to satisfy
the water supply demands would, of necessity, eliminate the need for a large
wastewater treatment facility such as that which is presently proposed. A
failure to recognize these growth considerations could place an ominous
financial burden on the existing and future customers of the District to pay
for an oversized wastewater facility.
I also wish to point out that the State of Colorado stream standards and use
classifications for Coal Creek have been changed by the Water Quality Control
Commission and are effective for State NPDES discharge permits discharge
purposes May 16, 1981 (shown on Attachment 1.) These new classifications
and standards significantly weaken the need for, and likelihood of requiring,
additional advanced wastewater treatment units"which lead the District to
select a costly activated sludge treatment process" as noted in EPA's Negative
Declaration, (May 1977.) In addition, since the initial proposal for an
activated sludge facility was made in 1978, the State of Colorado has relaxed
the suspended solids effluent limit for lagoon-type systems, further weakening
the justification for an activated sludge system to meet effluent standards for
that wastewater parameter.
While we are in sympathy with the efforts of the Erie Water and Sanitation
District to satisfy its immediate and future wastewater treatment needs, there
are several major concerns regarding the need for an activated sludge facil-
ity and the ability of the residents of the Town of Erie and surrounding service
area to support such an expensive wastewater treatment alternative with high
capital construction costs and operation and maintenance requirements. I have
spoken to the District Engineer for the Colorado State Health Department, and
it is his opinion that expansion and improvement of the present lagoons should
be reconsidered. This alternative would meet the present and future needs of
the Town and provide for adequate public health and water quality protection
at less cost to the District customers.
In compliance with the requirements of the Larimer-Weld Water Quality Manage-
ment Plan, we therefore request that the District supply information as
outlined in Attachment 2 of this letter. This will bring proposed cost and
design requirements up to date from the original 1976-1977 facilities plan.
We believe that this information will aid all reviewing entities, including
the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, which has final authority
in site approval in determining whether the proposed wastewater treatment
facility is sized correctly and should be constructed in the proposed
location as outlined in the District's initial application. The requested
information will also be helpful in Weld County's Special Use Permit Review.
If I may be of further service in clarifying our information request, or
Mr. Keith Bell, P
May 27, 1981
Page 3
assisting you in the review process, please feel free to call me at 532-4480.
Very truly yours,
ri
Terrence L. Trembly
Water Resources Projects Manager
TLT:pdo
Enclosures: 2
cc: Weld County Board of Health
Weld County Commissioners
Weld County Planning
Colorado Department of Health
Town of Erie
Erie Water and Sanitation District, Board of Directors
District Engineer
Hello