HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.packet.09242014 - Emergency Reso WaterSMART Grant AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
WORK SESSION DATE: September 24,2014
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Emergency Resolution WaterSMART Grant Award, Second Reading
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Cathy Hall, Solid Waste Manager
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The Pitkin County Solid Waste Center was awarded a grant from the United States Bureau
of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study to determine the best use of the effluent from
proposed septic wastewater treatment system. The US Bureau of Reclamation requires the
Pitkin County BOCC to approve the award of the grant. On September 2, 2014 the US
Bureau of Reclamation informed us they require a signed board resolution approving the
grant by September 19, 2014 to receive funding by the end of the Federal Government
fiscal year,hence the need for an emergency resolution.
BACKGROUND:
Residential septic waste from Pitkin County, Colorado is hauled many miles away for treatment
because there are no nearby treatment facilities. The high cost of treatment causes homeowners
to delay proper maintenance of their systems. We risk potential environmental accident to
shallow aquifers and nearby rivers and streams at both the source and on the road as waste is
transported over slick mountain roads in winter.
To address this issue, Pitkin County is building a modular wastewater treatment facility to offer a
local option and proposes studying the feasibility of innovative uses for the effluent. One such is
the sale of effluent to construction and earthmoving companies to replace their current purchases
of potable water for commercial/industrial purposes more suitably served by non-potable water.
An estimated one to two million gallons of potable water per year might be so diverted.
A copy of the grant proposal is attached.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
Conserve natural resources and environment of the Flourishing Natural and Built Environment Core Focus
Area of the Pitkin County Strategic Plan.
KEY DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Does the BOCC support the award of the US Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART Grant?
BUDGETARY IMPACT:
The SWC requested$124,259 to conduct the feasibility study.
RECOMMENDED BOCC ACTION:
Direct Staff to accept the BOCC approval as an addendum to the US Bureau of Reclamation
WaterSMART Grant proposal.
EMERGENCY RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
AUTHORIZING THE PITKIN COUNTY SOLID WASTE CENTER TO ACCEPT A
GRANT AWARD FROM THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY UNDER THE WATERSMART:
TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM FOR THE USE OF
EFFLUENT FROM THE SEPTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
RESOLUTION NO. -2014
Recitals
1. Whereas, Pitkin County wishes to protect the environment through the education
of its community, diversion of recoverable resources, and proper waste
management.
2. Whereas, the Pitkin County Solid Waste Center was awarded a grant to conduct a
feasibility study on the use of the clean effluent produced by the proposed
wastewater septic system to be installed at the Landfill in Spring 2015. The
proposed feasibility study will determine the best management practice for the
over 2 million gallons of clean effluent the treatment system is projected to
produce.
3. Whereas, Pitkin County wishes to recover useable clean effluent from the
wastewater septic treatment system for onsite uses at the Landfill as well as
potential sale of effluent for beneficial offsite uses.
4. Whereas, reuse of a clean effluent would offset the imported water use required
for Landfill operations. Operations include: landfill access road dust control,
water use for restroom facilities, water to supplement compost operations,water
for proposed demonstration gardens around the landfill buildings.
5. Whereas, the Solid Waste Manager prepared the Grant application and supports
the award.
6. Whereas, the County Manager has reviewed the Grant application and supported
the submission of the Solid Waste Center's application.
7. Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners finds it would be in the best
interest of the citizens of Pitkin County to accept grant award that would assist in
determining the most effective, environmentally sustainable, innovative method
for dealing with this valuable water resource.
1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Pitkin County, Colorado that: Pitkin County accepts the award of the grant from the US
Bureau of Reclamation.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED AS AN EMERGENCY RESOLUTION ON
THE DAY OF 2014 AND SET FOR CONFIRMATORY
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DAY OF , 2014.
NOTICE OF CONFIRMATORY PUBLIC HEARING AND TITLE AND SHORT
SUMMARY OF THE EMERGENCY RESOLUTION PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN
TIMES WEEKLY ON THE DAY OF , 2014.
NOTICE OF CONFIRMATORY PUBLIC HEARING AND THE FULL TEXT OF THE
RESOLUTION POSTED ON THE OFFICIAL PITKIN COUNTY WEBSITE
www.aspenpitkin.com ON THE DAY OF 2014.
CONFIRMED AT A CONFIRMATORY PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DAY
OF 2014.
PUBLISHED BY TITLE AND SHORT SUMMARY, AFTER CONFIRMATORY
PUBLIC HEARING, IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY ON THE DAY OF
, 2014.
POSTED BY TITLE AND SHORT SUMMARY ON THE OFFICIAL PITKIN
COUNTY WEBSITE www.aspenpitkin.com ON THE DAY
OF 2014
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By By:
Jeanette Jones Robert A. Ittner, Jr. Chair
Deputy County Clerk
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM: MANAGER APPROVAL
John Ely, County Attorney Jon Peacock, County Manager
2
11111
WaterSMART Title XVI
Feasibility Studies for Water
Reclamation and Reuse Projects
Pitkin County Clean Water Effluent Re-Use Feasibility Study
Applicant and Study Manager
Contact:
Cathleen Hall, Solid Waste Manager
Pitkin County Solid Waste Center
76 Service Center Road
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Email: cathy.hall@pitkincounty.com
Phone: 970-429-2882
Fax: 970-923-2043
Prepared For:
US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation
Policy and Administration
Funding Opportunity Number: R14AS00030
Prepared By:
Pitkin County Colorado, Solid Waste Center
DUNS Number: 085278844
OMB number 4040-0002
Expiration Date:S(3112014
APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE SF-424-MANDATORY
1.a.Type of Submission: 1.b.Frequency: 1.d.Version:
El Application Annual ®initial ❑Resubmission [2Revision ❑Update
Plan Quarterly 2.Date Received: STATE USE ONLY:
C] Funding Request ®Other
3.Applicant Identifier: 5.Date Received by State:
Other
Other(specify): Other(specify):
As funding is available 4a.Federal Entity Identifier. 6.State Application Identifier:
4b.Federal Award Identifier:
1.c.Consolidated AppllcationlPlanlFunding Request?
Yes ❑ No ® Explanation
•
7.APPLICANT INFORMATION:
a.Legal Name:
Pit kin County
b.Employer/Taxpayer identification Number(EINmN): c.Organizational DUNS:
84-6000794 0852788440000
d.Address:
Streetl: Street2
530 E Main Street
City: County/Parish
Aspen Pitkin County
State: Province:
CO: Colorado
Country: Zip/Postal Code.
USA: UNITED STATES 1
e.Organizational Unit:
Department Name: Division Name:
Solid Waste Center
f.Name and contact information of person to be contacted on matters involving this submission:
Prefix: First Name: Middle Name:
Ms. Cathleen Paige
Last Name: Suffix:
Hall
Title: Solid Waste Manager
Organizational Affiliation:
Pitkin County
Telephone Number. 970-929-2882 Fax Number: 970-923-2043
Email: cathy.hall8pitkincounty.cora
APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE SF-424-MANDATORY
8a.TYPE OF APPLICANT:
B: County Government
Other(specify):
b.Additional Description:
9.Name of Federal Agency:
Bureau of Reclamation
10.Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:
CFDA Title:
11.Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project:
Feasibility Study for the Use of Clean Effluent from the Pitkin County Landfill Septic wastewater
Treatment System
12.Areas Affected by Funding:
Roaring Fork Valley, Pitkin, Eagle and Garfield Counties
13.CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF:
a.Applicant: b.Program/Project
CO-003 CO-003
Attach an additional list of Program/Project Congressional Districts if needed.
Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
14.FUNDING PERIOD:
a.Start Date: b.End Date:
10/01/2014 04/30/2016
15.ESTIMATED FUNDING:
a.Federal(S): b.Match(S):
149,500.00 898,733.00
16.IS SUBMISSION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS?
a.This submission was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on.
b.Program is subject to E.O.12372 but has not been selected by State for review.
c.Program is not covered by E.Q.12372. j
APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE SF-424-MANDATORY
17.Is The Applicant Delinquent On Any Federal Debt?
Yes No® Explanation
18.By signing this application,I certify(1)to the statements contained in the list of certifications"and(2)that the statements herein
are true,complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge.I also provide the required assurances**and agree to comply with any
resulting terms if 1 accept an award.I am aware that any false,fictitious,or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to
criminal,civil,or administrative penalties.(U.S.Code,Title 218,Section 1001)
"l Agree
This list of certifications and assurances,or an Internet site where you may obtain this list,Is contained in the announcement or agency specific
instructions.
Authorized Representative:
Prefix: First Name:
Ms. Phylis
Middle Name:
Last Name:
Mattice
Suffix: Title:
Assistant County Manager
Organizational Affiliation
Pitkin County
Telephone Number.
970-920-520B
Fax Number:
970-920-519B
Email:
fphylice.mattice@pitkincounty.com
Signature of Authorized Representative:
[� AJ-
Date Signed
05/02/2014
Attach supporting documents as specified In agency instructions.
Add Attachments Delete Attachments View Attachments
APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE SF-424-MANDATORY
Consolidated ApplicatlonlPlanlFunding Request Explanation:
' l
Executive Summary
May 6, 2014
Pitkin County Solid Waste Center
Snowmass, Pitkin County, Colorado
Residential septic sewage from Pitkin County, Colorado is hauled many miles away for treatment
because there are no nearby treatment facilities. The high cost of treatment causes homeowners
to delay proper maintenance of their systems. We risk potential environmental accident to
shallow aquifers and nearby rivers and streams at both the source and on the road as waste is
transported over slick mountain roads in winter.
To address this issue, Pitkin County is building a modular wastewater treatment facility to offer a
local option and proposes studying the feasibility of innovative uses for the effluent. One such is
the sale of effluent to construction and earthmoving companies to replace their current
purchases of potable water for commercial/industrial purposes more suitably served by non-
potable water. An estimated one million gallons of potable water per year might be so diverted.
This 18-month Clean Water Effluent Re-Use Feasibility Study will be completed March 2016.
APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE SF-424-MANDATORY
Applicant Federal Debt Delinquency Explanation:
OMB Number 4040-0007
Expiration Date 08l30/2014
ASSURANCES -NON-CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response,including time for reviewing
instructions,searching existing data sources,gathering and maintaining the data needed,and completing and reviewing the collection of
information.Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing this burden,to the Office of Management and Budget,Paperwork Reduction Project(0348-0040),Washington, DC 20503.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. SEND
IT TO THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE SPONSORING AGENCY.
NOTE: Certain of these assurances may not be applicable to your project or program. If you have questions,please contact the
awarding agency. Further,certain Federal awarding agencies may require applicants to certify to additional assurances.
If such is the case,you will be notified.
As the duly authorized representative of the applicant, I certify that the applicant:
1. Has the legal authority to apply for Federal assistance Act of 1973, as amended(29 U.S.C.§794),which
and the institutional, managerial and financial capability prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicaps;(d)
(including funds sufficient to pay the non-Federal share the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended(42 U.
of project cost)to ensure proper planning, management S.0 §§6101-6107),which prohibits discrimination on
and completion of the project described in this the basis of age;(e)the Drug Abuse Office and
application. Treatment Act of 1972(P.L.92-255),as amended,
relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug
2 Will give the awarding agency,the Comptroller General abuse, (f)the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and
of the United States and, if appropriate,the State, Alcoholism Prevention,Treatment and Rehabilitation
through any authorized representative, access to and Act of 1970(P.L.91-616),as amended, relating to
the right to examine all records, books,papers,or nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or
documents related to the award, and will establish a alcoholism, (g)§§523 and 527 of the Public Health
proper accounting system in accordance with generally Service Act of 1912(42 U.S.C.§§290 dd-3 and 290
accepted accounting standards or agency directives, ee-3),as amended,relating to confidentiality of alcohol
and drug abuse patient records;(h)Title VIII of the Civil
3. Will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from Rights Act of 1968(42 U.S.C.§§3601 et seq.),as
using their positions for a purpose that constitutes or amended, relating to nondiscrimination in the sale,
presents the appearance of personal or organizational rental or financing of housing;(i)any other
conflict of interest,or personal gain. nondiscrimination provisions in the specific statute(s)
under which application for Federal assistance is being
4. Will initiate and complete the work within the applicable made;and,(j)the requirements of any other
time frame after receipt of approval of the awarding nondiscrimination statute(s)which may apply to the
agency. application.
5. Will comply with the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 7. Will comply,or has already complied,with the
1970(42 U.S.C.§§4728-4763)relating to prescribed requirements of Titles II and III of the Uniform
standards for merit systems for programs funded under Relocation Act of Assistance and Real4 )whichPropert Acquisition r
one of the 19 statutes or regulations specified In Policies of 1970(P.L.91-fi46}which provide for
fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced or
Appendix A of OPM's Standards for a Merit System of
Personnelwhose property is acquired as a result of Federal or
Administration(5 C.F.R.900, Subpart F).
federally-assisted programs.These requirements
apply to all interests in real property acquired for
6. Will comply with all Federal statutes relating to project purposes regardless of Federal participation in
nondiscrimination.These Include but are not limited to: purchases.
(a)Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(P.L. 88-352)
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race,color B. Will comply, as applicable,with provisions of the
or national origin;(b)Title IX of the Education Hatch Act(5 U.S.C.§§1501-1508 and 7324-7328)
Amendments of 1972,as amended(20 U.S.C.§§1681- which limit the political activities of employees whose
1683, and 1685-1686),which prohibits discrimination on principal employment activities are funded in whole
the basis of sex;(c)Section 504 of the Rehabilitation or in part with Federal funds.
Previous Edition Usable Standard Form 424E(Rev.7-97)
Authorized for Local Reproduction Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102
9. Will comply,as applicable,with the provisions of the Davis- 13. Will assist the awarding agency in assuring compliance
Bacon Act(40 U S.0 §§276a to 276a-7),the Copeland Act with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
(40 U.S.0 §276c and 18 U.S.C. §874),and the Contract Act of 1966,as amended(16 U.S.C.§470),EO 11593
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act(40 U.S.C.§§327- (identification and protection of historic properties), and
333), regarding labor standards for federally-assisted the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of
construction subagreements 1974(16 U.S.C.§§469a-1 et seq.).
10 Will comply, if applicable,with flood Insurance purchase 14. Will comply with P.L.93-348 regarding the protection of
requirements of Section 102(a)of the Flood Disaster human subjects involved In research, development,and
Protection Act of 1973(P.L.93-234)which requires related activities supported by this award of assistance.
recipients in a special flood hazard area to participate in the 15. Will comply with the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of
program and to purchase flood insurance if the total cost of1966(P.L.89-544, as amended,7 U.S.C. §§2131 et
insurable construction and acquisition is$10,000 or more. seq.)pertaining to the care,handling, and treatment of
11 Will comply with environmental standards which may be warm blooded animals held for research,teaching,or
prescribed pursuant to the following (a)Institution of other activities supported by this award of assistance.
environmental quality control measures under the National 16. Will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning
Environmental Policy Act of 1969(P.L.91-190)andPrevention Act(42 U.S.C.§§4801 et seq.)which
Executive Order(EO)11514;(b)notification of violating prohibits the use of lead-based paint in construction or
facilities pursuant to EO 11738, (c)protection of wetlands rehabilitation of residence structures.
pursuant to EO 11990;(d)evaluation of flood hazards in
floodplains In accordance with EO 11988;(e)assurance of 17. Will cause to be performed the required financial and
project consistency with the approved State management compliance audits in accordance with the Single Audit
program developed under the Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1996 and OMB Circular No.A-133,
Act of 1972(16 U.S.C. §§1451 et seq.),(f)conformity of "Audits of States, Local Governments,and Non-Profit
Federal actions to State(Clean Air)Implementation Plans Organizations."
under Section 176(c)of the Clean Air Act of 1955,as
amended(42 U.S.C.§§7401 et seq);(g)protection of 18. Will comply with all applicable requirements of all other
underground sources of drinking water under the Safe Federal laws,executive orders, regulations,and policies
Drinking Water Act of 1974,as amended(P.L.93-523); governing this program.
and,(h)protection of endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973,as amended(P L.93- 19. Will comply with the requirements of Section 106(g)of
205) the Trafficking Victims Protection Act(TVPA)of 2000,as
amended(22 U.S.C.7104)which prohibits grant award
12 Will comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of recipients or a sub-recipient from(1)Engaging in severe
1968(16 U.S C §§1271 et seq.)related to protecting forms of trafficking in persons during the period of time
components or potential components of the national stem, that the award is In effect(2)Procuring a commercial
wild and scenic rivers system sex act during the period of time that the award is in
effect or(3)Using forced labor in the performance of the
award or subawards under the award.
SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICIAL TITLE
Assistant County Manager
/4
APPLICANT O GANIZATION DATE SUBMITTED
Pitkin County 05/05/2014
Standard Form 424E(Rev.7-97)Back
Contents
Executive Summary 2
Background 3
Technical Study Description 4
Evaluation Criteria 4
Evaluation Criterion 1: Statement of Problems and Needs 4
Evaluation Criterion 2: Water Reclamation and Reuse Opportunities 5
Evaluation Criterion 3: Description of Potential Alternatives 7
Evaluation Criterion 4: Stretching Water Supplies 9
Evaluation Criterion 5: Environment and Water Quality 10
Evaluation Criterion 6: Legal and Institutional Requirements 12
Evaluation Criterion 7: Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency 12
Evaluation Criterion 8: Watershed Perspective 13
Required Permits or Approvals 13
Funding Plan and Letters of Support 14
Table 1. Summary of non-Federal and Federal Funding Sources 14
Letters of Support 15
Official Resolution 15
Pitkin County Clean Water Effluent Re-Use Feasibility Study Project Personnel 15
Budget Narrative 17
Table 2. Pitkin County Clean Water Effluent Re-Use Feasibility Study 18
Budget and Funding Breakdown Summary 18
Table 3. Partnership Table 19
1
Executive Summary
May 6, 2014
Pitkin County Solid Waste Center
Snowmass, Pitkin County, Colorado
Residential septic sewage from Pitkin County, Colorado is hauled many miles away for treatment
because there are no nearby treatment facilities. The high cost of treatment causes homeowners
to delay proper maintenance of their systems. We risk potential environmental accident to
shallow aquifers and nearby rivers and streams at both the source and on the road as waste is
transported over slick mountain roads in winter.
To address this issue, Pitkin County is building a modular wastewater treatment facility to offer a
local option and proposes studying the feasibility of innovative uses for the effluent. One such is
the sale of effluent to construction and earthmoving companies to replace their current
purchases of potable water for commercial/industrial purposes more suitably served by non-
potable water. An estimated one million gallons of potable water per year might be so diverted.
This 18-month Clean Water Effluent Re-Use Feasibility Study will be completed March 2016.
2
{ z
ItGle�odSprin s Roaring Fork Watershed
..T.t
, ,",
a1 A:��
.Carbondale :i' 1 4!(1 ' t fI
r rj -1, .Le ._ 3,-
f - - il« (I -‘•r,/1 , .Thomasville .4:y4 "10 ,, . -(C'L, ;,.---% ' ' r , , .'?411" ---:-,-',...2 il JP di- ,........
f'4_ 1, :f 4-i ' , ,
.Snowmass., A""" ''-- ! j�''"►y. t
�, a.g y j Village •Aspen ^_ ti
f,
filr ,LU95;
ar- ';,�`� off# ril
,(V All i _,. . 4� ,r.
wi i
„, . .
R Aa1N0 ROES N__,
Scale(miles)
CONSERVANC 0 5 10
Copyright 2013.S.K.Mason Environmental,LLC
Background
The Pitkin County Solid Waste Center sits eight miles west of Aspen, Colorado on Colorado
Highway 82 and just west of the continental divide. We have been in operation since the mid-
1960s and the current operation includes a landfill, recycling collection (including e-waste, metal
and tire diversion,) a ten-acre compost operation (including food waste composting), aggregate
crushing,topsoil screening, household hazardous waste collection, and aggregate, compost,
topsoil and potting mix sales.
We are a rural and remote resort community with a year-round population of about 10,000
people swelling to 25,000 at the busiest times of our tourist season. Our economy is three
pronged: tourism, real estate development and the non-profit sector that employs much of our
labor force and conducts many special events. All are very demanding on public infrastructure
systems, including our water and waste treatment plants.
To remain a rural area Pitkin County chose to adopt rigorous growth control measures, including
a stringently maintained urban service boundary, in the 1970s. Many of our homes, most of them
quite large, are not supplied with municipal sewage and must rely on septic systems. Pitkin
3
County Environmental Health Department estimates there are 3,000 such systems in just Pitkin
County and many more in our watershed.
And like most of the Western US, Colorado has experienced severe drought conditions. To
address this at the local level,this community has acted to support policies protecting our
watershed. For example, Pitkin County voters created the Healthy Rivers and Stream Fund and
Board in 2010 out of concern for in-stream flows and Front Range water diversions. Pitkin
County is a signatory to the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan adopted in 2009 from the work of the
Roaring Fork Conservancy. The plan is a comprehensive document about the proper
administration of our watershed and was consulted in the creation of this application.
Technical Study Description
Pitkin County Solid Waste Center in collaboration with local businesses, interested non-profit
organizations, our rural fire protection district and our municipal water utility and waste
treatment plant is sponsoring the Clean Water Effluent Re-use Feasibility Study for an area of
rural Colorado that encompasses portions of three counties: Pitkin, Eagle and Garfield—the
Roaring Fork River Watershed. (See image above.)
Our project will evaluate innovative re-uses for the estimated two million gallons of effluent
reclaimed from our new modular treatment facility for our own non-potable on-site use and with
the help of our private and public partners study creating a new water market and reclaimed
water distribution system to use effluent to replace potable water currently being used when
non-potable would suffice. We will also study innovative engineering solutions for the treatment
and storage of effluent and educate the public about wastewater treatment and effluent re-use.
We hope other rural and remote communities in our region can replicate our program.
Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Criterion 1: Statement of Problems and Needs
Here in Pitkin County we have many concerns about our watershed—the Roaring Fork River—
and its proper management. One is the potential for contamination from septage spills from
improper homeowner maintenance; another is the unnecessary use of potable water for non-
potable water purposes like dust suppression and soil compaction on roads,jobsites and
construction projects.
Each day septic haulers in our watershed transport residential septic waste up to nearly two
hundred miles—one way—to the nearest treatment facilities, the closest of which is in Glenwood
Springs, Colorado (45 miles,) or Rifle, Colorado (70 miles) or the most distant facility in Delta
County, Colorado (170 miles.) We are concerned some homeowners are not performing
adequate septic system maintenance due to the high cost of treatment. Potential system failure
and release of septage into ground and surface water, especially some of our shallow aquifers, is
of great concern as is the potential for an accident should a septic truck overturn due to icy
4
mountain roads in winter.
To provide residents with a better, more convenient, more affordable option and to further our
goals of water conservation and improved water quality the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) has authorized the installation of a modular wastewater treatment
system estimated to produce two millions gallons of effluent water available for re-use each year.
This is water currently being taken out of our watershed and hauled away. The question for us is:
what do we do with it? We think water reclamation and innovative re-use will provide a solution.
The Pitkin County Solid Waste Center (the landfill) does not have an on-site water supply. One
hundred percent of water used at the landfill for operations and employee use is supplied by
offsite water brought here and stored in tanks. Current water demands for landfill operations
are approximately 500,000 gallons a year for dust control, storage for fire mitigation,
supplemental moisture for the compost operation, and for use in onsite bathroom facilities. We
anticipate this demand to remain steady.
However,there are many other water demands in our community and they are growing. For
example, the City of Aspen Utilities Department, one of our supporters, estimates they sell about a
million gallons of potable water to construction and earth moving companies for dust
suppression soil compaction each year. Another of our partners, SGEarthmoving, a local
construction company, alone purchased nearly 400,000 gallons of potable water from the city for
that purpose in 2013. Demand for water will increase as the economy rebounds and our
construction industry picks up.
Our project seeks to increase our community's overall water supply by generating non-potable
water ourselves for our use and for others to use on their sites instead of using potable water.
Evaluation Criterion 2: Water Reclamation and Reuse Opportunities
(1) Describe how the feasibility study will investigate potential uses for reclaimed water
(e.g., environmental restoration,fish and wildlife,groundwater recharge, municipal,
domestic, industrial, agricultural,power generation, and recreation).
Pitkin County is working with SGM, Inc. the leading wastewater firm in western Colorado,the
Sustainable Practices Department of the University of Colorado, Boulder, and our local partners
and supporters to identify innovative uses for the estimated two million gallons of effluent we
expect to reclaim from septage each year.
Specifically,the Clean Water Effluent Re-Use Feasibility Study will study these potential uses:
■Environmental Restoration Purposes -We will investigate the potential impact of increasing
in-stream flows on the preservation of wildlife habitat in the Roaring Fork Valley.
■ Benefiting Fish and Wildlife -We will examine the impact bio-retention ponds might have
on attracting wildlife, such as bears and rare bird species.
■Municipal-We will look at the use of effluent for fire mitigation.We will also investigate the
5
projected tax revenues from selling effluent,the potential impact of septic waste disposal
fees, look at setting up a new public utility for septage and reclamation, and monitor the
impact a nearby facility has on residential septic system maintenance.
•Domestic-We will investigate the improvement timely septic system maintenance has on
septic system compliance and the how much potable water currently purchased for
construction purchases can be replaced with a non-potable source.
•Industrial Uses-We will examine the use of non-potable water at construction and other job
sites for industrial purposes—concentrating on the economic impact and amount of
reduction in use of potable water currently used for industrial purposes.
•Agricultural Uses-We will study the use of treated wastewater effluent for potential
irrigation of crops and dust suppression on rural roads.
•Power Generation Use-We will investigate the potential for incorporating low-head
hydropower and solar technologies into the design of the bio-retention treatment ponds.
•Recreational Uses-We will conduct a preliminary investigation of the permitting
requirements needed to contribute to increased in-stream flows with the effluent. For
example,we will study whether multiple cascading bio-retention ponds clean the effluent
sufficiently for this purpose.
•Educational Uses-We will explore the use of Living Machine technology and create a
community garden greenhouse to educate the public about the use of effluent for irrigation
and sludge for compost.
The initial investigation will include activities such as:
• Researching different bio-retention technologies to determine their applicability for our
purposes;
• Evaluating the retrofit or engineering requirements necessary for any technology or
new use we are considering relative to our specific needs as a remote landfill;
• Determining the permit requirements for the technologies and new uses we are
studying;
• Arriving at an initial cost/benefit analysis and comparison for each technology or new
use.
The partnership between the County, local groups and the University of Colorado will also yield
the development of a new curriculum based on our findings to help the region and state benefit
from our experience.
(2) Describe the potential water market available to use any recycled water that might be
produced upon completion of a Title XVI project, as well as methods to stimulate
recycled water demand and methods to eliminate obstacles for use of reclaimed water.
There is a large water market for the two million gallons of effluent we estimate we will be
producing annually. The Pitkin County landfill will cease hauling in 500,000 gallons of water a
year and use our effluent instead for our on-site operations like dust suppression and storage for
fire mitigation.
We have consulted with the major potable water supplier in our watershed, the City of Aspen
Water Department and secured them as a partner in this effort (see attached letter of support.)
6
They estimate they sell one million gallons of treated water from the Castle/Maroon Creek
headwaters each year to earthmoving and construction companies. Almost all this is for dust
suppression or soil compaction and can easily be replaced by a non-potable water source.
Please refer to the letter of support from SGEarthmoving outlining how much potable water they
purchase for this purpose. The letter further states they would prefer to buy non-potable water
from us as they expect it will be easier to get from our location and less expensive.
During this feasibility study our partners will help us identify other local building contractors,
earth movers, ranch owners, landscapers and other commercial interests to whom we can sell
effluent for their needs of fire mitigation, dust suppression and irrigation. We have a strong
educational program that will play an important role in our water re-use program as we wish to
use effluent for a constructed wetlands demonstration project to assist in our school outreach
and education programs and to irrigate our community garden greenhouse project.
If thorough examination suggests effluent is potentially acceptable for in-stream flows or
irrigation we would need to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES.) We would work closely with our partners, local authorities, interested parties and the
NPDES permitting authority to analyze if the discharge causes or has the "reasonable potential"
to cause or might contribute to an excursion of any water quality criteria in the receiving water.
Where effluent limits based on water quality standards are necessary,the permitting authority
would allocate responsibility for controls through waste load allocations and then effluent limits
in NPDES permits consistent with those waste load allocations.
Should it become necessary to stimulate demand for our effluent we would consult with the City
of Aspen Utilities Department to investigate using their innovative fee for use pricing structure to
consider making the purchase of potable water for non-potable purposes less attractive. We do
not expect the need to arise as we anticipate our effluent will be less expensive than potable
water and we are a more conveniently located source for many of our expected customers, many
of whom already use our facility in their day-to-day business.
(3) Describe the sources of water that will be investigated for potential reclamation,
including impaired surface and ground waters.
The source of all the water under consideration for reclamation and re-use is from residential
septic systems in Pitkin County and the Roaring Fork Valley. Our modular wastewater treatment
facility is being designed to accommodate 40,000 gallons a week and yield approximately two
million gallons of effluent a year. This septage is currently being taken out of our watershed for
treatment and we propose treating it here, reclaiming the water for re-use and substituting it (in
large part) for the potable water currently being purchased for industrial/construction purposes.
Evaluation Criterion 3: Description of Potential Alternatives
(1) Describe the objectives all alternatives will be designed to meet. What other water
supply alternatives will be investigated as part of the Title XVI feasibility study?
7
In the past we have considered alternatives such as a new well. But the focus of the project
description here is the wastewater treatment option because we have committed to the design
and construction of a modular facility to be on-line and producing effluent in 2015.
All alternatives are required to meet two primary objectives: 1) To provide a new water source
for non-potable water; and 2) To provide a means for water storage for the effluent. Comparative
analysis will include a preliminary exploration of the economic, environmental, and legal impacts
of each alternative.
Specifically,we will evaluate the:
• economic costs and benefits associated with each alternative;
• environmental permitting requirements associated with the alternative; and
• potential water rights issues relevant to each alternative option.
Legal implications related to water rights are expected to be an important aspect of the final
determination, especially given the history of negotiating water rights in the Roaring Fork Valley.
In fact, our preliminary research related to the well option indicated that water rights would need
to be purchased to serve our dust suppression needs, and/or bathroom use.
For example,when we explored the option of using an existing well on the property in 2013, the
pump test results determined the 1-2 gallons a minute flow would be adequate for water storage
for fire suppression,but inadequate for dust suppression or toilet and bathroom use. Therefore,
we would need to purchase water rights to meet our water supply needs with the well option,
something that wouldn't need to occur with the septic wastewater treatment option.
More importantly a new well fails to solve other community goals such as the need to treat
septage locally and retain that water in our watershed.
(2) Provide a general description of the proposed project that will be the subject of a Title
XVI feasibility study.
Pitkin County is building a modular wastewater treatment facility capable of producing two
million gallons of effluent a year. We wish to study the feasibility of innovate uses for the
effluent, including sale to construction and earthmoving companies to replace their current
annual consumption of an estimated one million gallons of potable water for purposes better
suited for non-potable water, such as dust suppression.
We are building such a facility because our residential septic sewage is hauled many miles away
for treatment because there are no nearby treatment facilities. Expense is causing homeowners
to delay proper maintenance and we fear we risk potential environmental accident to shallow
aquifers and nearby rivers and streams at the source and on the road as waste is hauled over
often treacherously slick mountain roads.
8
(3) Describe alternative measures or technologies for water reclamation, distribution, and
reuse that will be investigated as part of the Title XVI feasibility study.
In addition to the study of the use of our effluent to replace the potable water currently being
used for commercial/industrial purposes, the Clean Water Effluent Re-Use Feasibility Study will
examine alternative methods for re-use such as cascading bio-retention ponds, a constructed
wetlands, applicability of Living Machine technology and year-round irrigation for a community
garden greenhouse employing 4-season harvest technology. To our knowledge none of these re-
use technologies has been tried in an alpine,high alpine desert location using wastewater effluent
before.
Evaluation Criterion 4: Stretching Water Supplies
1. Describe the potential for the project to reduce,postpone, or eliminate the development
of new or expanded water supplies. Include description of any specific issues that will be
investigated or information that will be developed as part of the Title XVI feasibility
study.
Construction of our treatment facility will be complete in 2015 and will capture water currently
being taken out of our watershed for treatment. We consider this to be regaining"lost"water—
currently lost to us, soon to be available for re-use.
We hope to reduce both our water consumption at our landfill and help a significant sector of our
economy—construction—reduce theirs,to postpone indefinitely a new well, and to eliminate the
need for new or expanded water supplies. Our project will even ease demand for water now
supplied by the City of Aspen to construction and earthmoving companies.
Effluent from treatment will make us nearly self-sufficient from a water perspective, provide a
community and commercial benefit and be a model for other rural communities to follow.
Although the drilled water supply is still a viable option, it is not preferred as it intensifies use of
a scarce resource. We propose—and prefer—capturing and reusing what is now a lost resource.
(2) Describe the potential for the project to reduce or eliminate the use of existing diversions
from natural watercourses or withdrawals from aquifers. Include description of any
specific issues that will be investigated or information that will be developed as part of
the Title XVI feasibility study.
We propose studying how to eliminate an existing headwater diversion of nearly a million gallons
of water a year for treatment for industrial use and replacing that need with non-potable water
reclaimed from local residential septic systems.
The City of Aspen Utilities Department indicates that each year upwards of one million gallons of
fresh mountain water drawn from the headwaters of the Castle and Maroon Creeks and treated in
their facility is sold to construction and earthmoving companies for use on roads and building
projects for dust suppression and soil compaction. SGEarthmoving, a local construction company
9
and supporter of this proposal, confirms they alone purchased approximately 400,000 gallons of
water from the City of Aspen in 2013 nearly all of it for construction/industrial uses. (Refer to
COA and SGE letters of support.)
All involved think there is a better way. With the Pitkin County Clean Water Effluent Re-Use
Feasibility Study we hope to treat septic water from our county, capture it for re-use in our
county and negate the need for potable water drawn from headwaters in our county to be used
unnecessarily for a non-potable water purpose.
(3) Describe the potential for the project to reduce the demand on existing Federal water
supply facilities. Include description of any specific issues that will be investigated or
information that will be developed as part of the Title XVI feasibility study.
The proposed project does not involve any use of the Federal water supply.
Evaluation Criterion 5: Environment and Water Quality
(1) Describe the potential for the project to improve the quality of surface or groundwater,
including description of any specific issues that will be investigated or information that
will be developed as part of the Title XVI feasibility study.
We risk potential environmental accident to shallow aquifers and nearby rivers and streams
because residential septic sewage from Pitkin County Colorado is hauled many miles away for
treatment because there are no nearby treatment facilities. To address this issue, Pitkin County is
building a local treatment facility to reduce this risk to our surface and groundwater.
A less expensive, local treatment option will help avoid septic overflow that currently occurs in
residential properties as homeowners will be less reluctant to have their septic systems properly
maintained. Any reduction in septic overflow, especially for properties near rivers and streams,
will help protect local waterways and mitigate contamination to local groundwater supplies.
Proposed bio-retention ponds will help improve quality of surface and groundwater because they
will more thoroughly and naturally clean and filter the wastewater effluent than the modular
treatment system can alone. Further, we intend to incorporate different vegetative technologies
into the various bio-retention ponds, so we can test the performance of the different technologies
in a controlled environment.
In fact,we have designed this project as a demonstration project, to help monitor and evaluate
the use of innovative engineering technologies on the water treatment and storage of wastewater
effluent for non-potable purposes. Specifically, by incorporating bio-retention facilities,
constructed wetlands, irrigation for a community garden greenhouse and/or a Living Machine
biological filtering system.
Whenever possible,we will install monitoring equipment to help track and record the
performance of the water quality interventions, and will create protocols for data collection to
help measure outcomes and performance indicators. Laboratory sampling will be part of the
10
protocol testing the effectiveness of the treatment system on water quality. Results of any
laboratory analytical results will be disseminated and published in the feasibility study report.
An analysis of results will help the project team determine the most effective treatment options
and the best use of the water depending on the treatment quality.
Most importantly, if,through this study,we can substitute the use of non-potable water from our
effluent and eliminate the current estimated use of one million gallons a year of potable water
sold by the City of Aspen Utilities Department to construction and earthmoving companies for
dust suppression and soils compaction then our surface and groundwater will be one million
gallons better off.
(2) Describe the potential for the project to improve flow conditions in a natural stream
channel, including description of any specific issues that will be investigated or
information that will be developed as part of the Title XVI feasibility study.
One of the concepts the Clean Water Effluent Re-Use Feasibility Study will consider is the
potential for cleaning the effluent sufficiently well to be added back to the Roaring Fork River to
help improve in-stream flows on our gold medal fishing river. This is currently being done at the
wastewater treatment facility in Rifle, Colorado, and we would like to explore the possibility of
replicating that process in the Roaring Fork Valley. After all, since much of our local septic is
hauled to Rifle for treatment it is being added to in-stream flows there. We wish to study the
potential for treating our own waste here instead of exporting it to Rifle and beyond.
Although a thorough analysis of the feasibility of this option exceeds the scope of the proposed
project,we will conduct a preliminary assessment of environmental permitting requirements and
timeline scenarios to help guide initial planning. When possible, we will obtain information from
the Rifle wastewater treatment plant to identify and avoid pitfalls. We will explore the process for
obtaining an NPDES permit, and regulatory requirements for sampling and testing water quality.
(3) Describe the potential for the project to provide water or habitat for federally listed
threatened or endangered species, including description of any specific issues that will
be investigated or information that will be developed as part of the Title XVI feasibility
study.
We will consult with local project partners to assess the impact on existing wildlife. Specifically,
we will work with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the U.S. Forest Services to determine if
any federally listed threatened or endangered species might be impacted by the wastewater
reclamation project.
Our preliminary assessment indicates that wildlife could potentially be impacted by the project in
two different ways. First,the creation of bio-retention facilities might attract new or more
wildlife to the landfill property. Secondly, new composting processes we discover from the study
may alter the presence of local wildlife.
11
(4) Connect with local resources to identify potential wildlife impacts
While conducting the Clean Water Effluent Re-Use Feasibility Study,we will connect with local
resources to research and identify potential wildlife impacts.
Specifically,we will:
• Request technical assistance from state, federal, and local government agencies that provide
technical support (e.g.,the Colorado Division of Wildlife,the U.S. Forest Service,ACES,
Rock Bottom Ranch,Aspen TREE, Cozy Point Ranch, Healthy Rivers and Stream Board,
Roaring Fork Conservancy,Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City of Aspen Utilities);
• Research the possible species (i.e., federally listed or endangered species) that might be
impacted by the installation of a constructed wetland.;
• Liaise with local non-profit agencies aimed at the protection of local wildlife habitats.We
are actively expanding our list of project partners we can rely on during the
implementation of this project and subsequent phases;
• Engage local funders, corporations, and philanthropists to help raise matching funds for the
full-scale launch of the demonstration project.
Evaluation Criterion 6: Legal and Institutional Requirements
This project will assess and evaluate all legal requirements and/or permitting barriers to
implementing the Clean Water Effluent Re-Use Feasibility Study to help determine the best
course of action.
Specifically,we will evaluate the legal and permitting requirements related to:
• water right issues impacting implementation of the modular system and the treatment and
storage of the effluent;
• water rights and revenue implications related to selling effluent;
• managing the effluent supply for onsite and offsite uses
Pitkin County has two in-house attorneys who specialize in water law/rights. To date we have
had tremendous support from local institutions, such as the City of Aspen, other Pitkin County
departments,the local fire district, and local businesses. Please refer to the letters of support in
the attachments and Table 3.
Evaluation Criterion 7: Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
Low-head hydropower and solar cells will be evaluated as additional power sources to
supplement the power needs for the modular wastewater treatment facility. Low-head
hydropower would consist of small-scale hydro-powered turbines running off the effluent as it
flows from the treatment system. In a later phase we will consider low-head hydropower at the
cascading outfall areas connecting the bio-retention ponds.
Part of the Clean Water Effluent Re-Use Feasibility Study will:
• investigate the cost effectiveness of low-head hydropower;
• determine if the hydro installation could supply enough power to run the treatment
12
system's electrical demands and/or what portion of the on-site electrical demands at the
SWC;
• evaluate wheeling back into the power grid any excess electricity generated.
Since low-head hydro has not been adequately tested and evaluated in alpine settings,the
performance measures associated with this project will prove useful in evaluating this use for
future benefit. In addition,the County is currently investigating the use of solar collectors to
provide for supplement power to operate the treatment system's electrical needs. During the
Clean Water Effluent Use Feasibility Study we will consider solar power to determine whether to
invest in the infrastructure necessary to accommodate this type of system.
Evaluation Criterion 8: Watershed Perspective
Pitkin County has been active in improving our watershed for years, has instituted many
progressive programs such as the Pitkin County Healthy Rivers and Streams Fund and Board and
provides support for the Ruedi Water and Power Authority and the Roaring Fork Conservancy.
The Pitkin County Clean Water Effluent Re-Use Feasibility Study will continue this work. It
addresses a common watershed problem—septic waste treatment—and proposes a solution that
keeps water from our watershed in our watershed instead of being hauled away. It has the
additional benefit of reducing existing demand on the watershed by perhaps a million gallons of
water—water that will be drawn for commercial/industrial purposes from our effluent source
instead of the City of Aspen's potable source, as is currently the case.
We hope to educate the public about our watershed and common watershed issues with this
project and that other rural and remote western communities may learn from our experience.
We think this project can demonstrate the performance of modular wastewater treatment
systems in high alpine desert settings and prove its impact by improving our environment and
protecting local watersheds.
Results from this demonstration projects will help:
• Provide better and more efficient treatment options than allowing septic tanks to overflow;
• Control dust on landfill service roads and offsite construction projects;
• Re-introduce water into the water table from constructed wetlands;
• Provide additional treatment of effluent;
• Help capture and retain local water (from septic tanks) that would otherwise be
transported to the South Canyon and Rifle, Colorado sites and beyond;
• Eliminate the use of a million gallons of potable water for non-potable purposes;
• Help eliminate the need to transport and dispose of a potential water source outside of the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Required Permits or Approvals
As part of the Clean Water Effluent Re-Use Feasibility Study, any potential environmental impacts
will be identified and examined. Permitting research will be conducted at each step by our
13
consultants and this research will inform the full-scale implementation and will support our
activities. These potential future impacts will be addressed separately from this feasibility study.
Potential extra permits may include construction of wetlands, implementation of a low-head
hydropower and connection to the power grid. Any additional required permits will be obtained
during the construction and implementation phases of the project.
To ensure that our feasibility study report complies with Pub. L. 102-575,we will require that the
engineering team (SGM), at minimum, address all items listed in Section 4B in Reclamation's
Directives and Standards Policy.
Funding Plan and Letters of Support
The non-Bureau of Reclamation share of the Pitkin County Clean Water Effluent Re-Use
Feasibility Study will be provided solely by Pitkin County.
The funding plan for the proposed Clean Water Effluent Re-Use Feasibility Study is as follows:
1. The Pitkin County contribution to the cost-share requirement will be the cost of the
engineering pro-forma study,to be completed Summer 2014 and paid to SGM Engineering.
Pitkin County will also cover the entire cost of the installation of the modular wastewater
treatment system that will produce the clean effluent.
2. No in-kind costs are being used to meet the cost-share requirements.
3. No funding is being provided by another funding source. All funding is being provided
solely by Pitkin County.
4. No funding has been requested or received from other Federal partners.
5. There are no pending funding requests that have not been approved.
Table 1. Summary of non-Federal and Federal Funding Sources
Funding Sources Funding Amount
Non-Federal Entities
Pitkin County Colorado $ 848,733.55
Other Federal Entities $ -
Requested Reclamation Funding $ 149,500.00
14
Letters of Support
The County has obtained several letters in support of this application. They are provided as an
attachment to this document.
Official Resolution
The Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) will be presented with the official
resolution at the May 14, 2014 board meeting. The BOCC will execute an agreement with the
United States Bureau of Reclamation for grant funding to conduct a feasibility study under the
WaterSMART program. A copy of the resolution will be forwarded as an addendum to this
proposal once all required signatures are obtained.
Pitkin County Clean Water Effluent Re-Use Feasibility Study Project Personnel
Key personnel will include personnel from within the County organization, as well as an
engineering/consulting firm with a strong background in wastewater treatment and water
permitting experience, and a sustainability expert from the University of Colorado. Full resumes
can be obtained upon request.
Cathleen Hall, Project/Study Manager
Ms. Hall has 21 years of experience in the solid waste industry. She is the Solid Waste Manager
for Pitkin County. Her responsibilities include managing the integrated solid waste program for
the County. She received a Bachelor of Science in Geology from Ohio State University, and a
Masters in Business Administration from the University of Maryland. She is a Certified Manager
of Landfill Operations through the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA). Her role
on the project will be to coordinate the team, organize and maintain a schedule for the feasibility
study deliverables, conduct regular progress meetings, and provide administrative support for the
grant reporting requirements.
G.R. Fielding, PE, County Engineer
Mr. Fielding has been Pitkin County's Engineer since 2007. During his time with the County Mr.
Fielding has acted as a project manager, owner's representative, and procurement officer on all
road and infrastructure projects for the County.Additionally, he is responsible for overseeing
Right of Way Permitting, and acts as a consulting engineer on many community development
earth-moving permits. Mr. Fielding graduated with a bachelor of science in Environmental
Resources and Forest Engineering from the State University of New York College of
Environmental Science and Forestry at Syracuse University. Mr. Fielding will serve as a consulting
engineering providing technical support and advice in regards to feasibility of any proposed
technology.
Jack Johnson, Public Outreach and Education Coordinator
Mr. Johnson is the Public Outreach and Education Coordinator for the Pitkin County Solid Waste
Center. He is a former Aspen City Councilman and holds a B.Arch from the University of
Kentucky, School of Architecture. Mr.Johnson will provide oversight for the educational and
15
outreach components of the Pitkin County modular wastewater treatment plant and the use of the
clean effluent as it pertains to the study.
SGM Engineering
SGM is the largest full-scale engineering firm on the Western Slope of Colorado. SGM specializes
in wastewater collection and treatment,water resource and water conservation studies, and
water and wastewater utility operations and permitting. SGM is the contracted with Pitkin
County to develop the design specifications and permitting requirements for the proposed septic
wastewater treatment system to be located at the Landfill. SGM has identified Mr. Cooper Best and
Mr. Bob Pennington as the designated engineering staff to lead the engineering, permitting, and
regulatory portion of the feasibility study efforts.
Cooper Best, Contracted Project Engineer
Mr. Best has over 14 years of experience in planning, permitting and design of water and
wastewater projects throughout Colorado,Wyoming and Nebraska. He is currently a Project
Manager with SGM Engineering. His experience includes: master planning, state and federal
permitting, hydraulic modeling, design of municipal water and wastewater treatment systems as
well as pump stations.
Bob Pennington, Contracted Project Engineer
Mr. Pennington's background in wastewater and water related fields ranges from small
individual sewage disposal systems for residences to large regional wastewater treatment
facilities; and individual domestic water wells and pressure systems to large water resource
development, treatment and distribution systems for major municipalities, respectively. He
currently serve's as SGM Engineering's Wastewater Team Leader.
Kelly Simmons, Sustainability Professional, University of Colorado
Kelly Simmons has been the manager of the Sustainable Practices Program at the Environmental
Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder, since 2010. She teaches a Permaculture Design
course for the University's Environmental Studies Department. Kelly recently won a
Sustainability Award for her work designing the Population Conversation Training program to
preserve Dr.Al Bartlett's award winning presentation "Sustainability, Population and Energy."
She will provide academic focus to our study.
16
Budget Narrative
The enclosed budget table summarizes the proposed costs associated with the project. All project
costs are associated with the use of county employees, an engineering firm with expertise in
wastewater treatment and water use, and academic personnel with expertise in environmental
sustainability issues.
1. Salaries and Wages: Pitkin County has identified three appropriate staff members to be
allocated to this project. Salaries and wages are part of the County match for the
feasibility study. Hourly rates are identified on Table 2.
2. Fringe Benefits: The three designated county employees are shown on Table 2 of this
document. Fringe benefits are part of the County's match for the feasibility study.
3. Travel: Travel to investigate potential technology uses and treatment and use of
wastewater effluent, as well as conference and seminar presentations highlighting the
feasibility study findings have been allocated. Budget details for travel are shown on
Table 2.
4. Contractual: Pitkin County has partnered on this project with two entities to assist in the
feasibility study. SGM Engineering will provide the engineering and permitting needs for
treatment and use of the water. SGM will lead the efforts to design and develop the
desktop feasibility portion of the study, and provide engineering and construction over-
site of any pilot scale studies to test the BMPs as determined from the desktop study.
Kelly Simmons, University of Colorado will provide insight into innovative and best use of
the water for environmentally sustainable practices. She will advise on the education and
outreach component of the feasibility study, as well as direct us on how to best
disseminate the data collected from the pilot scale study.
5. Supplies and Materials: Office supplies and materials such as printing costs, postage,
preparation of outreach materials and website design are included in Table 2.
6. Constructions Costs: Construction and materials required as part of the feasibility study
are part of the grant-funding request. An equipment budget to prepare a small-scale pilot
study as well as site preparation work (earthmoving, and pilot study design) is designated
on Table 2. This budget covers the costs associated with constructing a small-scale pilot
study for effluent treatment technologies. The County will provide the total costs for
construction and permitting of the modular treatment system. Costs for each event are
designated in Table 2.
7. Indirect Costs: Refers to administrative costs, equal to 5 percent,the total project,
including construction of the modular treatment system and to conduct the pilot study.
The indirect costs will be covered as the County match. Reporting costs for status reports
as well as the final feasibility study will be covered under administrative costs.
Table 2 presents the budgeting information required for this grant application proposal.All
project costs are associated with use of three designated Pitkin County employees, an
engineering firm to perform the work and prepare the feasibility study report, and consulting
services from a sustainability expert associated with the University of Colorado.
17
Table 2. Pitkin County Clean Water Effluent Re-Use Feasibility Study
Budget and Funding Breakdown Summary
County Cash
Budget Item Description $/amount Quantity Quantity Type Match Grant Match Total Cost($)
Salaries/Hourly Rate
Cathleen Hall,Project Manager $ 39.43 312 Per Hour $ 12,302.16 $ - $ 12,302.16
GR Fielding,Project Engineer $ 46.69 312 Per Hour $ 14,567.28 $ - $ 14,567.28
Jack Johnson,Public Outreach $ 21.91 156 Per Hour $ 3,417.96 $ - $ 3,417.96
Fringe Benefits AIL
Cathleen Hall,Project Manager $ 12.22 312 Per Hour $ 1,906.00 $ - $ 3,812.64
GR Fielding,Project Engineer $ 16.73 312 Per Hour $ 2,609.00 $ - $ 5,219.76
JackJohnson,Public Outreach $ 13.88 156 Per Hour $ 1,082.00 $ - $ 2,165.28
Trilli
Conference Presentation/Technical White Paper Publication $ 1,500.00 3 Per Trip $ - $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500.00
Technology Investigation Site Visit $ 2,000.00 2 Per Trip $ - $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00
SGM,Engineering Firm $ 100,000.00 1 Contract Cost $ - $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00
University of Colorado,Sustainabilty Practices $ 10,000.00 1 Contract Cost $ - $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
Chase Park Grants $ 17,000.00 1 Contract Cost $ 17,000.00 $ 17,000.00
Supplies
Office Supplies $ 200.00 1 Total $ 200.00 $ 200.00
Computer Rental $ 1,800.00 1 Total $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00
Outreach Materials $ 3,000.00 1 Total $ - $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00
Project Website Development $ 3,000.00 1 Total $ - $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00
Construction Costs
Pilot Study Construction Materials and Site Preparation $ 35,000.00 1 Total $ 10,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 35,000.00
Construction of the Septic Wastewater Treatment System $ 735,000.00 1 Total $ 735,000.00 $ 735,000.00
Indirect Costs
Administrative Costs $ 48,849.15 1 Total $ 48,849.15 $ - $ 48,849.15
Total Feasibility Study Costs $ 848,733.55 $ 149,500.00 $ 1,003,834.23
18
Table 3. Partnership Table
Partner Agency Advisory Role Representative&Title ■
City of Aspen-Utilities
David Hornbacher, Director of Utilities and
Water and Utilities Advisor, Environmental Initiatives,City of Aspen
Clean Water Advocate
City of Aspen-Utilities
Phil Overeynder,former director,and Utilities
Water and Utilities Advisor, Engineer,Special Projects,City of Aspen
Clean Water Advocate
Aspen Tree Eco-Design Advisor Eden Vardy,Founder,President
Aspen Tree Eco-Design Advisor Paul Huttonhower,Program Director
University of Colorado,Boulder Evaluation and Planning, Kelly Simmons,Manager,Sustainability Practices
Environmental Center Academic Consultant Program
Snowmass-Wildcat Fire John Mele,Fire Marshall
Protection District Fire Mitigation Advisor
SGEarthmoving Charlie Montover,VP Field Operations
Potential Water Customer
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation Bruce Matherly,District Manager
District Septic Treatment Advisor
Pitkin County Environmental Evaluation and Planning, Kurt Dahl,Environmental Health Manager
Health Septage Advisor
19
Attachment A
Letters of Support
•
May 1,2014
Pitkin County Solid Waste Center
ATTN: Cathy Hall - -'
76 Service Center Road THE CITY OF ASPEN
Aspen,CO 81611 WATER DEPARTMENT
Dear Ms.Hall,
We are pleased to write this letter of support for your grant request to study re-use
of effluent wastewater from the modular treatment plant being built by Pitkin
County. As,the director and former director of the City of Aspen Utilities
Department we are very aware of the need,among other benefits,to study ways
non-potable water sources can replace potable sources.We also support efforts to
ensure that potential sources of source water contamination are properly managed.
You are aware that the city and county governments in Aspen and Pitkin County
have long partnered on environmental issues including water and we strongly
support this study. Coming from mountain streams in the Rockies,our water suffers
little from upstream contamination.Pitkin County's proposal will keep relatively
clean water closer to the source. We are protective of our early water rights and
encourage innovative ideas for beneficial use and re-use.
We encourage conservation of water through a novel pricing structure rewarding
conservation and have lowered consumption rates by over 60%in recent years. We
•
have invested much effort and money to design an innovative re-use of effluent
ourselves at our municipal golf course irrigation system.
We think this study will be consistent with our goals and improve water quality,in-
stream flows,and our local water resources. Most importantly it will provide a non-
potable alternative for current potable uses.This makes our water better and puts •
less demand on our system.
Our elected officials in Aspen and Pitkin County are fully behind our water
conservation efforts and our citizens demand them too and have passed ballot
initiatives to create,support and fund these efforts.
Phil Overeynder,Utilities Engineer,Special Projects,City of Aspen
avid Hornbacher,Director of Utilihe and Environmental Initiatives,City of Aspen
130 Souni GALENA SlEEr • AsrEu,CoLo1i wo 81611-1975 PFIC NE 970.920.5110 • Fax 970.920.5117
P/LMA1011P AtedNYC
, - -T
T
• ...E.N TREE
L
-•• I. i.
,.ti
I f. •
TJG1,4• l w , lt11 eC M `WS IL h•I,'0 EG TY.
May1,2014
Pitkin Counts Solid Waste Center
ATTN:Cathy Hall
76 Service Center Road
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Ms. Hall,
We are writing to express our support for Pitkin County's proposal to study the feasibility of
innovative re-uses of wastewater effluent from a modular wastewater treatment facility located at the
landfill. Please include this letter in sour grant proposal to the Bureau of Reclamation, as we would
like them to know more about the reasons for our support and our collaboration.
As sou know,Aspen TREE is a non-profit dedicated to educating children and the general public
about issues of sustainabilits through ecological design employing permaculture principles.Our
mission and vision is to make the Aspen area a model of sustainable practice and to support others
doing the same.To that end we recently began collaboration with the landfill on the Living Lab
Workshop series and are advising on the project to reclaim the crew yard and hazardous waste
collection site using permaculture design.
We at Aspen TREE think the proposal to studs the re-use of effluent wastewater fits our mission and
will lead to sensitive and more sustainable uses of water in our area,fits the permaculture ethos, and
can lead to a model for other rural counties in the west to follow.Tile plan to study how effluent
water might be used fora constructed wetlands/living machine and community garden greenhouse is
novel to our experience and we very muck look forward to collaborating with the landfill on how to
design educational programs around it.
board of Directors:` Eden Vardip•John Tangen,CPA •Rwcr Moran •Judy Lovins'Jason Haber• Lathy McDevitt' Piper roster
www aspen-tree.org
SNTRE.E
. 7 A• R::1v14..1 4L[» E*ht1CMa1»-SN,J C. ERA C1.ti:.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions in reference to this endorsement or to
further discuss the values of this project for our community. I can be reached at (970) 379-Z)23 or at
info@aspen-tree.org
Sincerely yours,
Eden Vardy
Executive Director/rounder
Aspen TREE
www.aspen-tree.org
(970)379-Z323
Board of Directors: `t_cIen Varcly"John Tangen,CPA •River Morgan •Judi Lovins"Jason Haber• Katby McDevitt• Piper roster
www.aspen-tree.or33.
_de,, ,`� SNOWMASS - WILDCAT FIRE
\F •
PROTECTION DISTRICT
SINCE 1971
May 2, 2014
Ms. Cathy Hall
Pitkin County Landfill
76 Service CenterK Road
Aspen,CO 81611
Dear Ms. Hall,
The Snowmass Wildcat Fire Protection District has been called many times to the Pitkin
County landfill to cope with fires. Being in a rural/urban interface zone and without an
on-site water source in a drought plagued area presents many challenges to those of us
charged with protecting the landfill and its neighbors from fire.
We have recommended for many years that Pitkin County install storage for fire
suppression at the landfill We will be better able to fight fires there with stored water
and this will leave valuable resources for other entities unable to capture and store
water for their own needs.
We fully support your study and look forward to talking more with you about your fire
mitigation st age capacity and needs.
Sincerely y rs,
n ele,
Fire Marshal
Snowmass Wildcat Fire Protection District
PO Box 6436 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
970-923-2212 PHONE • 970-923-2224 FAX
WWW.SWFPD.COM
5rbr4t114 Image(i)•Jpg
May 1, 2014
Cathy Hall, Solid Waste Manager
Pitkin County SWC
76 Service Center Road
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Cathy.
As you know, SGEarthmoving has been in business in Pitkin County since 1962
As a close neighbor and client of the landfill we wholeheartedly support the
proposal to study re-use of effluent water from private septic systems
In our business we purchase many thousands of gallons of potable water a year
to use as dust suppression and for soil compaction on our projects in Pitkin
County. For instance, from June through September of 2013 we purchased
162,000 gallons of treated potable water from the City of Aspen Water
Department.
Had Pitkin County's proposed wastewater treatment plant been in operation we
could have purchased non-potable effluent water instead. We support this study
for if it is successful it will offer us a close and convenient opportunity to we save
money for our clients and conserve valuable resources for our community.
Please include this letter in your grant application
Sincerely yours,
Charles Montover, SGEarth oving
the;) l' *era140.4-S
hertc•ildriwnrriIArnntlainitldnrrrintyrrtmenal=r fNriarq/lRJC1'Ad-de4r:111tA1RYh'iInX2V1AAAFlI tP1
Pitkin County Eavironmenlal Health
May 2,2014
Ms.Cathy Hall
Pitkin County Landfill
76 Service Center Road
Aspen,CO 81611
Dear Cathy,
The Pitkin County Environmental Health Department fully supports study of the feasibility for re-use of
effluent water from residential septic systems.
It is the responsibility of my office to oversee residential septic systems in Pitkin County. Many of the
septic systems are quite close to ground water and surface water resources and due to the high cost of
treatment I think many owners may not adequate service their systems. We are concerned this may
someday lead to compromise of our clean water especially in some of the shallow aquifers near rural
subdivisions.
Currently,the closest septic treatment facility is 45 miles(one way)in Garfield County—a facility that often
exceeds its treatment capacity early in the day. Septage from our county must then travel at least 100 miles
away(one way)to Delta County for treatment
In my opinion local treatment of septage from Pitkin County will have regional benefit by serving the entire
Roaring Fork Valley—three counties—Pitkin,Eagle and Garfield. It is likely to reduce costs for the
homeowner making it more likely they will perform routine maintenance. It will reduce greenhouse gasses
and fossil fuel consumption by reducing the number of septage trips out of the county by four or five a day.
In addition,the re-use of effluent for dust suppression will go a long way to help Pitkin County keep our air
clean and continue to assure the high quality of life in our community. Please include this letter in your
materials for the grant application to study effluent re-use.
Sincerely yours,
Kurt Dahl
Environmental Health Manager,Pitkin County
76 Service Center Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: (970)920-5070
Fax: (970)920-5374 www.aspenpitkin.comfehnr Page 1
Attachment B
SF424 Forms
o a o 0 0 0 0
Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 03
9 0 O A N ^ N
o co 0 0 v N b
W U1 o W N
O up
Q O coin O co W v co a CC MI O
L •• 01 a 4-
Eo i CON -
co
= c v
z g
• o. — _ E coO w c O
0 0
II; CO a
O MI
9 N
_ _ a
W toin
0 ,2c• a
0
co
CC 0 0
.. z
0
0
z _ V) H
�—
to
E
co
L
01 W ^0
fl 0 .r
Q U.
0
4+ >,
o ce
VIfA
i 0 !Cs— 0 Cr. 0
H m o 0 0 0 0
U �0 0 o o W N
N N COW 03co
C N co
❑ W
Z = c c
O
Z m ui 2
O a 1g .—
I Z io
< p o>I w w
0 0 0 0 0 0
L P O O O O
ILN W D P O O o o
p to 33 o P
O a
ol
2 n-
Z ri 40 01
v a
rW in 1 —
V
CO N h
0 1
c
W 9
k 0 0
as
oa
m0 = ....
s% z
m E
u o
0
•
E a e
i A a • 0
O tiy�� u 4 u •
CO L a. W 1.1
a e
a°= :°. m° e ° O u° m
V ` V U • • 4J
L
e =Q m u • 0
2 U.
•D • a H 0 0
u° u° 03 H
e- N ri '� In
0 o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' ti<
0 0 a 0 0 0 a a o 0 a ca
ai r 0 0 0 0 0 of cV IT .i ti a
CDa1 a O 0 0 0 v N a m co
N V7 tri O 0 O 0 m N m O 7 a
o l o o a) N o a) a) m ai
N N N rn v a a v IX-"
t- .1 a O O
TO uJ Q 0 G'
C
r Q
Al
LL
E a
40 N IA4, 4► ca
0 0 0 0 I. O
0 0 a 0
a on ai m 0
v v v a
a a) m co li
+r c co a) N .0
pa v v v n
U m
U Q.
•
N
IA H H
O a 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 O 0
O O O 0 0 a
0 0 0 0 0 0
o O O 0 0 0
U 'i ai N ui Yi o
N N N O 0
Q g N H a at
a' a
• e
z t C
O▪ fa =
IA
O r� a
a o o a
• y 0 0 0
Q 7.
4 U in h
U O
I+ to m a) 0
a o � `
1J U w
= CI
4 V m
N
(3 [7 C 0
U U i
co z r► r.
O o O 0
O 0
O 0
0 Q
en ri
0 - co a, m co
W y N N CO CO
/ O N N N
N M
o •
m odo
a fA
a
1 •
Q C
1 PI
M W V!
t
ID
i0
ID
O
E �c
N C
U RI
IDm a 'D
rr
L m O.4E RI
a) a) o U e
i4 ci m m C ' t= t) .0 a: O1
to c m co in E o E CD U N
u
CO
E c > S a c c z M 5
CD 0- N W V) V 0 O F�- c O-
A0 G
a.
6 N
o I o 0 1 0 0 '" `� ti N
a o O o 0 0 0 0co 0
=
rl O O C; N N .4 01 ti l9
CO 0 0 s N n OP n d
Cl) m 0 o m N CO ,� p, m _
-J Ill N N m co N
Q r1 IO a srm 01 s a.-I m�0 ry 7 d
1- N m t L V Q i
0as
`O t° OT Q
m 3+ Q 47,
12)
w IA IA N M N 1J ) co rn
g o
— n — m
0 0 0 1 .4 a°.I u) A
m � 0 01 N) • ani
al .4 0
c 0 Q L W LS
3 m v a a
In 0 N OP 10 I I w E • w
L. v u°_ 0 a.
o n U d a 9
W
fA N N IACC W IA —r N .0
,—, I — — .—, 0. 0.— u
0 o 0 W C9 m
Z "I
CO .-1 41 il
CI
in v oI ' O M
2 r .N-I .tea I'•f O c a
W u' m
aZ W tOt v x
o .
C
V) U) ~ Q = Z in . rq
W ID LL
O m • a
Lu IX
N ea di
_ _ N_CC z fA IA 0 M — — N Z Z t
�' V .2
O^^ o o co O Z 0 1 0 0 0 arN L1
I , ' Cl) W U. do w 7
LUm o O co
s N U s -1 .11 W Z N
Z co
M Q
<Q ci • L W c • / L
1W Q r- m u) a Z . M • O
0 R v
a m
0
u.
0 0
— — g — _. _ .114 10
Z Um "4 '0
C)
V N IA o IA N Q N IA 1 Ig F."' N
Z Z o o o u' 5 O
O 0 L a a w u Z ,3 7
G IO N 0
m ID a, N O '�
w w } a .. U) V roo Q
u, N m N 08
U) a a
0
IN •
W Am..
N N H 0 g
0 3g
m
m aeu
1 E �1 g
E a Z 2 ' n i �1 y
CA U 2 g a o
U u 0
otO
.1 a� T. W C ►1 +U '
c o�
c� NA"
0 1 tl o
■ �I M ■ t0 '01 •
O . ■ T .. O C . r
`r A m �` o
-. i S � ° ti-
14 0 0
6.
o N m F4
i p 4 q 14
■ do 5 8 L 7 a ■ s 0 7 IC
11 \ IA .0 V y. iff•a U . a U • U �NJ E Cp �L J
.
0 RI
IN u° m r+ LL Z 0 m U a r1 0 G
re
O N) N 10 f� m Qj die th
CO 6e- r• T. r• N N N