HomeMy WebLinkAbout971118.tiff1, n rt•'t.,_L.
TWIN PEAKS SEED & GRAIN, L.L.C.
2060 Weld County Road 28
Longmont, CO 80504
(303) 772-7333
OLP:
May 19, 1997
Board of County Commissioners of Weld County
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
RE: Case Number: USR-1114
A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for an Agricultural Service
Establishment (grain and seed cleaning and processing facility) in the A (Agricultural) zone
district.
Gentlemen:
On May 1, 1996, we received approval on the above mentioned project from the Board of County Commissioners
of Weld County, contingent upon certain Conditions of Approval. Several of these conditions were from the
Mountain View Fire District as stated in a letter dated April 1, 1996. The conditions of the Fire District included
the following:
• The applicant shall submit evidence that there is adequate fife flow available to the site. In the event there is
inadequate fire flow available to the site, the applicant shall make adequate fire flow available to the site.
• The dust and combustible fiber formation in the operation shall be evaluated by the Mountain View Fire
District and the Weld county Building Inspection Department. If it is determined an increase in fire flow is
required, the applicant shall adhere to any requirements set forth by the Mountain View Fire District and the
Weld County Building Inspection Department.
This building site is located in the Longs Peak Water District of Weld County. At this time there are no new taps
available for construction, therefore prohibiting us from obtaining a pressurized source of water for fife protection.
In response to this, Twin Peaks Seed & Grain, L.L.C. has suggested constructing a dry fife hydrant on our site, as
a temporary means of fire protection, until the Longs Peak Water District is upgraded. In a letter dated July, 18,
1996, District Fire Chief Gerald Ward indicated that he would be willing to "consider a static source and dry fire
hydrant as a temporary water supply upon verification by the County Building Officials that all dust control
standards would be met."
In response to the dust control issues, we presented copies of calculations received from the Colorado Department
of Public Health and Environment pertaining to dust emissions from the grain cleaning facility. The calculated
annual emissions for this facility were much less than the major threshold limit that would require an Air Pollution
Emission Notice (APEN) and subsequent permit. Due to the low levels of dust particulates, the Weld County
Department of Building Inspection has classified our facility of a Group F, Division 1 Occupancy. However, we
have still taken added measures to control all dust emissions. The facility will have two cyclones installed, a
mechanical ventilation fan and a complete vacuum system throughout all grain bins and elevator legs. Although
the vacuum system was not a requirement, we felt that the additional $50,000 investment was worth it.
Having said and done all of this, we received a letter from Fire Marshal William N. Bailey on October 14, 1996.
In this letter, Fire Marshall Bailey indicated the amount of required fifc flow, the required access to the facility,
and included a copy of the site plan indicating where the pond and dry fire hydrant should be located. After
receipt of this letter, we obtained the first phase of our building permit and began construction.
\olti,d
I
Ca : Pz-
PL 703O
971118
On November 7, 1996, we received a letter from Acting Fire Marshal Mark A. Lawley, informing us that Fire
Marshal Bill Bailey was no longer with the First District and that the use of a pond and dry fire hydrant were not
acceptable fire protection and that prior to any future construction, an approved water supply, must be authorized
by the district. In the 1994 Uniform Fire Code Section 903 - Water Supplies and Fire Hydrants, it specifically
states:
Section 903.3 Type of Water Supply. Water supply is allowed to consist of reservoirs, pressure tanks,
elevated tanks, water mains or other fixed systems capable of providing the required fire flow. In setting
the requirements for fire flow, the chief may be guided by Appendix III -A.
Even though our suggested fire protection complies with this Code, we are still being denied the right to install a
dry fire hydrant.
In a letter dated January 6, 1997, from Fire Prevention Specialist Charles E. Boyce, the district gave us a list of
conditions to be met prior to approval by the Fire District. One of these conditions includes the installation of an
automatic fire sprinkler system. Again, we do not have access to a pressurized source of water capable of
providing water to this sprinkler system. Additionally, they have required a separation wall between the
warehouse and seed cleaning operations. Even though the NFPA Section 61.2-3 exempts warehouses of 5000
square feet or less from fire barrier walls, we have agreed to this stipulation. In response to this letter of January
6, 1997, we agreed to all conditions, with the exception of the fire sprinkler, and asked, once again, to install the
pond and dry fire hydrant. Our response from the Fire District on April 28, 1997 was that "all of the items in the
plan must be completed for the plan to provide fire protection equivalent to the requirements of the Fire Code".
On May 12, 1997 the Mountain View Fire District Issued to Twin Peaks Seed & Grain, L.L.C. an Immediate
Order to Comply, directing us to "immediately stop work on constructing the building or the installation of bins or
other process or storage equipment". This order was done only on the part of the Mountain View Fire District and
not in conjunction with the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
We have been led to believe that having a fire hydrant is the ultimate form of fire protection. We have not only
offered to install a fire hydrant, but we have agreed to a myriad of requests that are not even necessary for the
construction and operation of this facility. We are only talking about a 50' x 100' building with overhead grain
bins, a small basement, and minimal storage outside the facility. This is not a grinding or a milling operation.
Our only objective is to process seed and food -grade products by cleaning and bagging. A great deal of our
business will be dealing with organic product and even for that which is not organic we will not be using any
chemical treatment, therefore eliminating any storage or use of hazardous chemicals.
We have done a great deal of research on the subject of dry fire hydrants. The Insurance Service Organization
(ISO), which is responsible for the rating of Fire Districts for the purpose of calculating property insurance
premiums, considers dry fire hydrants on a equal basis with pressurized systems. There are substantial savings
available to communities and individuals who can provide fire protection service to their areas. Federal funding
has been used to install dry fire hydrants in many rural areas throughout the United States. We have also met with
the Forest Service who informs us that dry fire hydrants are currently being used in many parts of Colorado and
that funding could be available to our local district to aid in the installation of such hydrants.
We appeared before the board of the Mountain View Fire District in November, 1996 and we have filed an appeal
with the Mountain View Fire District as of May 14, 1997, but have yet to receive a response. We have had
wonderful support from the Weld County Department of Planning Services, over the past year, in dealing with this
issue, but we do not feel that we are coming to any type of closure in this matter. We have a hydrologists report
which indicates the availability and reliability of our water source and we are in the process of having a dry fire
hydrant engineered. We want to make every reasonable effort to comply with the Fire District, however, we feel
that we are giving and giving and getting no compromise in return. We have dealt with this matter for more than
one year, and we would like to complete construction and get on with the business at hand.
In summary: we have agreed to install a dry fire hydrant capable of providing the required fire flow; cyclones, an
exhaust fan, and a vacuum system, for dust control; piping, regulators and valves to supply nitrogen or carbon
dioxide to grain bins in the event of fire or smoldering grains; a fire separation wall between the seed cleaning
operation and the warehouse; and to install a pressurized fire hydrant once we have the ability to do so in the
Longs Peak Water District. As a result, we feel that we have met or exceeded all of the conditions for approval of
our Special Use Permit and would like to have our plat recorded.
I am enclosing a packet of supporting documents and additional information on dry fire hydrants. We appreciate
you taking the time to review this information and we would be happy to answer any additional questions that you
may have. We regret that we have had to come to this point, but are hopeful that this issue can be resolved
quickly and amicably.
Sincerely,
Jim Hergenreder
(303) 678-0221
cc: Monica Daniels -Mika, Director
Weld County Dept. of Planning Services
Sincerely,
fitleit
Mike Stonehocker
(303) 659-8445
Craig N. Blockwick
Wells, Lovel & Scoby, LLC, Attorneys at Law
Mountain View Fire Protection District Directors:
Wade Carlson
Louis Rademacher
Keith Serkes
Michael Holubec, Jr.
H. Martin Kridel
Mountain View Fire Protection District
Charles E. Boyes, Fire Prevention Specialist
Mark A. Lawley, Assistant Chief
Chief John Devlin
MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Administrative Office:
9119 County Line Road • Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 772-0710 Metro (303) 666-4404 FAX (303) 651-7702
July 18, 1996
Mr. Jim Hergenreder
2130 WCR 28
Longmont, CO 80504
Re: Case Number USR-1114
Dear Jim:
Per our conversation of April 25, 1996, and again during our telecom of July 17, 1996, your proposed grain
cleaning facility on WCR 5 and 28 will not meet the Fire District's water supply / fire flow requirements.
As you may recall, I agreed during our April meeting to consider a static source, such as a pond or cistern and
dry hydrants as a temporary water supply upon verification by the County Building Officials that all dust control
standards would be met. This verification may require an engineering report submitted to the District and the
county. As I mentioned yesterday, we have not received any of the above information, and find it impractical to
review the submitted plans without the above agreed upon items.
A static source may be approved as a temporary water supply source until the area is served with a reliable
pressurized system. At that time, you would be required to install hydrants to comply with the District's
standards.
As we discussed, the District's priorities on this project are, 1) to make every effort to eliminate the potential of a
dust explosion, 2) provide an in-house alarm system with auto dial to alert occupants of potential fire problems
for evacuation and immediately contact the Fire District, and 3) provide a reliable on -site water supply to enable
District firefighters to safely control and extinguish fires that may occur.
Should our staff need to meet with company representatives or yourself, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Gerald Ward
District Fire Chief
GW:tke
WARD\HERGENRE.DOC
cc: Mr. Chris Goranson, Planner
Weld County Dept. of Planning Services
1400 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
Station 1
9119 Cnty Line Rd.
Longmont, CO
60501
William Bailey, Fire Marshal
Station 2
10971 WCR 13
Longmont, CO
80504
Station 3
P.O. Box 575
299 Palmer Ave.
Mead, CO 80542
Mallon 4
P.O. Box 11
8500 Nlwot Road
Niwol, CO 80544
Station 5
10911 Dobbin Run
Lafayette, CO
80028
Station 8
P.O. Box 888
808 Briggs
Erie, CO 80518
Station 7
P.O. Box 40
100 So. Forest St.
Oacono, CO 80514
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
Patti Shwayder, Executive Director
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S.
Denver, Colorado 80222-1530
Phone (3031692-2000
Laboratory Building
4210 E. 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220-3716
(303) 691-4700
Jim Hergenreder
Twin Peak Seed & Grain
12770 Weld County Road 7
Longmont, CO 80504
RE: Grain cleaning operation located in Weld County, Colorado.
Dear Jim:
Colorado Depatlment
of Public Health
J ultP4§",virgtgrt
You had called the Air Pollution Control Division earlier this week about the possibility of
needing to file and Air Pollution Emission Notice (APEN) due to particulate emissions from
your grain cleaning operation. The need to file is based simply upon two items: the level of
your actual uncontrolled emissions over a year, and the capacity (really the so-called
"potential -to -emit") of your equipment. The levels that would trigger an APEN
requirement in Weld County (designated as an "attainment area") would be 2 tons per year
or more of particulate. And the only way you could require submittal based upon your
equipment's potential -to -emit (PTE) was if that PTE were over the major threshold of 100
tons per year of particulate.
You described your operation as cleaning 3,000,000 pounds per year as a maximum, and
that your equipment could clean 5,000 pounds per hour. The EPA's "emission factor" for
grain cleaning (uncontrolled, i.e., without a cyclone, etc.) is 0.82 pounds of particulate per
ton of grain cleaned. Therefore, your annual emissions are:
(0.82 lb./ton) x (1500 tons grain cleaned/year) = 1,230 pounds per year.
This is, obviously, much less than the 2 -ton reporting requirement. The PTE of your
equipment is calculated by the following:
(0.82 lb./ton) x (2.5 tons grain cleaned/hour) x (8,760 hours/year) = 17,956
pounds per year = 8.98 tons per year.
This number, too, is much less than the 100 -ton PTE major threshold limit that would
require an APEN and subsequent permit.
So, the result is that you do not need to file with the Division at this time. If you happen
to increase production at some point, or invest in equipment with a greatly larger capacity,
you may wish to re-evaluate your emissions yourself. As the EPA occasionally changes
emissions factors as new data becomes available, you may want to call the Division for the
latest one for grain cleaning.
If you have any questions about this or any other matter, do not hesitate to contact me
directly at 303-692-3217.
Sincerely,
J'oe Molloy
Engineer/Reviewer
Stationary Sources Section
Air Pollution Control Division
James E. Hergenreder/Mike Stonehocker
Twin Peaks Seed & Grain, LLC
12770 Weld County Road 7
Longmont, CO 80504
September 26, 1996
Mountain View Fire Protection District
9119 County Line Road
Longmont, CO 80501
Gentlemen:
Attached please find two copies of the blue prints for the foundation of the grain cleaning
portion of our new facility. Also included are floor plans which show the layout for the cleaning
equipment and grain storage. Additional blue prints for the warehouse and electrical system will
be submitted upon their receipt by us. The dust collection system will be installed from a pre -
designed system once all of the necessary cleaning equipment has been installed. Any questions
or concerns that you may have about the dust collection system may be directed to our
contractor_ Dale, at EMB Mill & Elevator Supply, 1-800-356-9782.
If you have any questions, or require any other immediate information, please feel free to
contact me
Sincerely,
James E. Hergenreder
(303) 678-0221
MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Administrative Office:
9119 County Line Road • Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 772-0710 Metro (303) 666-4404 FAX (303) 651-7702
September 27, 1996
Mr. Jim Hergenreder
2130 WCR 28
Longmont, CO 80504
RE: Your Letter of September 26, 1996
Dear Jim:
I am in receipt of the documents you included with your letter and
have reviewed your letter this date. Also, in reviewing your file,
I want you to know that no time will be spent in plan review until
the water supply issue is resolved. In Chief Ward's letter to you
dated July 18, 1996 he discussed various considerations with regard
to a water supply. To date, you have not conveyed any information
to the fire district as to how you plan to approach this. As soon
as an agreement is reached, then the fire district will proceed
with the plan review and approval process.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
tijn 1,.., .1
William N. Bailey
Fire Prevention Manager
Fire Marshal
encl. July 18, 1996 letter from Chief Ward
cc: Hergenreder file
planrvw.cor\hergenre.ltr
Station 1
9119 Cnty Line Rd.
Longmont. CO
80501
Station 2
10971 WCR 13
Longmont, CO
80504
Station 3
P.O. Box 575
299 Palmer Ave.
Mead. CO 80542
Station 4
P.O. Box 11
8500 Niwol Road
Niwot, CO 80544
Station 5
10911 Dobbin Run
Lafayette, CO
80026
Station 6
P.O. Box 666
600 Briggs
Erie, CO 80516
Station 7
P.O. Box 40
100 So. Forest St.
bacons. CO 60514
MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Administrative Office:
9119 County Line Road • Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 772-0710 Metro (303) 666-4404 FAX (303) 651-7702
October 14, 1996
Mr. Jim Hergenreder/Mike Stonehocker
Twin Peaks Seed & Grain, LLC
12770 WCR 7
Longmont, CO
RE: Review of Plans Submitted 9/27/96
Gentlemen:
I reviewed the submitted materials, and based on my review I have
the following comments:
1. The site plan reflects that the size of the proposed steel
frame (Type II -N) building has been downsized to 100' X 50',
and that there is an attached overhead Bin measuring 20' X
48'. My figures reflect a total of 10,960 which also includes
the basement area.
Table A -III -A -I - Minimum Required Fire Flow and Flow Duration
For Buildings, indicates that the fire flow for the above
type building having between 9,800 and 12,600 square feet is
2,250 gallons per minute at 20 psi. This flow must be
available for a two-hour duration. (I've enclosed a copy of
this table for your review). The above will assist you in the
capacity design of the temporary on -site water supply.
The location for the dry -hydrant has been noted on the
enclosed drawing with an X.
2. With regards to the tire department access road, due to the
hydrant being located at the rear of the "turn -around", the
access road should be placed as noted by the red line with x's
on your drawing. This provides fire apparatus access to the
water supply without having the access the area by passing
directly next to the structures. The access road needs to be
designed to carry an imposed load of 60,000 pounds and can be
reduced from the required 20' width to 12'.
I will give you a call Friday morning around 8 am to answer any
questions you may have.
encl. site drawing
UFC Table A -III -A -I
planrvw.cor\hergenre.ltr
Station 1
9119 Cnty Line Rd.
Longmont, CO
80501
Station 2
10971 WCR 13
Longmont, CO
80504
Station 3
P.O. Box 575
299 Palmer Ave.
Mead, CO 80542
Sigqcerely,
Wit M y
William N. Bailey
Fire Marshal2
Station 4
P.O. Box 1I
8500 Niwot Road
Niwol. CO 80544
Station 5
10911 Dobbin Run
Lafayette, CO
80028
Station 6
P.O. Box 888
600 Briggs
Erie, CO 80518
Station 7
P.O. Box 40
100 So, Forest St.
Dacono, CO 80514
1994 UNIFORM FIRE CODE
APPENDIX III -A
5.2 Buildings other than One- and Two -Family Dwellings. The minimum fire flow and flow
duration for buildings other than one- and two-family dwellings shall be as specified in Table
A -III -A- I.
EXCEPTION: A reduction in required fire flow of up to(5 percent)ss approved by the chief, is allowed
when the building is provided with an approved automatic spnnkler system. The resulting fire flow shall not
be less than 1,500 gallons per minute (5677.5 L/min.).
TABLE A -III -A -I —MINIMUM REQUIRED FIRE FLOW AND FLOW DURATION FOR BUILDINGS
FIRE AREA (square feet)
FIRE FLOW
(gallons per
minute)2
FLOW
DURATION
. 0.0929 for m2
peType
il-FRF.R.
TIII One-HRHR.
ypeType
VOne-HR.�
11-N1N
Type V-Nt
%Vm nlor
Up to 22,700
30,200
38,700
48,300
59,000
70.900
Up to 12,700
17,000
21,800
24,200
33,200
39,700
Up to 8,200
10,900
12,900
17,400
21,300
25,500
Up to 5,900
7,900
9,800
12,600
15,400
18,400
Up to 3,600
4.800
6,200
7,700
9,400
11,300
1,500
1,750
2,000
2.250
2,500
2,750
2
83,700
97,700
112,700
128,700
47,100
54,900
63,400
72,400
30,100
35,200
40,600
46,400
21,800
25,900
29,300
33,500
13,400
15,600
18,000
20.600
3,000
3,250
3.500
3,750
3
145,900
164,200
183,400
203,700
225,200
247,700
271,200
295,900
Greater
"
"
82,100
92,400
103,100
114,600
126,700
139,400
152,600
166,500
Greater
"
52,500
59,100
66,000
73,300
81,100
89,200
97,700
106,500
115,800
125,500
135,500
145,800
156,700
167,900
179,400
191,400
Greater
37,900
42,700
47,700
53,000
58,600
65.400
70,600
77,000
83,700
90,600
97,900
106,800
113,200
121,300
129,600•
138,300
Greater
23.300
26.300
29,300
32.600
36,000
39.600
43,400
47,400
51.500
55.700
60,200
64.800
69,600
74.600
79.800
85.100
Greater
4,000
4.250
4,500
4,750
5,000
5,250
5,500
5.750
6.000
6,250
6,500
6,750
7,000
7,250
7,500
7,750
8,000
4
Types of construction are based upon the Building Code.
2Measured at 20 psi (137.9 kPa). See Appendix III A, Section 2.
rae_ 1 �. K t t R )-4-‘ r\\J.-4 1 a rc t_ A r lyre.
- Ft_ it ( - ran kite_ 4-ef
14-14, k� C y Ps urn p — 1e—
C.5 -V.c4c Cam S r. — c'3 r0 r..[-nr L\,
J J
1
1-439
HAN OMAN mini Jr owirvrvini.
US WEST TELE. LINE
VW CORNER,
SECTION 33, E
T3N, R68W, 6TH P.M.
FD
. NO. 4 4 REBAR
RESET NO. 6 REBAR
WITH 2" ALUM. CAP
LS NO. 20673
82
42
LARRICK W. FRENCH
L J
6
z
COUNTY ROAD
0
J
W
i
E1
ISTING ROAD V Y
- /
1-7 00'
XISTING CONCRETE
INED DITCH
ONGS PEAK WATERLINE
TIm
it
WELD COUNTY ROAD NO. 28
OVERHFD UNITED POWER LINE E �3Q' USERS R.O.W.
59U OU'OU"E 313 tt
/
/
/
o- N
W b�
/
/
/ LJ
/
/ CO
0
/ a
/ N
/ M
oOr-
,o
z
0
b /
• LOT A /
6.508 ACRES //
W �") /
o-
/
T
E5/
40' RALIK'S
'SCALE
4
/ /
LOT B
4.713 tCRES j2.
130"DIA. '
TURN=AROUND
4 1'
40' LONG
; WLVERT.
e
GRAVEL
LOT
N Cp
;V.
O)
UTURE BINS
22' DIA.
82
EXISTING
BUILDING
CL OF AC
ROAD
55
EXIS
CUL`
EXIST.
DRIVEW/
S 74'33'59" E
30.00'
S —lb —I 97 L:I2PM FPOLI n'WLLS LOvE SCOEC 303 il,19 8227
P.2
May 16, 1997
Facsimile transmission
Charles E. Boyce
Mountain View Fire Protection District
RE: Twin Peaks Seed and Grain
Dear Mr. Boyce:
This office represents the Twin Peaks Seed and Grain, LLC in
connection with your Immediate Order to Comply of May 13, 1997.
First, we request that the appeal of this order that has
already been filed be heard and determined with all possible speed.
In connection with this appeal, we request that we be allowed to
appear and make a presentation before the Appeal Board, and that
such a hearing be scheduled for the immediate future.
Next, my client is not aware that there is any county code or
other provision that gives the District direct or specific power to
issue a stop work order on a project for which there is a valid
building permit. Please provide me with specific information
showing such a power. In the absence of that information, Twin
Peaks anticipates continuing with construction while this issue is
addressed.
very truly yours,
Craig N. Blockwick
of WELLS, LOVE & SCOSY, LLC
ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS. INC.
Rnc
April 30, 1997
Mr. Jim Hergenreder
12770 Weld County Road 7
Longmont, Colorado 80504
Premiere Building
825 Delaware Ave., Suite 500
Longmont. CO 80501
(303) 772-5282
Metro (303) 665-6283
FAX (303) 665-6959
E-mail rmclong®rmii.com
Re: Proposed Water Source, Dry Fire Hydrant, Southeast Corner of Weld County Roads 5 and
28, Weld County, Colorado; RMC job No. 80-31b3.002.00
Dear Mr. Hergenreder:
This letter addresses the proposed water sources for the dry fire hydrant pond to be located at your
grain cleaning facility on the southeast corner of Weld County Roads 5 and 28 in Weld County,
Colorado. We understand the pond will be required to maintain 300,000 gallons (excluding
surficial ice) of water for fire fighting purposes. The proposed sources of water are the groundwater
table, an on -site perimeter sub -drain, and a field sub -drain located just west of the site.
We performed a site reconnaissance on April 28 and 29, 1997. Railroad tracks are located on the
southeast site boundary, and the site is surrounded by irrigated farm land. Local irrigation ditches
and laterals were dry at the time of our reconnaissance. The facility was under construction on the
north half of the site. The subject pond is proposed for the south part of the site where ample space
is available to construct a pond of the required storage capacity. Groundwater in the proposed
pond area, as observed in a test pit, was measured at a depth of 3.5 feet below the ground surface.
The water level will vary seasonally and is probably at or near its seasonal low, though a recent
precipitation event on April 24th may have resulted in a recent water level rise. The water level
will likely peak during the irrigation season.
The perimeter drain reportedly runs along the north and west site boundaries and is constructed
with four -inch diameter PVC drain pipe. the perimeter drain daylights just south of the site near
the railroad tracks. In addition, a valve is present on the perimeter drain in the area of the proposed
pond. Measured flow rates at the daylight and valve locations of the perimeter drain were 0.3 and
1.6 gallons per minute (gpm), respectively.
The field sub -drain is just west of the site, and reportedly drains irrigated land for a distance of
approximately one mile northwest of the site. The field sub -drain daylights near the perimeter drain
daylight point, and reportedly flows year round. We measured a flow rate of 27.9 gpm at the
daylight point. As mentioned above, the local water table is probably at or near its seasonal low
indicating the field sub -drain flows year round. Higher flow rates can be expected during the
irrigation season.
CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING • PLANNING
Rnc
Mr. Jim Hergenreder
April 30, 1997
Page 2
Barring unanticipated drought or hydrogeologic changes, the combination of the groundwater table
and field sub -drain should provide a continuous and sufficient water source for a pond of the
proposed capacity. Because the pond will utilize groundwater, a well permit will be required from
the Colorado State Engineer's Office. In addition, an augmentation plan may be required to make-
up for evaporative losses from the pond.
If you have any questions or comments, please call.
Sincerely,
ROCKY M9UNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC.
Gary Lind , R.G.
Engineer fig Geolop t
704,2
rt
ncipal
GL:sp
CAOFF ICE \DEPTamHE RCE N .LTR
MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
GOALS
1. Increase Volunteer Staffing
2. Increase Our Career Responders
3. Improve Our Public Relations and Education
4. Staff Involvement With Our Local Governments
5. Reduce Response Times
6. Complete the District Capital Construction
7. Reduce Fire Insurance Rates
8. Adopt the District Strategic Plan
9. Volunteer Pension Benefits
10. Volunteer Incentives
S-16-1997 3:12PM
FROM I 1NELLSS LOvE SCUE'r 303 4d9 6227 R 2
May 16, 1997
.Facsimile transmission
Charles E. Boyce
Mountain View Fire Protection District
RE: Twin Peaks Seed and Grain
Dear Mr. Boyce:
This office represents the Twin Peaks Seed and Grain, LLC in
connection with your Immediate Order to Comply of May 13, 1997.
First, we request that the appeal of this order that has
already been filed be heard and determined with all possible speed.
In connection with this appeal, we request that we be allowed to
appear and make a presentation before the Appeal Board, and that
such a hearing be scheduled for the immediate future.
Next, my client is not aware that there is any county code or
other provision that gives the District direct or specific power to
issue a stop work order on a project for which there is a valid
building permit. Please provide me •with specific information
showing such a power. In the absence of that information, Twin
Peaks anticipates continuing with construction while this issue is
addressed.
very truly yours,
Craig N. Blockwick
of WELLS, LOVE & SCOSY, LLC
POCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC.
RMC
April 30, 1997
Mr. Jim Hergenreder
12770 Weld County Road 7
Longmont, Colorado 80504
Premiere Building
825 Delaware Ave., Suite 500
Longmont. CO 80501
(303) 772-5282
Metro (303) 665-6283
FAX (303) 665-6959
E-mail rmciongermii.com
Re: Proposed Water Source, Dry Fire Hydrant, Southeast Corner of Weld County Roads 5 and
28, Weld County, Colorado; RMC job No. 80-31oS.UU2.00
Dear Mr. Hergenreder:
This letter addresses the proposed water sources for the dry fire hydrant pond to be located at your
grain cleaning facility on the southeast corner of Weld County Roads 5 and 28 in Weld County,
Colorado. We understand the pond will be required to maintain 300,000 gallons (excluding
surficial ice) of water for fire fighting purposes. The proposed sources of water are the groundwater
table, an on -site perimeter sub -drain, and a field sub -drain located just west of the site.
We performed a site reconnaissance on April 28 and 29, 1997. Railroad tracks are located on the
southeast site boundary, and the site is surrounded by irrigated farm land. Local irrigation ditches
and laterals were dry at the time of our reconnaissance. The facility was under construction on the
north half of the site. The subject pond is proposed for the south part of the site where ample space
is available to construct a pond of the required storage capacity. Groundwater in the proposed
pond area, as observed in a test pit, was measured at a depth of 3.5 feet below the ground surface.
The water level will vary seasonally and is probably at or near its seasonal low, though a recent
precipitation event on April 24th may have resulted in a recent water level rise. The water level
will likely peak during the irrigation season.
The perimeter drain reportedly runs along the north and west site boundaries and is constructed
with four -inch diameter PVC drain pipe. The perimeter drain daylights just south or the site near
the railroad tracks. In addition, a valve is present on the perimeter drain in the area of the proposed
pond. Measured flow rates at the daylight and valve locations of the perimeter drain were 0.3 and
1.6 gallons per minute (gpm), respectively.
The field sub -drain is just west of the site, and reportedly drains irrigated land for a distance of
approximately one mile northwest of the site. The field sub -drain daylights near the perimeter drain
daylight point, and reportedly flows year round. We measured a flow rate of 27.9 gpm at the
daylight point. As mentioned above, the local water table is probably at or near its seasonal low
indicating the field sub -drain flows year round. Higher flow rates can be expected during the
irrigation season.
CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING • PLANNING
Rnc
Mr. Jim Hergenreder
April 30, 1997
Page 2
Barring unanticipated drought or hydrogeologic changes, the combination of the groundwater table
and field sub -drain should provide a continuous and sufficient water source for a pond of the
proposed capacity. Because the pond will utilize groundwater, a well permit will be required from
the Colorado State Engineer's Office. In addition, an augmentation plan may be required to make-
up for evaporative losses from the pond.
If you have any questions or comments, please call.
Sincerely,
ROCKY M9UNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC.
Gary Lind , R.G.
Engineer) Ceolog t
froisp
I ..
hcipal
GL:sp
C:\OFFICE\oEPTBo\HE RGE N.ETR
MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
GOALS
1. Increase Volunteer Staffing
2. Increase Our Career Responders
3. Improve Our Public Relations and Education
4. Staff Involvement With Our Local Governments
5. Reduce Response Times
6. Complete the District Capital Construction
7. Reduce Fire Insurance Rates
8. Adopt the District Strategic Plan
9. Volunteer Pension Benefits
10. Volunteer Incentives
MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Administrative Office:
9119 County Line Road • Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 772-0710 Metro (303) 666-4404 FAX (303) 651-7702
Mr. James E. Hergenreder
Mr. Mike Stonehocker
Twin Peaks Seed and Grain, L.L.C.
2060 WCR 5
Longmont, CO 80504
RE: Case Number: USR-1114
Gentlemen:
April 28, 1997
This is a written response, as you requested on April 25, to your letter, dated April 7,
1997, to Chief Lawley and me concerning the installation of a fire sprinkler system in
your facility under construction. An oral response was given to you on April 15, 1997.
As you know, the available fire flow in the area is not sufficient to meet the
requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and the Mountain View Fire Protection
District. Both the 1991 and 1994 Editions of the Uniform Fire Code have been adopted
by resolution of the Weld County Commissioners for enforcement in the Fire District.
In my letter to you, dated January 6, 1997, a fire protection plan was outlined for your
facility that would meet the intent of the Fire Code, even though the required fire flow
is not available. In that plan, one of the requirements was to install a fire sprinkler
system in all of the buildings on the site. In your letter of April 7 you stated that there
was an insufficient water flow from the Longs Peak Water District to supply a fire
sprinkler system. While taking the water supply from the Left Hand District may be he
most convenient method to supply a fire sprinkler system, it is not the only way. It is
possible to use a fire pump with a tank or reservoir. In fact a fire pump and tank or
reservoir may be used to supply not only the fire sprinkler system, but also to supply
the required fire flow.
As in any alternative fire protection plan, all of the items in the plan must be completed
for the plan to provide fire protection equivalent to the requirements of the Fire Code.
Without the fire sprinkler system, an essential element in the plan is missing, and
Station 1
9119 Cnty Line Rd.
Longmont. CO
80501
Station 2
10971 WCR 13
Longmont, CO
80504
Twin Peaks Seed and Grain - Response to Letter of April 7, 1997
1 of 2
Station 3
P.O. Box 575
299 Palmer Ave.
Mead, CO 80542
Station 4
P.O. Box 11
8500 Niwot Road
Niwot, CO 80544
Station 5
10911 Dobbin Run
Lafayette, CO
80026
Station 6
P.O. Box 666
600 Briggs
Erie, CO 80516
Station 7
P.O. Box 40
100 So. Forest St.
Chicano, CO 80514
equivalent protection is not provided. The fire protection on your site will not be
equivalent to that required by Uniform Fire Code and the Fire District.
As we discussed on April 15, if you wish to appeal this ruling, you are welcome to
follow the appeal route provided by the Fire District. You should direct a letter to the
District Fire Chief in which you outline your case that your project will meet the
requirements of the Fire Code, or provide equivalent protection to that required by the
Fire Code.
This should be addressed to:
Chief John Devlin
Mountain View Fire Protection District
9119 County Line Road
Longmont, CO 80501
If you have further questions, you may contact Assistant Chief Lawley or me.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Boyes
Fire Prevention Specialist
CC: Mark A. Lawley, Assistant Chief, Emergency Services
Chris Goranson, Weld County Dept. of Planning Services
Twin Peaks Seed and Grain - Response to Letter of April 7, 1997
2of2
MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Administrative Office:
9119 County Line Road • Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 772-0710 Metro (303) 666-4404 FAX (303) 651-7702
IMMEDIATE ORDER TO COMPLY
This Order is issued by authority of the Mountain View Fire Protection District Resolution adopting the Uniform Fire Code and
approved by the County Commissioners of both Boulder and Weld Counties, 1994 (Sec. 32-1-1002 C.R.S.)
OWNER: Mr. Jim Hergenreder
Mr. Mike Stonehocker
OCCUPANT: Twin Peaks Seed and Grain
ADDRESS OF VIOLATION: 2060 WCR 28, Longmont, CO 80504
NATURE OF VIOLATION: Constructing a building with an inadequate water supply.
OCCUPANCY GROUP: Group F, Division 1 and Group S, Division 1
YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS IMMEDIATELY: Immediately stop
work on constructing the building or the installation of bins or other process or storage equipment. Do not operate equipment or store
agricultural products until a water supply approved by the Fire District is installed.
CODE SECTION VIOLATION: Uniform Fire Code Section 903
WHICH CODE SECTIONS PERTAIN TO: Water supplies and Fire Hydrants
DATE OF INSPECTION: May 12, 1997
REINSPECTION DATE TO CONFIRM COMPLIANCE: This is au on -going. order to comply until revoked by the Fire District.
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL RESULT IN LEGAL ACTION.
Chief, Mountain View Fire Prot4ction District
Da`-
te Issue
AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER MUST BE MADE IN WRITING AND FILED WITH THE FIRE CHIEF
WITHIN THREE DAYS OF ISSUANCE.
Station 1
9119 Cnty Line Rd.
Longmont. CO
90501
Station 2
10971 WCR 13
Longmont. CO
80504
Station 3
P.O. Box 575
299 Palmer Ave.
Mead, CO 80542
Station 4
P.O. Box 11
8500 Niwot Road
Niwot, CO 80544
Station 5
10911 Dobbin Run
Lafayette, CO
80026
Station 6
P.O. Box 666
600 Briggs
Erie, CO 60516
Station 7
P.O. Box 40
100 So. Forest St.
Dacono, CO 80514
Twin Peaks Seed & Grain, L.L.C.
2060 Weld County Road 5
Longmont, CO 80504
(303) 772-7333
May 13, 1997
Mr. John Devlin
Mountain View Fire Protection District
9119 County Line Road
Longmont. CO 80501
RE: Case Number USR-114
Dear Mr. Devlin
We are requesting an appeal and review of our case by you. Before we started construction of our facility we
contacted Chief Gerald Ward about our proposed facility and after various meetings with him he sent the letter
from the fire district on July 18, 1996. We also talked with William Bailey about our facility on numerous
occasions and he responded with a letter where to install a dry fire hydrant in a pond with a letter dated 10/14/96.
Since both of these documents indicated we need a reliable water source for a dry dire hydrant, enclosed is a letter
from Rocky Mountain Consultants stating that we do have a reliable water supply for a dry fire hydrant.
We are also enclosing copies of numerous documents about dry fire hydrants that we have gathered. We have
researched this subject extensively, we do know that the ISO views dry fire hydrants the same as pressurized
hydrants because both are sources of water. We would like to install the dry- fire hydrant to help lower our
insurance rates which is also a goal of the Mountain View Fire District. We also have videos tapes about
installing, operation, cost savings, and federal funding available to fire districts to place dry fire hydrants in
service in every fire district in the country. We will make videos available for viewing if you so desire, since we
do not have duplicating capability.
Since Mountain View Fire District indicates to us that dry fire hydrants are an inadequate water supply we do not
agree with this ruling given the amount of information we have gathered. Please send us any documentation or
engineered reports about how dry fire hydrants are not an acceptable method for fire control. We should also
indicate that to keep our water supply reliable we have access to all of the following reliable water supplies The
Highland Ditch Company, Colorado Big Thompson water District, a well permit for ground water and the
Kiteley Preston Seepage ditch water diversion structure.
We would like you to consider, once again, the use of a static water source, reservoir, and a dry fire hydrant. The
reservoir and dry fire hydrant will be engineered in accordance with NFPA 1231-B standards and according to
information received from ISO Commercial Risk Services, Inc.. We appreciate your cooperation and continued
efforts in this manner. We would, however, like to come to a resolution soon.
Sinc ely,
Sincerely, AI'/-
SCIUv °(`a
James E. Hergenreder Mike Stonehocker
cc: Ms. Monica Daniels -Mika, AICP, Director
Weld County Dept. of Planning Services
1400 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
W1�YG
44se:
COLORADO
October 14, 1996
Mountain View Fire Protection District
Attn: William Bailey
9119 County Line Road
Longmont, Co 80501
Dear Mr. Bailey;
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION
PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3521
FAX (970) 352-6312
WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
1400 N. 17TH AVENUE
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
Subject: USR-1114, The Hergenreder Seed Cleaning Facility
The State Health Department has provided calculations showing that the quantity of explosive
dusts will not exceed 1 pound per cubic foot of building volume. Based upon this information it
has been determined that this facility will be classified as a Group F, Division 1 Occupancy. A
mechanical exhaust system as described will be required to be installed. In addition the
electrical system will be required to comply with the requirements of a Class 2, Division 2 area.
If you have any questions concerning these requirements please feel free to contact me at the
above phone number.
Sincerely;
�cZLl��EIQI'
Ed Stoner
Lead Combination Inspector
p.c
Jim Hergenreder
2130 WCR 28
Longmont, Co 80504
USR-1114 File
Service, Teamwork, Integrity, Quality
MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Administrative Office:
9119 County Line Road • Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 772-0710 Metro (303) 666-4404 FAX (303) 651-7702
November 7, 1996
Mr. James Hergenreder
Twin Peaks Seed & Grain
12770 WCR 7
Longmont, CO 80504
Dear Mr. Hergenreder:
As I am sure you have heard, Fire Marshal Bill Bailey is no longer with the Fire District. As a result of Mr.
Bailey's resignation, the Board of Directors of the Mountain View Fire Protection District has appointed me as
Acting Fire Marshal.
In reviewing your file, I noted the letter to you dated October 14, 1996, from Fire Marshal Bailey. The letter
indicates a dry hydrant has been noted on the enclosed drawing with an "X", however, there is no mention of an
acceptable water supply for fire protection. I believe it is imperative you understand, as the letter could lead
someone to believe, that static water supplies, such as ponds, are not acceptable for fire protection purposes. I
will make note that, prior to any future construction, an approved water supply, capable of supplying the demand
for your building, must be authorized by the Fire District.
In addition, I would refer to the letter dated October 14, 1996, from the Weld County Department of Building
Inspection, first paragraph, third and fourth sentences, "a mechanical exhaust system, as described, will be
required to be installed. In addition, the electrical system will be required to comply with the requirements of a
Class 2, Division 2 area".
Attached, please find Article 76 of the Uniform Fire Code in which all sections must be complied with, as well as
any other applicable code, as it pertains to your building/operation.
Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Mark A. Lawley
Acting Fire Marshal
ML:tke
Enclosure
cc: Mountain View Fire Protection District Board of Directors
Station 1
9119 Cnty Line Rd.
Longmont. CO
80501
Station 2
10971 WCR 13
Longmont. CO
80504
Station 3
P.O. Box 575
299 Palmer Ave.
Mead, CO 80542
Station 4
P.O. Box 11
8500 Niwot Road
Niwot, CO 80544
Station 5
10911 Dobbin Run
Lafayette. CO
80026
Station 6
P.O. Box 666
600 Briggs
Erie, CO 80516
Station 7
P.O. Box 40
100 So, Forest St.
Dawns. CO 80514
Twin Peaks Seed & Grain, L.L.C.
2060 Weld County Road 5
Longmont, CO 80504
(303) 678-0221
April 7, 1997
Mr. Mark A. Lawley
Mr. Charles E. Boyes
Mountain View Fire Protection District
9119 County Line Road
Longmont, CO 80501
RE: Case Number USR-114
Dear Messrs. Lawley and Boyes:
As per my conversation with Mr. Barry Dykes of the Longs Peak Water District, there is insufficient water flow,
from the district to our property, to accommodate a sprinkler system. Although we cannot install a sprinkler
system, we do feel confident that we can provide a reliable on -site water supply to enable District firefighters to
safely control and extinguish foes that may occur.
We have taken measures, requested by Mountain View Fire District, to control dust and air -born particles in the
form of exhaust fans and vacuum systems. To address the question of fire control, we are requesting that you
refer back to the letter sent by former District Fire Chief, Gerald Ward, on July 18, 1996. We would like you to
consider, once again, the use of a static water source, reservoir, and a dry fife hydrant. The reservoir and dry fife
hydrant will 6e engineered in accordance with NFPA 1231-B standards and according to information received
from ISO Commercial Risk Services, Inc.. We have ample space on our property to install such a reservoir, and
once completed, we will be able to meet the required fire flow for the building in question. Soil surveys are
available to justify the water tables and the potential for a year-round water source. This request is only for a
temporary resolution. When our area is upgraded, with a reliable pressurized system, we will install hydrants to
comply with the District's standards.
We appreciate your cooperation and continued efforts in this manner. We would, however, like to come to a
resolution soon.
Sincerely, Sincerely,
James E. Hergenreder Mike Stonehocker
cc: Ms. Monica Daniels -Mika, AICP, Director
Mr. Roger Vigil, Combination Inspector
Mr. Ed Stoner, Combination Inspector
Weld County Dept. of Planning Services
1400 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Administrative Office:
9119 County Line Road • Longmont, CO 80501
(303) 772-0710 Metro (303) 666-4404 FAX (303) 651-7702
January 6, 1997
Mr. Jim Hergenreder
2130 WCR 28
Longmont, CO 80504
RE: Twin Peaks Seed and Grain
Dear Mr. Hergenreder:
I have reviewed the report and the videotape from Mr. Nohr, With Assistant Chief
Mark Lawley, the Fire Marshal for the District. The Fire District recognizes that there
is insufficient water for fire protection in the area where you are building your facility.
However, the Uniform Fire Code does not permit the Fire District to ignore the
requirements for fire protection. Section 103.1.2 does allow for the use of alternative
methods as long as comparable fire protection is achieved.
Even though Mr. Nohr has primarily provided information on the handling of grain bin
fires, the alternative fire protection methods for the facility need to address fires in the
handling equipment, and, in both the process and warehouse areas.
The Fire District will approve the following plan for fire protection which does address
both the potential for grain bin fires and other fires. All items on this list must be
completed for the Fire District to approve the facility.
1. All buildings on the site are to be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler
system, complying with the requirements of NFPA 13, Standard for the
Installation of Sprinkler Systems. The Fire District does not know whether there
is sufficient water flow and pressure from the Long Peaks water lines to do this,
or not.
2. A dust collection system complying with the requirements of the Uniform
Mechanical Code is to be installed. The design and installation is to be reviewed
and approved by the Weld County Building Inspection Department. The bag
house and the ducts, where required, are to be protected with the fire sprinkler
system outlined above.
Twin Peaks Seed and Grain - Alternative Fire Protection
loft
Station 1
8119 Cnty Line Rd.
Longmont, CO
80501
Station 2
10971 WCR 13
Longmont, CO
80504
Station 3
P.O. Box 575
299 Palmer Ave.
Mead, CO 80542
Station 4
P.O. Box 11
8500 Niwot Road
Niwo4, CO 60544
Station 5
10911 Dobbin Run
Latayene. CO
60026
Station 6
P.O. Box 666
600 Briggs
Erie, CO 60516
Station 7
P.O. Box 40
100 So. Forest St.
Dacono. CO 80514
Sufficient nitrogen or carbon dioxide to suppress grain bin fires is to be kept on
site. Mr. Nohr is to calculate the amount required and provide those calculations
to the Fire District. The nitrogen or carbon dioxide is to be stored in high-
pressure cylinders, not in a liquified form. The nitrogen or carbon dioxide tanks
are to be connected by permanent piping with appropriate regulators and valves
to the injection points on each grain bin. The piping and valves are to be clearly
identified by paint and signs. The employees of the seed operation are to be
trained by Mr. Nohr in the use of the system. The use of the system will be the
responsibility of the employees of the seed operation, not the Fire District.
The warehouse and seed cleaning operations are to be compartmentalized by
area separation walls meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
The Weld County Building Inspection Department is to approve the construction
of the area separation walls.
-Barriers to contain the inerting g are to be provided for the top of each grain
bin. These barriers need to be installed so that they are readily available to close
the openings on the top of the bins. Mr. Nohr is to approve the design and
installation of the barriers.
6. When the water lines are enlarged in the area, hydrants from those water lines
are to be installed on the site, in locations approved by the Fire District.
If you have questions about the requirements, Chief Lawley or I will be happy to meet
with you. Specific questions about the construction of the dust collection systtem or
area separation walls, should be directed to the Weld County Building Inspection
Department. Specific questions about the inerting gas system or the bin closures should
be directed to Mr. Nohr.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Boyes
Fire Prevention Specialist
CC: Mark A. Lawley, Assistant Chief, Emergency Services
Roger Vigil, Weld County Building Inspection Department
Twin Peaks Seed and Grain - Alternative Fire Protection
2 of 2
RURAL
WATER
DESIGNS
War Division
r—, t 1
Z
0
p
U
W
ON
W
N
W
W
cc
U-
K
0
a)
C
O
2" Styrofoam Insulation
d
co
—J
a)
v
43
32-35 Degree
U)
Z
0
E
a
z
0
U
a
2
O
is
U)
(FOR LONG INSTALLATIONS)
W W
J -
<0
Lij 0
aWW
W =�
zLL1 'C
Z
wpm' W
LLI
....It
Q I
CO
Z
U)
ww
nz
mg
H
D
W
N o
�W
W
NZ
r Cn
r Q
a
0
W
W
=J
fnZ
MatA
Qt0¢
z
Coco ix oce o
UWI—
W =
= 0
W
Co
z
O
Q
O
0-
0-
Q
-J
Q
te
1--
0
D
a
z
2ND PUMPER
N
Oa
4t
a
2
:5
Hart n gi3)otdx �P��
�'.rro tst.4sti It
c r. y'.r, a
ans{i'wilteive'
e`pilot arise
each, are bemg
rmg the previous pilot project,+ sponsored by
to.n Tana Department of, Natural Resources
A
17 ' a DNR cooperative agreementpaved the way
0Ythe-1,purchase of 225 dry" hydrants,_which were
i en distributed to the nine participating parishes:
tenville Bossier, Claiborne;; Jackson, Lincoln,
re rind
athitoches _Union, Webster and Winn.
•
$fhe hydw ants were given to local police juries and
e departments, which then provided volunteer la -
mid equipment to perform the installation.
The ilot;proleet resulted from research and in-
quirtesbya nonprofit rural development organization
called Trailblazer; Inc. Trailblazer is one of 277 Re -
ounce. Conservation & Development (RC&D) areas
across the nation.
,RC&D is a little-known but highly productive pro-
gram of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. An
RC&D area is basically defined as a locally initiated,
sponsored, and directed project covering several
parishes (or counties) in which residents work to im-
prove the quality of life in their area.
,41
r
ti
* � e pilot project was designed to improve access
•• • nireated water supplies in the nine -parish area for
the purpose of road maintenance and, incidentally,
fire protection. The DNR cooperative agreement al-
lowed Trailblazer to purchase the 225 dry hydrants,
which were subsequently distributed to the participat-
ing parishes.
The effort "was the most popular project that we
have ever experienced," says Ellzey Simmons, Trail-
blazer's project codirector. "We gave local people a ba-
sic resource (dry hydrant components) and simply
asked them to install the hydrants."
One of the main reasons for this popularity was
the fact that, around 1989, insurance policies of many
rural residents were canceled because they lived in
remote areas. Numerous volunteer fire departments
were being organized, but they were struggling for
help.
The pilot project provided much -needed hope for
volunteers to be a part of the development of water
sources in their community.
The dry hydrant can be made of any hard, perma-
nent material, but polyvinylchloride (PVC) is becom-
ing more commonly used because of price, accessibil-
ity, and low friction loss performance. Other elements
of the system include an intake filtration section, hy-
drant head with suction screen, and cap.
Water is a key ingredient in maintaining gravel
roads. Using water to compact new layers of dirt or
gravel makes a smoother surface for vehicles to travel
on and improves fuel efficiency.
One of the goals of the pilot project was to save
energy due to reduced driving time for water trucks
by strategically placing 25 dry hydrants in each of the
nine participating parishes.
Having water available for extraction on -site re-
sulted in a 50 -percent reduction of driving time for
road maintenance trucks in the pilot project. As the
water trucks involved had an average of approximate-
ly four miles per gallon in fuel efficiency, the use of
dry hydrants reflects substantial savings in fuel costs.
The nine parishes involved in the pilot effort >-
-li,., el' CII:
;Font //IL .\»)(;) IIICH !r
Ell, l';,rlCC!! etil I1i.atvitt
Spirnvs 'Carr)) their it hclug
drawn 'rom a /ward thrtmch
t: dry hcdrrut'. 7';us drurna-
Strat/ Nr :dirt rr5 i.ir IOU r'r-
airarr n;- d;_•r irydrauts.
rrahl nnrl;L'uurl,', runlrirr
A dry hydrant. a nnuprrs-
srn and pier .syst,,III installed
in a body „r wary-, allows
taut; tracks fir tier drpart-
urrut pumpers at fltr road-
side to ns(' suction to nhtrtin
tine wafer
12
)l:1\t':l fllr,(\Illl:llc'I\ ' 'Hat's la �o.o
e 'ads. AV'illl the current rule of road
I11:11 nlrllail e'e wort,. the project
achieved an eslilllaled animal energy
sayings of over./lgl,llull ,gallons of feel.
Improved rural fin• pr„section is
also achieved with the use of Ilre hr -
drank hr providing. wafer Intlll Ihr eS
n sourct's—H11(1')),I:Ikrs-
creeks, or irrigation ditches. Eire de-
partment tang:er (ruck can tap these
'pater supplies during rural lire -fight-
ing (-boars and reduce the :unotuu u(
time a (valet tanker would spend travel-
ing back an(1 lorllt between the tire site
anti the originating water source.
Tins reduction in tint. may help de-
crease homeowners. insurance in
those rural areas. Eor instance, a Ele-
ct -case in an areas rating (runt H to 5
would result in a drop of 2.) percent in
commercial fire [aleS for that district,
according to the Property Insurance
Association of Louisiana.
In November 199-1, when Lincoln
Parish Fire Protection District No. 1 re-
ceived a Class ti rating —dropping from
Class ill —the change ill commercial
rates was approximately Sts percent.
The doh,:nl line of the pilot project,
known as the Rural Road Maintenance
Project. was impressive: over a hall mil-
lion gallons of fuel saved annually
tllroughout the nine parishes. In addi-
tion Ai I)NI1a cooperative agreement
l� s1 II�,IIa:: over a Iw/i-rear period.
Tr:lilbl;ver, Inc. conlril(uted .Hk ii1i1 ill
volunteerism awl ill -kind donations.
innin Ii, tidal dollar vain(' of the
Protect L. I...
"I 11's Energy Iand "Irail-
ir reel ed a n:uional mva d from
mo as, I H Energy lnr en-
ergy illllov:lliooll demon -Armed III the
Ilrnjeel." I,AOOl I\:Ihlll:li:-I.Ilis.
)\/ I'nr. lanl \I:nla.,er
I II), idOloti Ho lit Ill,' Current
till rthld,' 11 i'.'IlIl l! i. lilelllle':ll It) 'Alai
In -Hider .geographical scale. 11-ailhl:ver
is coordinating lgt Ille pr,u,rO1lll 111 various
parts of the statt' R-illl the coofo'ralloll
III other RCVIl areas: Northeast Delta
NC\D in \\"inn( horn. Twin Valley
RC('2D in Natchitoches. InlperialCal-
casieu RC,hII in Jennings. and Capital
(:C,\l) in (Denham Springs. Each of
these areas is implementing tht-' pro-
gram in multiple parishes. •
The current effort. known as the
Statewide Dry Hydrants Program. is
Ititniod H ;t I)VR c'noln ratiAr :tUret-
tuent Stu for the Itrst year and
$1 l:;.l 7 I for the second year. hrailbl:e
er. Inc. is contributing �.�.,o IS in in -
kind match for year one ami i-4.itl7.iott
in year two.
In a similar project recently. live
dry hydrants were hid for turnkey in-
stallations at a total cost of S40,)00. us-
ing that average of S8,000 per hydrant.
the statewide dry hydrant program will
have a total value of $16 million upon
completion.
Among tltt' man\ rrunicnt-
sponsore<I I,rnjrrt, cnrrenlh 'wing iin-
plentenird hi I-ouisi;inm this k clearly a
t; tto(!-Itt'\vs e\ample—a popular pro-
gram that combines energy savings
with iuytrovrd community services.
Further intorutition may be ob-
tainer by contacting I.isha kabala's-Fl-
lis of DNP at (air -1) :I I -1°tS or F. 11!-
zev Simmons of Trailblazer. Inc. at
Chien Curt Taylor den) and
Safety and flitin/;/,r U,mrer
Ed Jones of thin ,Forth Bicn-
rille Fire Protection District
book, up a pumper to a dov
hydrant.
4
rccvit*A1:I-!??'T:: .-'.1:-.:P.t'. .' 1,7 7...:;F:511:
'tt;x :aplo ;.tar=s u':un.:;I?C:.: i_;5t
March 100',
TIAV TTTDP T-TVTII� VVTC 1TFT DTT C r-nTrr TFT7 AT A 1T
Ll\ 1 1 11\L' 111 L1 V'-1,_ 1 l .L1.L'Ll 1_ �V _ •� L � y L.1\ y\LIA CX J
WILDFIRES
Writer: r.___ !Si.
i.:
ar,r.
COTTF.C:rST flO'd-- arm _ - -- =vI are. ,_?''_' - _- .. to fall asleep at night airi'rLore.
There was a time when the fear of a raging wildland fire kept this aging widow awake. Her rural home was
surrounded by dense grasslands that a cigarette. from a careless motorist easily could have invite d.
But Margaret (not her real name) found security in a dry fire hydrant installed on her property, says Joe LaBarbera
of the federal Resource and Deveiot ment Area ea headquartered in Brya
A dry h drarit i_: basically a non_pre;_ _'ed pipe installed at a pond of lake that gives tiref _nl_1_ters a way to
replenish their water supplies -- critical needinbattling fires in pastures and struchres.
The hydrant on Margaret's property is just one of nearly 1,000 such devices Installed throughout the state as a
result of the ongoing cooperative ort between arbera and the Texas Forest Service.
But many more are needed. Wildfires are a real fear of rural residents across the state, and do hycr-ant_ offer real
security, he says. LaBarbera. who !':orris with rural communities in 10 counties on economic development efforts,
brought the idea to Texas from Al :bats in 1991. Within a ^ear he had the support o tie state f?,
gained � ' I 1_ :are ''fiat
service, which is charged with rural firefi;htrrrg
The Texas Forest Service helps fund dry hydrants through its Rural Community Fire Protection cost -share
program The program, open to fire departments in communities of less than 10,000 people. par: a percentre of
the cost of specific equipment, such as :rucks and slip- on pump_, says Mark Stanford. head ofthe !rural Fire
Defense Section of the state forest service's Forest Fire Control Beparnnent ul Lufdn.
When a dry hydrant request is approved, the program pays for the hydrant part. about S250, and the fire
department agrees to cover the cost of installation, Stanford says.
With the forest service as a panther. the pro ect took off"like wildfire," LaBarbera says.
Within three years, the Texas Forest Service funded more than 400 dry hydrants. And in late 1994, the project got
a boost from the Governor's Energy Office in the farm of a one-time $200,000 grant, Stanford says.
The gam funds came from the federal oil overcharge account -- money penalized oil companies paid the
government for price gouging at the as pumps in the 1970s. Since the money cant be refunded directly to
consumers, it was divided among the states. hi Texas the finds are administered by the Governor's State Energy
Conservation Program to fiend nroiects that help conserve fuel
nt.? nab ow: tutu :du';to .<:-7?S '; r -
To qualify for the grant, LaBarbera showed that dry hydrants save fuel in two ways:
First, access to water close to a fire scene means less travel time and less fuel for fire truck_. Secondly, the use of
pond or lake water instead of treated water is less costly.
"It costs money to purif.' water " LaBarbera says. "We don't need to be fighting fires with drinking water,''
LaBarbera'LaBarbera's argument worked, and the gram was awarded in the summer of 1994. The Texas Forest Service
handled the applications and by autumn nine counties were approved for the cost -share finding. The grant pays for
the dry hydrant, and the county government pays for installation. Because the initial requests didn't use all the
grant money. a number of individual dry hydrant recuests also are being funded, Stanford says.
To date, the grant has fancied nearly 500 dry hydrant requests bringing the total number of hydrants close to 1.000
in about 50 counties. The grant funds are heiptng Rusk County become the first to plan for countywide covera?e,
which means one city hydrant every three sauare miles. Stanford says.
Dry hydrants have been around for years, but they only recently caught on, he. says.
"It really goes hand -in -hand with the increase in the number of rural fire departments in the last decade," Stanford
says. As the rural population grows_ so does interest in improving rural fire protection, he says.
"It's a real common-sense idea that doesn't cost a lot of money," Stanford says of dry hydrants. "Rural residents
see the value in that"
And so does the Texas Forest Sen-ice. It has relaxed iL definition of a dry hydrant to accommodate resident
across the state.
For example, in the Panhandle where there isn't much s=urface water, a dry hydrant could be a device that enable_
firefighters to access water through irrigation wells. And in arid West Texas the idea was adapted to fit rock
stock tanks, he says.
"Our goal is to get available water for rural fire debartments." Stanford says, noting the state forest service won't
ignore any workable idea that helps reach that goal. "Who's going to get hung, up cm definit•onsT�
Stanford said that rural residents interested in information about dry hydrants can find out more at the nearest local
forest service office.
-30-
To Texas Forest Set -vice Home Page
To Texas ASM Agriculture News Home Page
DRY FIRE HYDRANT
Water Delivery Systems
1. h �� �� �� l �j II if fit i�'4'If Uf bib!�i
•
http/w+.v+r.:lb.ccm/m:/watu/wat<_ram ;h•-
Schlrurhberger
Water Division
North Ame ica
Meters 6:
System_
Residential
Meters
Commercial
Meters
Systems
Fire Products
Water
'\ Ianaement-US
Questions
C ommentsn
Rural water delivers' systems for urban fire protection
Many rival property owners do not have the luxury of having
pressurized water systems and a fire hydrant on every corner in
their communities. SchlumberQer rural fire hydrants can
provide the same level of fire protection for rural families that
pressurized fire hydrants provide to urban property owners.
What are rural al fire hydrants?
Rural fire hydrants, otherwise know as "dry hydrants," are
non -pressurized fire hydrants that can be installed on farm
ponds, lakes, streams, rivers, ar below -Found tanks.
The heart of the "dry hydrant" system is the head assembly and
external strainer assembly. The head assembly provides the fire
department with the appropriate NST thread connection, which
allows firefighters to connect their suction hose to the hydrant
system and pump water. The strainer is the intake device which
is affixed to the end of the pipe and is positioned at an optimal
location in the water source.
How vin ai dry u%%rants are used.
Dr;hydrants basically used in rural firer c".,,t two
dWer ent iyaas. First- if a dry hydrant is located within a few
hundred feet of the fire site, fire hoses can be stretched from a
fire truck to a burning structure and water can be pumped
directly from the water source to fight the fire. Second, if the
fire site is located beyond the reach of fire hoses, tanker tracks
be filled i _
call at a dry hydrant site and water can be shuffled to
the location of the tire.. network of dry hydrants, one every
three square miles, is required to reduce the travel time of
tanker trucks and promote an efficient water shuttle operation.
Benefits of Rural Hvdrants.
Drys fire hydrant systems can be plumbed several hundred feet
from water sources to all weather roadways, allowing fire
departments to pump water quickly and easily. In cold climate
areas, water can be pumped from frozen ponds without the time
constraints and risks involved in cutting through ice. Dry fire
,.:d:ant> enable fir.:!_;: ----_.._ t:.._. um; cited \vale: i:'.'_ht
.d ever- and pi tc utility water
svztei:: n' hydrants are economical to install 2nd can be used
t" __: t' .,. nt pressurized hydrants for farce demean s:ruat:cns
�c :c -me r _o_ dn, fire hydrants can i w'er home r.r...n.:r
1 , et.`iuLi .. n._{p ;,Ira . ,._ and ilr e /.! e .... f; �>e
T Schiumber_., Home
Release No. 0523.96
Tom Amontree (202) 7204623
Joel Berg (202) 720-5746
USDA AMERICORPS RURAL FIRE PROJECTS SAVE PROPERTY AND MONEY
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30, 1996 --Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman announced
today that rural fire protection projects implemented by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's AmeriCorps national service program have protected property from
destruction and will save rural homeowners in four states an estimated $48
million in one year.
Given that the total governmental cost for the AmeriCorps fire protection
projects —including construction materials and education awards for the
AmenCorps members —was $1.7 million, the projects will return $27 to rural
homeowners yearly for every dollar spent on the program by the government The
attached chart shows the economic benefits of "dry fire hydrant" projects
implemented by USDA's AmeriCorps program in Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina,
and Vermont.
Dry fire hydrants are special hooks -ups that allow rural fire departments
to obtain water for fire fighting in areas that do not have existing water mains
that can provide adequate pressure. The installation of such dry fire hydrants
has saved homes and commercial properties from destruction and is helping an
estimated 312,000 rural homeowners reduce their insurance rates. Some
homeowners will have their rates reduced by up to $250 yearly. The rates are
lowered by insurance companies as a result of an improvement in fire
classification ratings in the counties or fire districts in which the dry fire
hydrants are installed.
"This is another example of how USDA's AmeriCorps program meets critical
local needs while promoting community, opportunity, and responsibility, but that
the program is putting dollars directly back into the pockets of homeowners,"
Glickman said. "This program has already saved property —and possibly
lives —at the same time it has helped families reduce their insurance payments.
It is precisely because of success stories such as this that the President has
been winning increasing bi-partisan support for his AmeriCorps program."
The AmerCorps dry fire hydrant projects are jointly sponsored by Resource
Conservation and Development Councils, USDA's Natural Resources Conservation
Service, the Corporation for National Service, and local fire departments.
AmeriCorps, President Clinton's national service program passed with bipartisan
support by Congress, engages over 20,000 Americans of diverse backgrounds in
performing service that meets critical community needs in return for an award
which may be used for post -secondary education.
NOTE: USDA news releases and media advisories are available on the Internet.
Access the USDA Home Page on the World Wide Web at http://www.usda.gov
USDA AMERICORPS DRY FIRE HYDRANT PROJECTS
STATE -BY -STATE RESULTS
As of September 1996
Arkansas Louisiana South Carolina Vermont TOTAL
# of dry fire 30 848* 99 44 1,021
hydrant installations
performed and/or
coordinated by
AmeriCorps/USDA
Total federal/ $44,05 $1,523,024** $113,200 $60,000 $1,740,274
state cost of
program
# of structures
directly or
indirectly saved
from damage by dry
fire hydrants
0
10 1
4 15
Estimated value N/A $730,000 $75,000 $400,000 $1,205,000
of the structures
saved
Estimated number
of homeowners to
to obtain lower
insurance rate
2,250
300,000 9,000
1,600 312,850
Average yearly $200 $150 $250 $76 $169
insurance rate
reduction for
homeowners
Total estimated $450,000 $45,000,000 $2,250,000 $121,600 $47,821,600
yearly savings for
homeowners
Number of dollars
returned to
homeowners for
each dollar spent
by the government
$9.22
$29.03 $19.54
$7.69 $27.17
* 1,167 additional dry fire hydrants are planned for installation next year in Louisiana.
** The cost of the Louisiana program covers the installation of the total 2015 dry fire hydrants
Twin Peaks Seed & Grain, LLC
Jim Hergenreder/Mike Stonehocker
12770 Weld County Road 7
Longmont, CO 80504
October 14, 1996
ISO Commercial Risk Services, Inc.
111 North Canal Street, Suite 950
Chicago, IL 60606
Attention: Mike Ramirez
Dear Mr. Ramirez:
As per our conversation today, I am requesting information concerning the recognition of
suction water supplies/dry fire hydrants as a reliable water source for fire fighting.
We are currently in the process of building a new commercial facility and do not have the
convenience of a pressurized water line to the property. We would like to incorporate a suction
water supply into our design for fire protection. This system would be designed according to the
NFPA standards and could provide a year-round source of water. •
We would appreciate any information that you can provide concerning the recognition of dry
fire hydrants, as opposed to pressurized systems, by your organization. If you require any
additional information, please feel free to contact me at (303) 678-0221. Thank you for your
time and consideration of this matter. Please feel free to FAX your response to (970) 535-4347.
Sincerely,
I
James E. Hergenreder
ISO Commercial Risk Services, Inc. • 111 N. Canal Street • Suite 950
Chicago, II 60606.7270 • (312) 930-0070 • FAX: (312) 930-0017
October 14, 1996
Mr. James E. Hergenreder
12770 Weld County Road 7
Longmount, CO 80504
Dear Mr. Hergenreder:
We are in receipt of your request of October 14, 1996 for recognition of a suction water
supply which may be used in the calculation of property insurance premiums. We suggest
that you have the fire department make the request because they will have to provide
considerable information. They may ask you to determine certain specific information on
the suction water supply.
The purpose of our evaluation will be to obtain information needed to determine a fire
insurance classification which may be used in the calculation of property insurance
premiums. It will not be for property loss prevention or life safety purposes and no life
safety or property loss prevention recommendations will be made.
We hope that you will find the above information helpful.
Very truly yours,
Michael Ramirez
Customer Service Representative
A subsidiary of Insurance Services Ollice, Inc.
n1 �l,C li 4 tr' ei-C7-
ISO COMMERCIAL RISK SERVICES, INC.
1335 S. COLORA00 BLVD. SUITE 305 DENVER. CO 80222 13031 J3?3311
PUBLIC PROTECTION SURVEY INForouciON
FOR
SLETION SYA1' a SUPPLIES
A suction water supply may be recognized for fire fighting when
there is a gocd volume of water available, it is readily
accessible by the fire department apparatus all the year and it
can be expected to be available all the year including during
droughts.
Please supply the following information:
General
1. A street map, with a scale, showing the locations of the
suction water supply point(s) and of the responding fire
station(s).
Suction Water Supply
For -essuction water supply point:
2. The location (address) with the nearest intersecting street
name of the pumping site.
3. For an impounded supply, cistern, tank or other storage
facility; the minimum storage available (at not over 15 -foot
lift) during a drought with an average 50 -year frequency,
(certified by a registered professional engineer). The
maximum rate obtainable using the pumper(s) and hose
arrangement scheduled to be used at this point (support by
test results).
4. For a supply from a flowing stream, the minimum rate of flow
available (at not over 15 -foot lift) during a drought with
an average 50 -year frequency (certified by a registered
professional engineer). The maximum rate obtainable using
the pumper(s) and hose arrangement scheduled to be used at
this point (supported by test results).
5. A description of the year-round accessibility for pumper(s)
of the suction water supply point. Describe the arrangement
of a dry hydrant, if provided.
6. The number of purgers that can operate simultaneously at the
pumping site.
7. A statement, signed by the owner of any private suction
water supply point, authorizing its use by the fire
department.
8. When the use of a suction water supply point at times
A SUBSIDIARY OF INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE. INC.
depends upon creating an opening in ice, the maximum known
thickness of ice shall be given. A statement shall be
provided explaining the equipment used, apparatus carrying
the equipment, and the estimated time necessary to provide a
drafting site when the ice is at the maximum thickness.
Fire Deoartment
9. The name, mailing address and daytime telephone number of
the fire chief of the nearest responding fire department.
10. A list of apparatus responding on first alarm for fires in
buildings in the vicinity of the water supply points. When
the response to each suction water supply point.
11. A separate Apparatus and Equipment list for each apparatus
listed in Number 10 above. Please use the attached forms.
12. List the length, and diameter of the hard suctions carried
by each pumper and describe their stainers.
Hello