Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2.0 Correspondence
n CEKIIt1CAI1UfV 4OBILE HOME MANAGEMENT CORP.! H LAZY F MOBILE HOME PARK CDPS PERMIT NUMBER COG-584000 FACILITY NUMBER COG-584035, GARFIELD COUNTY TABLE OF CONTENTS I. TYPE OF PERMIT I II. FACILITY INFORMATION 1 111. RECEIVING STREAM 2 IV. FACILITIES EVALUATION 3 V. PERFORMANCE HISTORY 3 VI. CONFORMANCE WITH CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS 4 VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT 5 VIII. REFERENCES 7 I. TYPE OF PERMIT II. FACILITY INFORMATION A. Facility Type: B. Facility Classification: C. Fee Category: Category Flow Range: Annual Fee: D. Legal Contact E. Facility Contact: F. Facility Location: Domestic General - Discharges to receiving waters with a chronic low flow : design flow ratio of 100: 1 or greater. First certification under general permit number COG -584000 as a result of the conversion of pennit number CO -0038806 to general pennit certification number COG -584035. Domestic - Minor Municipal, Mechanical System Class C per Section 100.9.2 of the Regulations for Certification of Water Treatment Plant and Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators. Category 21, Subcategory 2 20,000 gpd up to 49,999 gpd $480 (Water Quality Control Act) Jon Siegle Mobile Home Management Corp. P.O. Box 69 Carbondale, CO 81623 (970)+925-6938 ext. 14 Jon Evans, Operator P.O. Box 69 Carbondale, CO 81623 (970)+963-3140 In the SW 1/4 of Section 1, 77S, R89W; approximately 6 miles NW of the City of Carbondale on Hwy 82. G. Discharge Point: 00IA, following the chlorine contact chamber and prior to entering the Roaring Fork River. ISSUED OCT 2 8 1998 EFFECTIVE NOV 1- 1998 EXPIRATION OCT 3 1 1999 LtLUKAUU UCYAt(IMCIVI UP I'UISL.tl. tlLALit1 AND /NVIRONMLN"/, Water Quality Control Division ,Rationale - Page 2, Permit No. COG -584035 111. RECEIVING STREAM A. • Identification, Classification and Standards 1. • Identification: This wastewater treatment works discharges to the Roaring Fork River, in Segrnent 3 of the Upper Colorado River Basin. 2. Classification: This stream segment has been classified for the following uses: Recreation, Class 1; Aquatic Life, Class 1 (Cold); Water Supply; and Agriculture. 3. Numeric Standards: The following numeric standards which have been assigned in accordance with the above classifications will be used to develop effluent limitations. Physical and Biological D.O. pH Fecal Coliforms Inorganic = 6.0 mg/l, 7.0 mg/1 spawning = 6.5 - 9.0 s. u. = 200/100 ml Unionized Ammonia (NH,), Chronic Unionized Arntnonia (NH.), Acute Residual Chlorine (C1), Chronic Residual Chlorine (C1), Acute Cyanide (free) Sulfide as H,S Boron (B) Nitrite (NO) Nitrite (NO) Chloride (C1) Sulfate as SO, Metals - 0.02 mg/l - 0.43/FT/FPH/2 mg/1 - 0.011 Ing/1 - 0.019 mg/l = 0.005 mg/1 - 0.002 mg/1 undis • 0.75 mg/1 - 0.05 mg/l 10.0 rng/1 = 250.0 mg/1 • 250.0 mg/1 .The capacity of the treatment facility is relatively small and there are few if any industrial contributors. Therefore, no unusually high metals concentrations are expected to be found in the wastewater effluent. When considering this along with the fact that there is significant dilution provided by the receiving stream, the Division has .detertnined that this discharge does not have the reasonable potential to cause a violation of the stream standards for metals. Therefore, no metals effluent limits or monitoring conditions will be specified in the pennit. B. Receiving Water Acute and Chronic Low Flows "The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water", Regulation No. 31, outlines the use of acute and chronic flows to determine water quality based effluent limitations. The flows which are used to calculate acute and chronic effluent limitations are the one day in three year low flow (1E3) and the 30 day in three year low flow (30E3), respectively. Those flows have been determined by the Water Quality Control Division for the Roaring Fork River at the discharge point and are 366 cfs (annual) for the chronic flow and 320 cfs (annual) for the acute flow. C. Receiving Water Quality There is no water quality data available for this segment of the Roaring Fork River. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, Water Quality Control Division Rationale - Page 3, Permit No. COG -5635 IV. FACILITIES EVALUATION A. Infiltration/Inflow (1/1) No infiltration/inflow problems have been documented in the service area. B. Lift Stations There are no lift stations in the service area. C. Background and History • A map of the service area and a flow diagram of the existing facility are shown in figures 1 and 2, respectively, on pages 8 and 9 of this rationale. D. Discussion of Capacity The facility consists of a flow equalization basin, an aeration basin, a clarifier, a sludge holding tank, and a chlorine contact basin. The permittee has not performed any construction at this facility that would change the hydraulic capacity of 0.04 MGD or the organic capacity of 83 lbs. BODS/day which were specified in the rationale for the previous permit. The above capacities will continue under this permit and are applicable in Part 1, Section B.2 of the general permit. The effluent flow is measured by a 60' v -notch weir. Since the facility does not have a continuous effluent flow recorder installed, as required under Part 1, Section C.1.c. of the general permit, the permittee will have until March 31, 1999 to install the continuous effluent flow recording equipment. E. Biosolids Treahnent and Disposal Biosolids are hauled, as needed, off site to the South Canyon Landfill. F. Industrial Waste Management Requirements Due to the lack of identified industrial users in the service area, and the fact that the pennittee does not accept hazardous waste for treatment, the permittee is not required to maintain a fonnal pretreatment program. However, standard industrial waste rnanagernent conditions will apply as described in Part I.B.7. of the general permit. G. Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing (Biornonitoring) Based upon the lack of identified industrial users and a review of other available information, and pursuant to the aquatic life biomonitoring requirements in accordance with Regulations No. 61 Section 61.8(2)(b)(i)(B) of the "Regulations for the State Discharge Permit System", the Division does not find that there is a reasonable potential for whole effluent toxicity (WET) in the effluent. Therefore, biornonitoring will not be a requirement of the permit at this time. V. PERFORMANCE HISTORY In reviewing the Discharge Monitoring Report forms for the previous twelve rnonth period, there were no effluent violations. The pennittee was required, in the previous permit, to install a continuous influent flow measuring device and recorder by August 31, 1993 and this requirement was not completed. Since this facility has no continuous flow measurement, there will be a requirement for this facility to install a continuous effluent flow measuring device. If the pennittee does not complete this requirement, the Division will use enforcement discretion. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, Water Quality Control Division Rationale - Page 4, Pennit No. COG -5035 VI. CONFORMANCE WITH CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS • Based on the information presented in Sections I. - V., above, the facility meets the requirements for certification as required at Part 1.4.3. of the general permit as described below. A. As discussed in Sections IV. F. and G. of this rationale for certification, the pennittee is exempt from developing a pretreatment program and from implementing a biornonitoring program, thus meeting the requirements of Part I, Sections A.3. a. and f. of the general permit. B. The design capacity of this facility is less than one mullion gallons per day thus meeting the requirement of Part 1, Section A.3.b. of the general permit. C. Land application is not utilized for disposal of effluent frorn this facility thus meeting the requirement of Part I, Section A.3. c. of the general permit. D. The ratio of the 30E3 low flow of the receiving stream, identified in Section III. B. of this rationale, to the design flow, identified in Table V11-1 of this rationale, is 5,900:1 thus meeting the requirement of Part 1, Section A.3.d. of the general permit. E. There are no control regulations that would limit the discharge of nitrogen or phosphorus from this facility and, based on the following analysis, this discharge should not cause any violations of downstream water quality standards, thus meeting the requirements of Part I, Sections A.3.e. and h. of the general pernit. As further proof that no water quality standard will be violated, assumptions Trade in the rationale for the general pernit for the following parameters have been verified. 1. pH: The assumptions for pH made in Section IV.A.3. of the rationale for the general permit should be valid due to the high dilution factor noted in Section VI. D. above. 2. Fecal Coliform Bacteria: An instrearn fecal coliform concentration in the Roaring Fork River upstream of the confluence of the Crystal River and above the facility was 29 organisms per 100 mil in a sample collected by the Division on 5/19/98, which is less that the allowable background concentration of 142 organisms per 100 rnl.. Therefore, the assumptions regarding the background fecal coliform concentration made in Section IV.A.3. of the rationale for the general permit are valid. 3. Total Residual Chlorine: Since there are no upstream discharges of chlorine which would contribute to the instrearn background concentration, it is assumed that the instream total residual chlorine (TRC) concentration in the Roaring Fork River above the facility is less than the allowable background concentration of 0.014 rng/l. Therefore, the assumptions regarding the background residual chlorine concentration made in Section IV.A.3. of the rationale for the general pernit are valid. 4. Total Ammonia: Table IV -3 in Section IV.A.3. of the rationale for the general permit indicates that instream total ammonia concentrations must be below 0.05 rng/1 during the most critical months in order to protect the unionized arnrnonia standard of 0.02 ing/l. In order to verify that this concentration is not exceeded, assuming a 100:1 dilution ratio and an effluent total ammonia concentration of 25 mg/1, the rationale of the general permit required that the rnaxirnurn background total ammonia concentration can not exceed 0.05 rng/1 (May - Oct.) during this critical period. A mass balance equation using these background concentrations was used to determine site-specific effluent concentrations that would not violate the allowable instream concentrations from Section IV.A.3. of the rationale for the general pernit. The results of this evaluation are shown in Table VI -1 on the next page. �TVLORADO DL YARYMENT Or PUBLIC 'MALT AND ENVIRONMENT, Water Quality Control Division .Rationale - Page 5, Permit No. COG -584035 • VI. CONFORMANCE WITH CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS E. 4. Total Atntnonia: Continued • Table VI -1 — Mass Balance Calculations for Total Ammonia OtttiT: Q.cfr Mt, mg/l Alp mg/l • v mgr. January 366 0.062 366.062 0.0 0.7 4,132 February 366 0.062 366.062 0.0 0.6 3,542 March 366 0.062 366.062 0.0 0.4 2,361 April 366 0.062 366.062 0.0 0.3 2,361 May 375 0.062 375.062 0.0 0.2 1,815 June. 684 0.062 684.062 0.0 0.2 3,310 July 440 0.062 440.062 0.0 0.2 2,129 August, September, October 411 0.062 411.062 0.0 0.2 1,989 November 453 0.062 453.062 0.0 0.3 2,192 December 390 0.062 390.062 0.0 0.5 3,145 The rnost restrictive total ammonia limit for this facility is well above the expected pollutant concentration for effluent frorn this type of treatment facility. For this reason there will be no total ammonia limits or monitoring required and the requirements of the general permit have been met. F. This facility does not accept, by truck, rail, or dedicated pipeline, any hazardous waste for treatment and discharge thus meeting the requirement of Part 1, Section A.3.g. of the general pernit. VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT A. Effluent Limitations The Mobile Horne Management Corps facility is a mechanical system. For mechanical systems, the effluent limitations shown in Table VII -1, on this page, will apply. They are consistent with those required at Part 1, Section B.6.a. of the general permit. Table VII -I — Effluent Limits Parameter Limit Rationale Flow, MGD BOD5, mg/1 TSS, mg/1 Fecal Colifonn, no/100 ml Total Residual Chlorine, rng/l pH, s. u. (minimum -maximum) Oil and Grease, rng/l Salinity 0.04" 30/45 b 30/45 b 6,000/12,000 ` 0.5 6.0-9.0' 10' Report Design Capacity State Effluent Regulations State Effluent Regulations Fecal Colifonn Policy State Effluent Regulations State Effluent Regulations State Effluent Regulations Salinity Regulations o 30 -day average " 30 -day average/7-day average • Daily Maximum • Minimum -Maximum • 30 -day geometric mean/7-day geometric mean The flow limit of 0.04 MGD, which is equal to the design capacity defined in Section IV.D. of this rationale, will apply under Part 1, Section B.6.a. of the general permit. cuLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, Water Quality c,ontrot vrvnron .Rationale - Page 6, Permit No. COG -584035 • 111111 VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT B. Monitoring 1. Influent and Effluent Monitoring - For mechanical systems, the influent and effluent monitoring requirements, as shown in Tables VII -2 and VII -3, below, are consistent with those outlined in the general permit at Part I, Sections C. 1. c. and C. 2. c. , respectively. Table V11-2 — Influent Monitoring Requirements - Outfall 3001 Parameter Measurement Frequency Sample Type Raw Water Total Dissolved Solids, TDS, mg/1 Quarterly Grab * Influent Flow, MGD Until March 31, 1999 3 X/Week Instantaneous Beginning April 1, 1999 Continuous Recorder ** Influent BOD5, mg/1 (1b/day) Monthly Composite Influent Total Suspended Solids, rng/l Monthly Composite * If more than one source is being utilized, a composite sample proportioned to flow shall be prepared from individual grab samples. Report both influent and effluent flow, even if only one flow measuring device is installed. See footnote * on page 14 of the general permit. ** Table VII -3 — Effluent Monitoring Requirements - Outfall 001A Parameter Measurement Frequency Sample Type Effluent Flow, MGD Until March 31, 1999 3 X/Week Instantaneous Beginning April 1, 1999 Continuous Recorder ** Effluent BOD5, mg/1 Monthly Composite Effluent Total Suspended Solids, rng/I Monthly Composite Effluent Fecal Coliform, no. /100 ml Monthly Grab Effluent Total Residual Chlorine, rng/l Weekly Grab Effluent pH, s.u. Weekly Grab Effluent Total Dissolved Solids, TDS, mg/l Quarterly Grab Effluent Oil & Grease, mg/1 Weekly Visual * * If a visible sheen is noted, a grab sample shall be collected and analyzed for oil and grease. The results are to be reported on the DMR under parameter 03582. ** Report both influent and effluent flow, even if only one flow measuring device is installed. See footnote * on page 14 of the general permit. 2. Salinity Monitoring: In compliance with the 'Regulations for the State Discharge Permit System" the pernittee shall monitor for salinity on a quarterly basis. Samples shall be taken at both the raw (potable) water supply intake prior to any treatment and at the wastewater discharge point 001. Salinity requirements are included in Part 1, Section C.3. of the permit. Based on an annual average of the July 1997 thru June 1998 sampling data, this permittee has shown an average incremental increase of 287 mg/I. This increase is below the regulatory limit of an average annual incremental increase of 400 mg/l or less. Therefore, no special reports are required and monitoring, as required by the regulation, will continue. 3. Biosolids Monitorine: For mechanical systems, biosolid. monitoring requirements are outlined in Part 1, Section C.4.b. of the general permit. COLORADO DEPARI MEN OhP BLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, Water Quality Control Diwsien ,Rationale - Page 7, Permit No. COG -584035 VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT C. Reporting 1. Signatory Requirements: Signatory requirements for reports and submittals are discussed in Part I, Section E.1. of the pennit. 2. Discharge Monitoring Report: The permittee must submit a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) monthly to the Division. This report will contain the test results for parameters shown in Part I, Section B. of the general pennit. The DMR form shall be completed and submitted each rnonth in accordance with Part I, Section E.2. of the pennit. 3. Annual Report: The pernittee will be required to subrrut an annual report which surnrnarizes the past year's operating history of the facility and relevant appurtenances. The report shall review additions to the service area, projections of future loadings, sludge disposal practices, and other items. An outline of the topics to be covered in the report is included in Part I, Section E.3. of the general pennit. 4. Special Reports: Special reports are required in the event of a spill, bypass, or other noncompliance. Please refer to Part I, Section E.4. of the general pennit for reporting requirements. D. Reopener, Permit Renewal, and Fee Information: 1. Reopener: The pennit truly be modified, suspended, or revoked in whole or in part during its tern for any reason outlined in Part II, Section B.B. of the general pennit. 2. Renewal: Requiretnents for pennit renewal are discussed in Part II, Section B.9. of the general pennit. 3. Fee Information: Permit fee requirements are outlined in Part 11, Section B.11. of the general pennit. An annual fee must be paid to the Water Quality Control Division to maintain the status of the pennit. VIII. REFERENCES A. Colorado Department of Health Files B. Design Criteria for Wastewater Treatment Works, Water Quality Control Commission, December, 1994. C. "Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water", Regulation No. 31, Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, effective March 2, 1998. D. "Classification and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin and North Platte River (Planning Region 12)" Regulation No. 33, Colorado Water Quality Control Cornrni,ssion, effective August 30, 1997. E. "Pretreatment Regulations", Regulation No. 63, Colorado Water Quality Control Cornrnission, effective April 30, 1998. F. "Biosolids Regulation", Regulation No. 64, Colorado Water Quality Control Co runission, effective March 2, 1998. G. "Regulations for the State Discharge Pennit Systetn", Regulation No. 61, Colorado Water Quality Control Corrunission, effective April 30, 1998.. H. "Regulations for Effluent Lirnitations ", Regulation No. 62, Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, effective August 30, 1997. Karen Young September 28, 1998 -I••• Rationale , • Page 8, Permit No. COG -584035 lio J i• f .1' • ROUTT `\-/ �,' Gi _:. •Crala cA :j:.1 (.,...+' ..' / l i • +� ' I I,Iada f`�J ecurr 'tea•' J. G 1-. f` ? ; _ '..-1 '-'1 /„.;`\,"'""31 •NATIONAL IES7 �, { / . NATICN '''1ipPEST , f fit• WHITES ^_,, �--- ---- .r�=/� `;.„ ,a 2j, �." L'.,• •• ' N t •-• _ .+-,rar: � 4y :wF• �,. 1 ,..,._,:,,,,--:--,-,74--.7....-, �+ • 7''• . �• .� . IC,(." ^IEST•', ‘'t , r• • waf v• II' G' f: S C a 2 L 1:\;::;Icee, r--, kt:_.,2. _ (:,...t ..\ 11l= 15rni)e. •,' SILT IP APPLE TPEE MHP - I NEW CASTLE R/YEP BEN.0 WEST GLEt/Yud0D GLENWOOD SPRINGS CAPBONDALE .SAN. CItiIC-SPRING YALLEY EL. 473EL 41,E P 8AS,4LT SNOWNf,5S • l ti ANI) CNVIKUNMbNI , water Vacuity l,orirr�z (JI VI.114/ft • -, ?� �•.c : ] , Springs - 1-• t� 13, • V • •7•NATIONAL\.IVe •c . bir•.s \ i 1 � .•. J v 0 j - +'� i �PCREST . '1.,._:.125 4. 1, ur 1 �--.1-- • • ;r 4114 2 GARFIELD .- Rine , sal , c.\ . •_.•• 1• IiV ' "LJ AtA9A}IO `� \ ' r.;5. / '•. .' 'J 1 WHITE. tIVEt .�t1A;iCNAl , ` LE O NAT10NAl:7Ctesr \'• 1 ✓•. ' . `C'�J Jai • j 1 1• enwood (7/ Q5 1r�F" . F3 t • IIU�JJ C : ti -vexE tIV:S j .G•j I - • i._ • • "L • NATIONAL 4 r (t! - ~• . .. WHITE tIVEI • 1 � ?OUST r 1•.r1 • ,tiles •. lt----- 5 �'.7- ` • ...:it, 1-"•77..;—_ —.-7-..---••••'--- ... ,�-..�. Gi• •• ..".'r i . .�. .• 1 NATIONAL \ i ; L %•41- ` !� •,'�~' � �i �� 1 -:'` `fOtfST O ��� v„ ' • '..--r- i" - • IS +•+W• :1•a .." V. -' t • �`-'\l II••1, / , .+... v: •... i'`%.� r.r 1::"..r.....4.: {{!�• �`L,R. `'f�f'p��•+ �,,,c- 1:a`t. /` 1.• :'.� =�; l•� r....1,... ' ` 1A c„CR-Jl...1..\,,,,.."1/4...„..r " '�.3 -i � • 1w..• -, •GRAHO (VESA ' ,�� 1 u.ra—(r`I'� ,`., n:0". ' ' . j �.,t- (.1.• �1\'..• •44/{,"; '....,�'=� „--71t,..,1•_..-----•• �=r1 .Y—. ':� s.-: 1,3'I.,11,".._.....,„....` ii • ,'"��ti"'�T� t ----s.• 1- h�A.t• . J'OREST� Y n.. --. r... or, -;44.,...";\ \ , J... tr:•.: ?• s�.1�. �. �▪ ` ��i;.A y-\ - LM.,I.J. a `J :K' Lr J .. i ..e -- t..::, �.5^ ''7".---'7".---:-"'r d/+'Z.ELIA ""� .• � . : I ►, F -= , :� l�NAporul, ,.r J. •.,.,,,c.t /..,. r •t.• IL I'�'• a.«l '1 �' �. • ,\ \%11-...."-:;',..,. ...i an. ,' ,t',+.'.•:« •': :. "`'. r 11 ' ;...:1:-.11;:,..1 i •, •G ^ ' ', . �•.• i�•� + ca.t is • 1-G�a.t!.M, 1.3.4:' i ..41. ,, r ?r...r•.. � t1�n• ' I/•Zn ;I ✓� •J `�, .:.- . �1\..5.0601.1, . . :. � •- a•••• 1r.! ta.�' ,1,,.•'-�- '- '\a+ `, "1'. �•I{• unt y-'' P�onls- L4 ,•,+'�,:1N ��,ri . t � •�(/ i �� 't ` `�,.. r\•' ���FNAT1CffA1' ?� it ;;;;•72', •I \G. _ ^ i ; . . rotfsT - ../ 1 • GUN.NISOi�Fw. 1. , CANYrme - / i . fV. ,JJ �'y,')• �• •-1 \111 i,a O NN:SQL. \r.. J • 1' • 1 �l ,)".i: '{/ }, i y t..!.- '� •NAhoNA 't':., '= 1' ` ,} '{ tom{• Gunnison FIGURE 1 h MONUM(Ar b. ' x3.4 :Montrose ``!I., 17%, ..%,,,...1%. :4„,721. t •-. *i `1 L esti • t«. 3/43'4"-17:-, :•. __c_*t EEC }, G...I YMur . ) t Ji UKAUU ULPAKiMLwt Ur t'utILIC, hLALih AND ENVIRONMENT, Water Quality Control Division Rationale - Page 9, Permit No. COG -584035• • FIGURE 2 Vn CO mm o >r o v C O O - > Z z r �n d N — > 0 r- Lo Z > CO r > z C cn o c� 0 -4 — m — -4 m r 4 013 831VM31SVM • • Permit No. COG -584000 Facility No. COG -584035 Page 1 CERTIFICATION CDPS GENERAL PERMIT DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES WHICH DISCHARGE TO RECEIVING WATERS WITH A CHRONIC LOW FLOW : DESIGN FLOW RATIO OF 100 : 1 OR GREATER This permit specifically authorizes the MOBILE HOME MANAGEMENT CORP. discharge, from the H Lazy F Mobile Home Park's wastewater treatment facility located in the in the SW 1/4 of Section 1, T7S, R89W to the Roaring Fork River as of OCT 2 8 1998 SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND WAIVERS 1. The hydraulic and organic capacities, applicable under Part I, Section B.2. of this permit, are 0.04 MGD and 83 lbs. BODS/day, respectively. 2. The effluent limitations applicable to this facility are those found at Part I, Section B.6.a. on page 7 of this permit. There will be no ammonia limit imposed in this certification. The flow limit, applicable under Part I, Section B.6.a. of this permit, is 0.04 MGD. 3. The influent monitoring requirements applicable to this facility are those found at Part I, Section C.1.c. on page 14 of this permit. Influent flow shall be measured continuously and recorded. 4. The effluent monitoring requirements applicable to this facility are those found at Part I, Section C.2.c. on page 16 of this permit. There will be no ammonia limit imposed in this certification. The permittee must, by March 31, 1999, complete installation of a continuous effluent flow recorder and submit written notification to the Division that such installation has been completed. Effluent flow shall be measured instantaneously three times per week until March 31, 1999 and continuously beginning April 1, 1999. 5. The salinity monitoring requirements applicable to this facility are those found at Part I, Section C.3. on page 17 of this permit. Raw water salinity and wastewater effluent salinity shall be measured quarterly. 6. The biosolids monitoring requirements applicable to this facility are those found at Part I, Section C.4.b. on page 17 of this permit. J'n-03-98 09:33 From-BHFS Suzanne R. Kalutkiewlcz email: ska)utklewiCZ((.Dhfs COM +3036230621 • BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER & STRICKLAND, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR 410SEvENTEENTM STREET DENVER. COLORADO 60202-4437 (309)534-6335 FAX (303) 623.19S6 June 3, 1998 VIA FACSIMILE T-423 P. 02/02 F-035 yaacoiN TON OFFICE 601 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N,W. SUITE 900 WASHINGTON_ 0.C. 20004 (202)434.8377 FAX (202)191.7884 Mark L. Bean, Director Building and Planning Department Garfield County 109 - 8`h Street Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: H Lazy F Mobile Home Park, 5445 County Road 154, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. Bean: Thank you for your letter dated June 2, 1998 regarding zoning for the above -referenced property. The text that you sent for the C/L Zone District indicates that a mobile home park is a special use. Please forward to me a copy of the special use permit or other form of County approval for this facility. Thank you in advance for your kind assistance. Very truly yours, BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER & ;TRICKLAND, P.C. SRKJnkh cc: Alan Thulson, Esq. Richard Spinelli Nick Casino Ana Lazo Tenzer 5703-1021450563 e R. Kalutkiewicz J1'nl03-98 09:33 From-BHFS Suzanne Kalulklewicz DATE: TO: +3036230621 1 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER & STRICKLAND, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR 410 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER, COLORADO 802024437 (903) 534.6335 FAX (305) 623-1956 June 3, 1998 Mark L. Bean John A. Thulson Richard Spinelli Nick Casino FROM: Suzanne Kalutkiewicz Fax: 970-945-7785 Fax: 970-945-8902 Fax: 212-667-1083 Tel: 212-667-1915 T-423 P.01/02 F-035 WAS„INGTON OFFIrF 601 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. N w SUITE 900 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20004 4202)434.8977 FAx(202)393-i8o4 WE ARE SENDING YOU A a PAGE FACSIMILE (INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE). IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES OR. ENCOUNTER ANY DIFFICULTIES WITH THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CALL OUR OFFICE AT (303) 534-6335 IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU. MESSAGE: Please see attached. Iiim STATFMFNT OF C(W F!DENTIAUTV The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. • • 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. 5. Laboratory and Radiation Services Division Denver, Colorado 80222-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver CO 80220-6928 (303) 692-3090 September 3, 1997 PWSID# 123185 Cottonwood Springs MHP 6995 CR 214 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RE: Turbidity Monitoring Public Water Supply, Garfield County Failure to Monitor Dear Water Purveyor: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment The Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations (CPDWR) require all surface water systems to measure turbidity when water is produced. The required number of entries, either a turbidity value or PO (Plant Off), you should have reported for the month of July, was 31. You failed to monitor and report all of the required entries. This is a violation of the CPDWR, and may be cause for further enforcement actions. You are now required to issue a public notice in order to inform those persons supplied by your water system of your failure to monitor. This notice shall be published, in the public notice section, in a daily newspaper and in writing in the next set of water bills, or if you do not issue water bills another form of direct mail must be used. Only Non -Community public water systems may issue public notice by continuous posting in conspicuous places as long as the violation exists. This notice must be made within 90 days of receipt of this letter. Copies of all public notices must be furnished to this Department within 10 days of completion. If you have questions, please call me at(303)692-3543. Erica Kannely Engineering Physical/Sciences Technician Compliance & Data Management Unit WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION cc: County Health Department ---- DW File, Section 5 J:\WP\VIO\TURBFTM.VIO - Revised 5/95 • • 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. Laboratory and Radiation Services Division Denver, Colorado 80222-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver CO 80220-6928 (303) 692-3090 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment July 7, 1997 Mr. John Seigle Mobile Home Management Corp. Box 69 Aspen, Co. 81612 Re: H Lazy F Mobile Home Park water supply, PWSID #123333 Dear Mr. Seigle: regarding the quality of the drinking water supplied to the users at the I am writing to you re g upset condition, proper steps must be taken to bring the H Lazym F back tooin Home Park. Following n. p are w 9, 1997e well, system normal operating condition. Until these neWatson's ]tetter to you of May the public's Y health remains at risk. I am in receipt of both Mr. as your letter to him of June 2 in which you decline to clean and flush the system. 1 to be in The following steps men before Dri�mwe will conWater ResidationsH Lazy theF MHP water supply compliance with the Colorado Prima 1) A Microscopic Particulate Analysis mustinfluence betakof surface ell. water; analysis will ed determine if the well is under the direct 2) Inspections of the water storage tank leaned to remove suchsediments, hen be properly ear well are necessary. If any sediments are t the tank and/or the clear well must b disinfected; 3) The odistributionrme system must be properly withinflushed the distributidisinfected. on system must be analyzed purpose samples from differentpoints for coliform bacteria to show that the flushing was effective. The users at the mobile home park should be ntifnotified prior to ttheese l ani ions.d flushing as they may experience water quality or water quantity problems es atte Please direct the results of the Microscopic Particulate Analtechnical assistance you ma Y to my t ntio Dwhe Denver niche If you have any questions or need any 692-3548. Grand Junction Office at (970) 248-7156 or me at (303) ou for your attention to these drinking water quality concerns. Tha erely, Glenn A. Bodnar, P.E. Technical Services Unit WQCD xc: Mark Bean, Garfield County Sanitarian Dwain Watson, District Technician Erica Kannely, D.W. Compliance Specialist MOBIL-IOME MANAGEMENT CORPO•ION Box 69 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 My Jon David Seigle President June 2, 1997 Dwain Watson West Slope District Technician Water Quality Control Division 222 S. 6th Street, Room 232 Grand Junction, CO 81501-2768 Dear Dwain: • 'Telephone 970/925-4993 Telecopier ' "670/925-7935 I am in receipt of your letter dated May 9, 1997, regarding the H Lazy F Mobile Home Park's water problems during the month of April. Regarding your suggestion to flush the entire system, 1 would prefer not to do that at this time for several reasons. First of all, it will require the entire system to be shut down for one to two days, which given the immense inconveniences that our residents suffered during our water problem, I would prefer not to have them endure this for a long time. Secondly, and I am sure you are aware of this, all of our water tests, both before and after the water crisis, have indicated there is no abnormality regarding microscopic particulates or chloroform bacteria. Finally, we only received three complaints during the water crisis regarding the color of the water. When we inquired of other residents, no one indicated any discoloration during this time period. As to the cause of the discoloration, it was only a hypothesis of Jon Evans that when the tankers dumped the water into the storage tank, that it may have disturbed sediment on the bottom. Since those three complaints, approximately 7 weeks ago, we have had no complaints regarding the color of the water and, in fact, the water has been clear. Therefore, I would much rather wait until sometime in the future when the system must be shut down for some other reason to flush the entire system. To be quite frank with you, at this time, we do not have any scheduled maintenance on the system that would require us to shut it down for any extended period of time. I also would like to address one other issue regarding the role of the irrigation water in recharging this aquifer. Although clearly, the irrigation water does recharge this Ii Lazy F Mobile Home Park 1-1 Lazy F Self Storage The Garfield Avenue Apartments 5387 County Rd. 154 5445 County Rd. 154 900 Garfield #4 1 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Carbondale, CO 81623 945-5200 945-0404 963-2430 Dwain Watson June 2, 1997 Page 2 • • aquifer, we are now quite confident that the recovery of our wells had nothing to do with the irrigation water recharging the aquifer. That is because the Glenwood Ditch did not get operational for over a week after our wells returned to their normal and historic capacity. This is just one more piece of evidence to indicate to us that our problem was caused by a major leak in our delivery system which, although repaired immediately upon discovery, had been festering for such a long period of time that it basically drained the wells and the reservoirs dry and those reservoirs needed time to recharge. I am assuming that our monthly standard water tests that we perform pursuant to regulations of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment address your concerns regarding microscopic particulates but if it does not, would you please advise me. Hopefully, this addresses your issues raised in your letter of May 9th, but if not, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely yours, MOBILE HOME MANAGEMENT CORP. JDS/kls cc: Mark Bean avid Seigle, President STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor Patti Shwayder, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado Grand Junction Regional Office 222 S. 6th Street, Room 232 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2768 Fax (970) 248-7198 May 9, 1997 H Lazy F MHP, PWSID #123333 Mobile Home Management, Attn: John Seigle P.O. Box 283-A Aspen, CO 81612 RE: Recent water quantity problems. 4AY2 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Dear Mr. Seigle: Now that the water quantity crisis has past, it would appear that several items need to be addressed. During the water problem, several complaints were received regarding brown and discolored water being delivered to customers. Also during the crisis, it was suggested that in order to increase the wells' production rates, that the irrigation water be turned on early. The brown and turbid water complaints suggest that loose sediment is moving within the system. It would appear to be an ideal time to flush the entire system to remove accumulated sediment. To complete the project, the clear well at the plant should be drained and all sediment removed to prevent sediment from entering the distribution system. Increase the chlorine residual to approximately 2.5 mg/l. Begin flushing the distribution system at the hydrant closest to the clear well and systematically flush hydrants until you get to the furthest point in the distribution system. As you are flushing each hydrant, check the chlorine residual to be sure fresh water is coming out. The water should be flushed until it runs clear and the chlorine residual is the same as in the clear well. Take three special purpose samples for coliform bacteria analysis to assure that proper disinfection is occurring. If the wells can be recharged by irrigation water, it would appear that they are influenced by surface events. Therefore, a microscopic particulate analyses need to be performed on the sources, preferably during spring runoff. • • Please advise us when these items have been accomplished. If you have any questions, please contact me at 248-7150. Sincerely, wain P. Watson West Slope District Technician Water Quality Control Division CC: Mark Bean, Garfield County Sanitarian Drinking Water District Engineer File 04/29/1997 09:58 9799633118 AARDGDJD MOBILE HOME MAN AGEMENT CORPORIION Box 69 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Jori David Seigle Fre ident April 28, 1997 VIA FACSIMILE - 945.7785 Mark Bean Garfield County Commissioner 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RAGE 01 Telephone 970/925-4993 Telecopier 979/925-7935 Dear Mark: As agreed to at the meeting on Tuesday, the following is an update of the water situation at the 11 Lazy F Mobile Horne Park. As we had mentioned at the meeting, all of the pumps were turned on, which draw water from all three of our wells, Monday evening around 4:00 p.m. We have continuously supplied water to the tenants since Monday evening and have had no trouble meeting demand. We have measured the level of our storage tank twice a day and the water level has remained constant at one foot below the tank lid. The Glenwood Ditch has not been turned on yet, which confirms our initial analysis that the leak that was found and repaired had drained the wells to a level that with the ground water table so low, our wells were not able to recover water fast enough to keep up with the demand. By letting the wells rest for a week, it appears that they were able to recharge sufficiently_ We will be installing meters on all of our homes to better monitor consumption and leaks in the system. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely yours, MOBILE HOME MANAGEMENT CORP. JDS/kls d Seigle, President 14 Lazy F Self Storage The Garfield Avenue Apartments H 87 F County tR home Park 900 C,arfield #41 53 5445 County Rd. 154 Carbond�ile, CO 81823 Glen d rid- 134 Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 945-0404 9e3-2430 945-5200 GARFI E COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DE VFLOPMENT SP ECIAL/CIWITIONAL USE PERMIT INSI TION FORM Name of Operation: Date Inspected__ 2 -- Inspector__C�1-2L=z Contact Person:r'—���C-� Phone Number: Address: Notes on compliance or non-compliance w/Resolution and/or Permit I • /Vrcondition ) (Reference comments by //t9 �JG=79j /ft tv ,1--7(229 r%de l � Z9 - /a'` 779 611e5-7&Wz Furth ---- Fr Action Required: • C(4) SOIL CHARACTERICS Depth to Bedrock :moderately deep over Texture Surface :gravelly loam Subsoil Substratu{n :sand and gravel Unified/AASHO Classification:YL, SM, GW, SW; A-4, A-2, A-1 -Permeability (below 2 feet) :rapid Percent Coarse Fragments (gravel, cobble, stone) :5 to 15 percent Soil Reaction (pH) :7.9 - 8.4 Shrink -Swell Potential :low Potential Frost Action' (surface) :low • Flood Ilaz�rd�� none Hydrologic Group :B Corrosivity - Steel :high - Concrete :low 0 1• Ivc(0sw2€ sand, gravel DEGREE & KIND OF LIMITATIONS (0 is Slight, M is Moderate, S is Severe) : Septic Tank Absorption a Fields :0* Sewage Lagoons :S - seepage Sanitary Landfill - Trench :S - seepage, too sandy - Area :S - seepage Shallow Excavations - :S - cutbanks cave, small stones Dwellings w/basements :0 w/o basements :0 Local Roads and Streets :0 SUITABILITY AS A SOURCE OF.... Daily Cover for Landfill :Fair - seopage, thin layer Topsoil :Poor - small stones, too sandy Sand :Good (:ravel : Good Roadfill :Good OTHER SOIL FEATURES « rapid permeability may cause a pollution hazard. Z "ADVANCE COPY SUBJECT TO CHANGE" NOT TO BE USED IN PLACE OF ON-SITE INVESTIGATION. GARFIE• COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF D•LOPPMENTtM SPECIAL/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT INSPE CTION Date Inspected_y _/& -- Inspector L --- Name of Operation:___ Contact Person:ze,57-7 Phone Number :��------`--- 8 Address: Notes on compliance or non-compliance w/Resolution and/or Permit fl -_4/0 condition) (Reference comments by 0 Further Action Required: COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEAR Water Quality Control Division 4210 East llth Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 zilsE SUMMARY OF RATIONALE H -LAZY -F MOBILE HOME PARK WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY PERMIT NUMBER: CO -0038806 GARFIELD COUNTY TYPE OF FACILITY: Minor Non -Municipal - New YI E ,., ;?t,, S.I.C. NO.. 4952 GAME CT. r . LOCATION: Southeast 4 of Section 1, Township 7 South, Range 89 West, 6th P.M.; approximately 6 miles Northwest of the City of Carbondale on Highway 82. CONTACTS: Mr. Austin F. Heuschkel 0164 Thomas Road Carbondale, CO 81623 (303)+945-5200 RECEIVING WATER: Roaring Fork River CLASS: STREAM LOW FLOW: DESIGN FLOW: I. FACILITY DESCRIPTION: Recreational - Class 2 Cold Water Aquatic Life - Class 1 Water Supply Agricultural 294.5 cfs (190.3 MGD) 0.04 MGD This facility, depicted in Figure 1 (page 15), is an extended aeration package plant servicing a mobile home park of approximately 100 units. Wastewater flow entering the plant passes through a manually cleaned bar screen into a 5000 gallon flow equalization basin. Contained within the flow equalization basin is a splitter box which provides for a constant dis- charge to the aeration basin. High level overflow from the surge basin is also directed to the aeration basin. Wastewater in the equalization basin is aerated. The aeration basin has a 24-hour detention time at the design flow of 40,000 gpd. Aeration and mixing is provided with diffusers. Effluent from the aeration basin flows to a 7962 gallon center feed clarifier. Overflow from the clarifier enters the chlorine contact chamber, which has a 30 minute detention time. Immediately following the chlorine contact chamber, flow from the facility is measured by use of V -notch weir. Samples of the effluent will be taken at this point at the time intervals established on page 3 of the permit. Discharge is to the Roaring Fork River at discharge point 001 (Figure 2, page 16) located approximately 1600 feet northwest of the plant. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEAL-iH Water Quality Control Division Summary of Rationale Page 2 PERMIT NUMBER: CO -0038806 FACILITY DESCRIPTION: (CON'D.) Sludge from the clarifier is pumped to a splitter box where the sludge is either discharged to the aeration basin or wasted to the sludge holding tank. Aeration is provided to the holding tank for the aerobic digestion of the sludge. Final disposal of the digested sludge is to the city landfill. Supernatant from the holding tank is returned to the aeration basin. The plant has been designed to treat the wastewater from 100 units with eventual expansion to be able to treat the wastewater flow from 140 units. With 140 units the current facility will be at 99.8% of capacity. This is a new facility, therefore, there is no previous monitoring data. II. LIMITATION AND RATIONALE Parameter Limitations Rationale BOD5 (mg/1) 30/45a State Effluent Standard TSS (mg/1) 30/45a State Effluent Standard FC (#/100 ml) 6000/12,000a State Fecal Coliform Policy Stream Standard State Effluent Standard TRC (mg/1) 0.5 Stream Standard Oil & Grease (mg/1) 10 State Effluent Standard pH (s.u.) 6.5 - 9.0 State Effluent Standard Flow (MGD) 0.04 Design Flow Total Ammonia (mg/1 as N) N/A Monitor Only Salinity (mg/1) N/A Monitor Only arepresents the 30- and 7 -day average concentrations respectively. Expiration date will be December 31, 1986. III. DISCUSSION OF PERMIT LIMITATIONS A. Fecal Coliform Bacteria In establishing the fecal coliform limitation, a mass balance approach is used. With a Q7-1, (stream low flow) for the Roaring Fork River of 190.3 MGD, a treatment facility7design flow of 0.04 MGD, a background fecal coliform count of 23b organisms per 100 mis and an allowable instream standard of 2000 organisms per 100 mis, the following equation results: .3 F.C. = 2000-(190.390 0.04) �3 6000 0.04 org/100 mis 190.3+0.04 bBased on 62 samples taken at the mouth of the Roaring Fork River. Samples were taken over a 4.5 year period (1/77-7/81). COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HE. Water Quality Control Division Summary of Rationale Page 3 PERMIT NUMBER: CO -0(338806 III. DISCUSSION OF PERMIT LIMITATIONS • A. Fecal Coliform Bacteria (CON'D.) Maximum allowable discharge for fecal coliforms from a wastewater treatment facility is 6000/12000 organisms per 100 mis (Division policy). When the mass balance equation suggests a greater discharge than the established maximum allowable, the latter is used as the limitation. B. Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) The toxicity limit and instream standard for chlorine is 0.003 mg/1. Using this value along with the stream low flow, the facility design flow and a stream background chlorine concentration of 0.0 mg/1 in a mass balance equation yields: TRC = 0.003 (0.04 + 190.3)) 0.5 mg/1 0.h4 Since the mass balance equation yields a discharge limitation greater than the State Effluent Standard of 0.5 mg/1, then the effluent limitation becomes the State Effluent Standard. C. Total Ammonia The worst case scenario of low flow and summer conditions in a mass balance equation shows a total ammonia effluent limitation greater than what could be expected from a facility of this type. Therefore, no total ammonia effluent limitation will be placed into effect for this permit. A monitoring program however, will still be required. If upon later assessment of the monitoring data it is determined that a limitation be instituted, this will be done with an amendment to the permit via the reopener clause on page 11. D. Salinity In compliance with the "Regulations for Implementation of the Colorado Salinity Standards Through the NPDES Permit Program", the permittee shall sample for salinity on a monthly basis until six samples have been taken. Thereafter, monitoring for salinity shall continue on a quarterly basis. Samples shall be taken at both the raw (potable) water supply intake and at the wastewater discharge. The Division will review the first six months of salinity data and determine if a waiver of numeric limitations is indicated based on an incremental increase of less than 400 mg/l. If a waiver is not granted at that time, then the permittee has an additional six months to submit a report in accordance with the Salinity Regulations, addressing economic feasability of salt removal. Gary Girolimon November 13, 1981 • AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE COLORADO WASTEWATER DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM New Permit No.: Co -0038806 County: Garfield In compliance with the provisions or the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.; the "Act"), and the Colorado Water Quality Control Act (25-8-101 et. seq., CRS, 1973 as amended) H -Lazy -F Mobile Home Park is authorized to discharge from their wastewater treatment plant located in the Southeast of Section 1, Township 7 South, Range 89 West, 6th P.M.; approximately 6 miles Northwest of the City of Carbondale on Highway 82 to the Roaring Fork River in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth in Part 1, 11, and 111 hereof. This permit shall become effective thirty (30) days after the daze of receipt of this permit by the Applicant. Should the Applicant choose to Contest any of the effluent limitations, monitoring re,uire:nents or other conditions contained herein, he .rust comply with Section 24-4-104 CRS 1973 and the Regulations for the State Oischar_e Permit Sysze:n. ;allure to contest any such affluent limitations,, ,monitoring requirement, or other condition is consent to the condition by the Applicant. This permit and the authorization to discharge :nail expire at midnight, December 31, 1986 Signed this day of CDLORA00 DEPARTMENT OFE.;L T H Gary G. 3roetz^.an Director Water Quality Control Division 5/31 • PAI Page 2 of 17 Permit No.: CO -0038806 A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - SEE ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER PART Ill. 1. Effluent Limitations During the period beginning no later than immediately and lasting through December 31,1986 the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall serial numbers 001, located approximately 1600 feet northwest of the plant (Figure 2, page 16), to the Roaring Fork River. Effluent Parameter Discharge Limitations Maximum Concentrations 30 -day ava. ;-da avg. Daily Max. BOD5, mg/1 (lb/day) 30 (10) a-' 45 (15) b/ N/A Total Suspended Solids, mg/1 30 (10) a/ 45 (15) b/ N/A (lb/day) Fecal Coliforms, Number/100 ml 6000 12000 c/ N/A Total Residual Chlorine, mg/1 N/A N/A 0.5 Total Ammonia (mg/1 as N) Monitor Only Salinity (mg/1) Monitor Only Flow, MGD N/A N/A 0.04 Organic Loading Capacity, lb/day (BODS) N/A N/A 83.4 pH - units shall remain between 6.5_ and 9.0 d/. Oil and Grease shall not exceed 10 mg/1 d/ in any grab sample nor shall there be a visible sheen. d/h/ • PART I Page 3 of 17 Permit No.: CO -0038806 A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Continued) 2. Monitoring Requirements In order to obtain an indication of the probable compliance or non-compliance with the effluent limitations specified in Part 1, the permittee shall monitor and report all effluent parameters at the following required frequencies. Effluent Parameter Measurement Frequency e/i/ Sample Type f/ Flow - (MGD) Weekly Instantaneous or Continuous BOD 5 - (ng/1) a/ Monthly Composite Total Suspended Solids g/ (mg/1) Monthly Composite Fecal Coliforms-Number/100 ml Monthly Grab pH - .u.) Weekly Grab Oil and Grease - (ng/1) Weekly Grab or Visual Total Residual Chlorine - (mg/1) Weekly Grab Total Ammonia-(mg/1 as N) Quarterly Composite Salinity - (mg/1) j/ k/ Quarterly Grab Self-monitoring samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following location: at the effluent flow weir, as shown in Figure 1, page 15. 2/2/77 • PO I Page 4 of 17 Permit No.: C0-0038806 A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Continued) 3 Footnotes 6/19/80 a/ This limitation shall be determined by the arithmetic mean of a minimum of three (3) consecutive samples taken on separate weeks in a 30 -day period (minimum total of three (3) samples); not aoplicable to fecal coliforms - see footnote c/. b/ This limitation shall be determined by the arithmetic mean of a minimum of three (3) consecutive samples taken on separate days in a 7 -day period (minimum total of three (3) samples); not applicable to fecal coliforms - see footnote c/. c/ Averages for fecal coliforms shall be determined by the geometric mean of a minimum of three (3) consecutive grab samples taken during separate weeks in a 30 -day period for the 30 -day average, and during separate days in a 7 -day period for the 7 -day average. (minimum total of three (3) samples). d/ Any discharge beyond this limitation as indicated by any single analysis and/or measurement shall be considered a violation of the condition of this permit. e/ When the measurement frequency indicated is quarterly, the samples shall be collected during March, June, September and December, if a continual discharge occurs. If the discharge is intermittent, then samples shall be collected during the period that discharge occurs. f/ See definitions, Part B g/ In addition to monitoring the final discharge, influent samples shall be taken and analyzed for this parameter at the same frequency as required as For this parameter in the discharge. h/ Monitoring is required only when chlorine is used for disinfection. i/ Monitoring is required only during periods of discharge. If "no discharge" occurs, this shall be reported at the specified frequency. (See Part B). J/ Salinity shall be measured as Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) or electrical conductivity where a satisfactory correlation has been established based on a minimum of five (5) samples. Samples shall be taken at both the raw (potable) water intake and the permitted discharge point. k/ Salinity shall be sampled monthly until six sets of samples have been analyzed. Thereafter, monitoring shall continue on a quarterly basis. Following submittal of the first six months of data, the Division will determine eligibility of a waiver of numeric limitations based on an incremental increase of less than 400 mg/l. If a waiver is not grant- ed, then the permittee has an additional six months to submit a report addressing salt -removal in accordance with Regulations 3.10.0 - 3.10.5 and Appendix A. • 8. MONITORING AND REPORTING 1. Representative Sampling AiiRT 1 ge 5 of 17 PERMIT NO: C0-0038806 Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge. 2. Reporting Monitoring results obtained during the previous 3 months shall be summarized for each calendar quarter and reported on applicable discharge monitoring report forms (EPA Form 3320-1), postmarked no later than the 28th day of the month following the completed quarter. For example, for the 1st quarter (January, February and March) the report would be mailed on or before April 28. If no discharge occurs during the reporting period, "No Discharge" shall be reported. Duplicate signed copies of these, and all other reports required herein, shall be submitted to the Regional Administrator and the State at the following addresses: Colorado Department of Health Water Quality Control Division Monitoring & Enforcement Section 4210 East llth Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 3. Definitions U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1860 Lincoln Street - Suite 103 Denver, Colorado 80295 Attention: Enforcement - Permit Program a A "composite" sample, for monitoring requirements, is defined as a minimum of four (4) grab samples collected at equally spaced two (2) hour intervals and proportioned according to flow. b. A "grab" sample, for monitoring requirements, is defined as a single "dip and take" sample collected at a representative point in the discharge stream. c. An "instantaneous" measurement, for monitoring requirements, is defined as a single reading, observation, or measurement using existing monitor- ing facilities. 4. Test Procedures Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform co regulations published pursuant to Section 304 (h) of the Act, and Colorado State Effluent Limitations (10.1.4), under which such procedures may be required. 5. Recording of Results For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this permit, the permittee shall record the following information: a. The exact place, date, and time of sampling; b. c. 3/31 The dates the analyses were performed; The person(s) who performed the sampling; P RT I 6 of 17 Permit No: C0-0038806 d. The person(s) who performed the analyses; e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and f. The results of all required analyses. 6. Calculations for all limitations which require averaging of measurements shall utilize an arithmetic mean unless otherwise specified. specified. 7. Additional Monitoring by Permittee If the permittee monitors any pollutant at the location(s) designated herein more frequently than required by this permit, using approved analytical methods as specified above, the results of such monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the values required in the Discharge, Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1), or other forms as required by the Division. Such increased frequency shall also be indicated. 8. Records Retention All records and information resulting from the monitoring activities required by this permit including all records of analyses performed and calibration and maintenance of instrumentation and recordings from continuous monitoring instrumentation shall be retained for a minimum of three (3) years, or longer if requested by the Regional Administrator or the State Water Quality Control Division. 1/31 • A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS 1. Change in Discharge (10 Page 7 of 17 Permit No: CO -0038806 All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit. The discharge of any pollutant identified in this permit more frequently than or at a level in excess of that authorized shall constitute a violation of the permit. Any anticipated change in discharge location, facility expansions, production increases, or process modifications which will result in new, different, or increased discharges or pollutants must be reported by submission of a new NPDES application or, if such changes will not violate the effluent limitations specified in this permit, by notice to the State Water Quality Control Division of such changes. Process modifications include, but are not limited to, the introduction of any new pollutant not previously identified in the permit, or any other modifications which may result in a discharge of a quantity or quality different from that which was applied for. Following such notice, the permit may be modified to specify and limit any pollutants not previously limited. 2. Noncompliance (A) - Definitions (B) (1) Upset: An exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. (2) Bypass: The intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility. (3) Severe Property Damage:. Substantial physical damage to property, to the treatment facilities to cause them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. It does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production. Notification (1) 1/31 NON FEEDLOT If. for any reason, the permittee does not comply with or will be unable to comply t•with any maximum discharge limitations or standards specified in this permit, the permittee shall, at a minimum, provide the Water Quality Control Division and EPA with the following information: a) A description of the discharge and cause of noncompliance b) The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times and/or the anticipated time when the discharge will return to compliance; and c) Steps beina taken to reduce, eliminate. Ana prevent recurrence of the noncomplying discharge. T II age 8 of 17 Permit No: C0-0038806 2 Noncompliance (cont'd) (2) The following instances of noncompliance shall be reported orally within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances, and a written report mailed within five days of the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances: (3) (4) a) Any instance of noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment b) Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit c) Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit (See Fed. Reg. Vol. 45, No. 98, 122.60 (h) for upset conditions) d) Daily maximum violations for any toxic pollutants or hazardous substances limited in PART I -A of this permit. The permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported in "Notification", paragraph 2-(3)-(2) (above), at the time discharge monitoring reports are submitted (EPA Form 3320-1). The reports shall contain the information listed in "Notification", paragraph 2-(B)-(1) (above). Where the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or report to the Division, it shall promptly submit such facts or information. (C) Bypass (1) The permittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation. No Division notification is required, and this case is not subject to the requirements in paragraphs 2-(C)-(2) through 2-(C)-(4), (below). (2) If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit notice, if possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass, to the Division and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The bypass shall be subject to Division approval, and limitations imposed by the Division andEPA. (3) For an unanticipated bypass, see the requirements listed in "Notification", paragraph 2-(3)-(2), (above). (4) Bypass is prohibited, and the Division ray take enforcement action against a permittee for bypass, unless: a) 3ypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; 1/81 Piii II PIM, 9 of 17 Permit No: CO -0038806 2. Noncompliance (cont'd) b) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if the permittee could have installed adequate backup equipment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventative maintenance; and c) The permittee submitted notices as required in "Notification", paragraph 2-(B) (above). 3. Removed Substances Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed of in a manner such as to prevent any pollutant from such materials from entering waters of the State. 4. Facilities Operation The permittee shall at all times maintain in good working order and operate as efficiently as possible all treatment or control facilities or systems installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit. 5. Adverse Impact The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse impact to waters of the State resulting from noncompliance with any effluent limitations specified in this permit, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as necessary to determine the nature and impact of the noncomplying discharge. 6. Any discharge to the waters of the State from a point source other than specifically authorized is prohibited. 7. Reduction, Loss, or Failure of Treatment Facility 1/81 The permittee shall, to the extent necessary to maintain compliance with its permit, control production, or all discharges, or both until the facility is restored or an alternative method of treatment is provided. This provision also applies to power failures, unless an alternative power source sufficient to operate the wastewater control facilities is provided. • B. RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Right to Entry iliT II e 10 of 17 Permit No: CD -0038806 The permittee shall allow the Director of the State Water Quality Control Division, the EPA Regional Administrator, and/or their authorized repre- sentative, upon the presentation of credentials: (A) To enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or in which any records are required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit; (B) At reasonable times to have access to and copy any records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit and to inspect any monitoring equipment or monitoring method required in the permit; and (C) To enter upon the permittee's premises to reasonably investigate any actual, suspected, or potential source of water pollution, or any violation of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act. The investigation may include, but is not limited to, the following: sampling of any discharge and/or process waters, the taking of photographs, interviewing of any persons having any knowledge related to the discharge, permit, or alleged violation, and access to any and all facilities or areas within the permittee's premises that may have any affect on the discharge, permit, or alleged violation. 2. Duty to Provide Information The permittee shall furnish to the Division, within a reasonable time, any information which the Division may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine compliance with this permit. 3 Transfer of Ownership or Control In the event of any change in control or ownership of facilities from which the authorized discharges emanate, the permittee shall notify the succeeding owner or controller of the existence of this permit by letter, a copy of which shall be forwarded to the Regional Administrator and the State Water Quality Control Division. 4. Availability of Reports Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 308 of the Act and Regulations for the State Discharge Permit System 6.1.3, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall be available for public inspection at the off;ces of the State Water Quality Control Division and the Regional Administrator. As required by the Act, effluent data shall not be considered confidential. Knowingly making any false statement on any such report may result in the imposition of criminal penalties as provided for in Section 309 of :he .act. and Section 25-8-610 C.R.S. 1973. 1/81 41, II Page 11 of 17 Permit No: Co -0038806 5. Permit Modification After notice and opportunity for a hearing, the permit may be modified, suspended, or revoked in whole or in part during its term for cause including, but not limited to, the following: (A) (B) Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit; Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts; (C) A change in any condition which results in a temporary or permanent reduction, elimination, addition or increase of the permitted discharge. (Changes in Water Quality Standards, control regulation or duly promulgated plans would qualify as "a change in any condition."); (D) This permit shall be modified, or alternatively, revoked and reissued, to comply with any applicable effluent standard or limitation issued or approved under sections 301(b)(2)(C), and (D), 304(b)(2), and 307(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act, if the effluent standard or limitation so issued or approved: (1) Contains different conditions or is otherwised more stringent than any effluent limitation in the permit; or (2) Controls any pollutant not limited in the permit. The permit as modified or reissued under this paragraph shall also contain any other requirements of the Act then applicable. 6. Toxic Pollutants Notwithstanding "Permit Modification", paragraph B-5 (above), if a toxic effluent standard or prohibition (including any schedule of compliance specified in such effluent standard or prohibition) is established under Section 307(a) of the Act for a toxic pollutant which is present in the discharge and such standard or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation for such pollutant in this permit, this permit shall be revised or modified in accordance with the toxic effluent standard or prohibition and the permittee so notified. 7. Civil and Criminal Liability Except as provided in permit conditions on "Reduction, Loss or Failure of Treatment Facility", (A-5), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance. (See Fed. Reg. Vol. 45, No. 98, 122.60). 8. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsiblities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee is or may be subject under Section 311 of the Act. 2/81 • 9. State Laws •PART II Page 12 of 17 Permit No: C0-0038806 Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any applicable State law or regulation under authority preserved by Section 510 of the Act. 10. Permit Violations Failure to comply with any terms and/or conditions of this permit shall be a violation of this permit. 11. Property Rights The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations. 12. Severability The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provisions of this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit shall not be affected thereby. 13. At the request of a permittee, the Division may modify or terminate a permit and issue a new permit if the following conditions are met: (A) The Regional Administrator has been notified of the proposed modifi- cation or termination,and does not object in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of notification; and (B) The Division finds that the permittee has shown reasonable grounds consistent with the Federal and State statutes, and regulations for such modification or termination; and (C) Requirements of public notice have been met. The filing of a request by the permittee for a permit modification, revokation and reissuance, or termination, or a notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not stay any permit condition. 14. It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would be necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this permit. 15. Signatory Requirement All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Division shall be signed and certified. 1/31 •ART III Page 13 of 17 PERMIT NO: C0-0038806 OTHER REQUIREMENTS (Applies to Sewage Treatment Plants only) Percentage Removal Requirements (8005 and TSS Limitations) If not presently being complied with, effective immediately, the arithmetic mean of the total BODS and the Total Suspended Solids concentrations for effluent samples collected in a period of 30 consecutive days shall not exceed 15 percent of the arithmetic mean of the concentrations for influent samples collected at approximately the same times during the same period (85 percent removal). This is in addition to the concentration limitations on Total B0D5 and Total Suspended Solids. Expansion Requirements Pursuant to Colorado Law, C.R.S. 1973 25-8-501 (6), the permittee is required to initiate engineering and financial planning for ex- pansion of the treatment works whenever throughput and treatment reaches eighty (80) percent of design capacity. Whenever ninety- five (95) percent of either the hydraulic or organic capacity of the treatment works is met, the permittee shall commence construction of the necessary treatment expansion. In the case of publicly owned sewage treatment works, where con- struction is not commenced in accordance with the above paragraph, the municipality shall cease issuance of building permits within such municipality until construction has commenced, except that building permits may continue to be issued for any construction which would not have the effect of increasing the input of sewage to the sewage treatment works of the municipality. Throughput, treatment, and design capacity shall be determined by the Division. 2/81 BOD/TSS • • OTHER REQUIREMENTS PART III Page 14 of 17 Permit No.: CO -0038806 Within three (3) months after the effective date of this permit, a flow -measuring device shall be installed to give representative values of effluent volume at some point in the plant circuit, if not already a part of the wastewater plant. The following locations of flow -measuring devices are required: 1 Facilities with detention times within the treatment system of 24 hours or less: on the influent or effluent line, or within the system. 2. Facilities with detention times within the treatment system of 24 hours or more: on the effluent line. If permittee desires to locate a flow -measuring device in a location other than in 1 or 2 above, then permittee shall submit a request to the Division giving the specific location (by map). The request shall include a the location will give accurate measurements within ten (10)percinicofioh that actual flow being discharged. Installation shall be subect torapt va the Division prior to installation. pprovl by the At the request of the Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or the Director of the State Water Quality Control Division, the permittee must be able to show proof of the accuracy of any flow -measuring device used in obtaining data submitted in the monitoring report. The flow -measuring device must indicate values within ten (10) percent of the actual flow being discharged from the facility. The limitations stated in PART I, Section A, are calculated on the basis of gross measurements of each parameter in the designated discharge regardless of the quantity and quality of these parameters in the plant flow unless otherwise specified. If the permittee desires to continue to discharge, he shall re -apply at least one hundred -eighty (180) days before this permit expires. Monitoring of Total B0D5, Total Suspended Solids, and Fecal Coliforms will be required six (6) months after permit issuance. Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall file a statement with the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Quality Control Division which shall contain the names of the person or persons who are designated to report conditions as noted in PART II, Section A, Paragraph 2a (Noncompliance Notification), and as noted in PART II, Section B, Paragraph 7 (Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability). The permittee shall continually update this list as changes occur at the facility. The permittee is required to submit an annual fee as set forth in Section 25-8-502 C.R.S. 1973 as amended. Failure to submit the required fee is a violation of this permit and will result in the suspension of said permit and enforcement action pursuant to Section 25-8-601 et. seq., 1973 as amended. Discharge Point(s) Discharge points shall be so designed or modified that a sample of the 1-$1 effluent can be obtained at a point after the final treatment BO prior to discharge to State waters. process and WASTEWATER FLOW ( 1 w c7 �— c� z cp - Y Cr) 0 J J Q cn 0 I— 0 S �p /7C: w N m O J O U CO • PART III Page 15 of 17 Permit No.: CO -0038806 Adlo+ntna 21t5•36 (oze u 7.6S. ART III -rS.411,age 16 of 17 Permit No.: C0-0038806 V23 4 0 ti S c a.l 2: / VDo l No l -122-00-0I7 f • F JS �Sa (091 12+ all z1 •7066. 067 C3 r:c01 aP r5 -Th t 5.. N- (5 9 73) N 1666 N' 72 sr 1 m Sewage Treatment Pla� 1 C99 FIGURE 2. LOCATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND DISCHARGE POINT 001. 0 0 A QA d'OEsIL7 (3 , APPLE TREE MHP - - NEW CASTLE i (i RIVER 8ENI7 , i. WEST GLE'NI o p" —, R) G1ENw00.D SPR/NGS r D CA,PBOND4LE ,S4N, • C4IC-SPEP/NG k4LL?Y `�• EL JEBEL MHP 8ASAL r -1Z, D SNowAIASS • e. PART Page Permi . •'MMITEk.i \4 .rtodr / 3 ROUTT 1t \ f OsM Creq• t`1.1 J 7 77.: . r*rootaart ea . JMY» /1‘.11 • NATIONAL - 1-17• . FOREST—` --19"."112r- • coon" rr --•� '.o r ' RIVER' ..,I• 1 ;� vjv-. .! ! ! n' r- --- ,i.`_ ,; .. ,;NATIONAL.,.. L., I1. 1— Rea\,/t,t'1: \ ---–.1/I�4-si4'J *FOREST , ROUTT • NATIONAL 1i w4c1i'D v; `1.2) • GARF(ELD: - Rifle . • .O"M rittq LE Eagle AMO f • ti• l., TfONAL • f PO FOREST ' / i5r' [I]rnitte. 414 1u_ l5rr.iles III 17 of 17 t No.: co -0038806 phial Mctef .. Sttl Omit. 6r • M/MITE. RI 1ER NATIONAL • `'� , R r �� •oko� �r'roREST �>�•: : ,r.. 4' ! 1? i'� '' • ®• . ..- �,.ASUM.41aT; '4;-‘2.;-;.. Cdorodt .•• A•aa i-=.�` M SII}.Po lfr► ';on I le � 3 -, . Coni 'r r, L. 4 asID a, c• .1 - z-:- ibhn= ‘i �' t lir �, ; �• • o .. 4 DELTA . If pct t• m!''r •tT i. aw ,••••., «r f s ! // lel i „...,/,, cv. 0. " `. • .1 YWM17E RIPER a% i#` _ .: ` M K rrocLw. ri NATIONAL ty � • • - a.. •� � Br 4 • -. ;Poles!. !•.b, t% • ,. el.,.. MeedT Cr«ll PITKIN ; Aspee- Y-' 111 '1 7:-(,;~" q: %-.--- _tu+i f...4 fifi t `• , 7 34,3 -`:-( t: i.Y.t"'trr� 4.; 'Y. re... • • 4 �. a2 I �rfw :rJ ' .•�; \� \ j.. f '`.�14M1'� : ~i.-7 I. [ . Gran ._ + f , d , � �J \ ,f S NA ONAI''l • Ats era 4'4 SAW - ',.•10.14 e oir tl 'l'J: • 44 7 'Ceadvill74r•A� `M'"= ---'-S falrpia • r tp� X t I t•: r •2:. _ • ti ,,�; ti • 11 S..... 1.7• OLA CAN)/ OrjrNE +UNNI$Cti tl NA rIONA MONUMENT - !" 1' {C 1 i jr 1 nummtson •d1' - NATIt t•. . roan ..., ..r . • 4, GUNNISO ...%'iji?'Ji h�y r� r:�.1 l•t •C i` - w •. ,\ * RI 4 lonew"} k. +y•(.7 N.AfJ : z 1.1 4 ,. •.' 1 �1 uana •14 sabot ECESkiGunnison 0 t-.. • StpM," • •• I f r -'------ FIGURE 3. LOCATION OF H -LAZY -F MOBILE HOME PARK P.O. BOX 931 TAMARACK 1001 GRAND AVENUE (303) 945-9141 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 NICHOLAS W. GOLUBA, JR. JOHN R. SCHENK GOLUBA, SCHENK &';KIWI ATTORNEYS AT LAW May 27, 1980 Garfield County Commissioners P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 f I P.O. BOX 1 040 .CENTENNIAL PLAZA �rhy {^' ,, p�, 502 MAIN - " ru..ui s�") 963-3796 cPAI4#BONDALE, COLORADO 81623 DAN KERST DAVID A. GOLUBA Re: Proposed Mobile Home Park/Austin Heuschkel Gentlemen: I have obtained a copy of the soil report prepared by the United States Soil Conservation Service. Although this report was apparently submitted to the Planning Commission by Mr. Heuschkel, I am not sure that the report has been called to your attention. There are no less than five separate references in the report to the rapid permeability existant at the subject location. Under the section entitled "Degree and Kind of Limita- tion" for various useages, it is indicated in connection with septic tank absorpsion fields that rapid permeability may cause a pollution hazzard. In connection with sewage lagoons, sanitary land fill - trench, sanitary land fill - area, and shallow excavations, the limitations are described as "severe." Seepage is recognized as a serious problem. The report further indicates, on the last page, that the soils "need frequent irrigation due to their low water hold- ing capacity" (emphasis supplied). The concluding statement in the report prepared by the U.S. Soil Conservation is as follows: "Because of rapid permeability, effluent from septic tank absorption fields may pollute ground water." The report prepared by the U.S. Soil Conservation Department red -flags the danger inherent in permitting a sewage treatment facility which would discharge effluent (treated or otherwise) into a leach field system in the area in question. Even if the system discharges absolutely pure water when functioning normally, any malfunction of the system would directly and immediately impact the wells and springs below the mesa and west of County Road 167 due to the rapid permeability of the soil in that area. Mr. Heuschkel • • Garfield County Commissioners May 27, 1980 Page Two cannot expect the health and safety of the families living below the mesa to be recklessly jeopardized in order to satisfy the need for low income housing in Garfield County. Traditionally, your approval of this kind of project, and, in my experience, your approval of any development of this magnitude, requires that the developer demonstrate a proven water source and the availability of adequate sewage disposal. Neither of these prerequisites to approval have been demonstrated in this case. The developer has obtained a drilling permit only from the Colorado Division of Water Resources. The well has not been drilled and the permit, by its express terms, is expressly conditional as follows: "(a) A decree for this appropriation must be obtained from the District Court in and for Water Division No. 5, State of Colorado. This approval is subject to the issuance of said decree." No such decree has been obtained, nor has the developer even filed an application with the Water Court as required. One of the conditions of approval imposed by the Garfield County Planning Commission was that an augmentation plan be filed. This likewise has not been done. The testimony presented at the last public hearing makes it abundantly clear that any water application or plan for augmentation filed by the developer in this case will be opposed by a number of prop- erty owners in the area whose water rights will be adversely affected. No acceptable or adequate method of sewage disposal has been proposed by the developer. The concept proposed involves, not just a risk of water pollution, but an absolute guarantee that such pollution will occur each and every time a malfunction occurs in the treatment system proposed or the capacity of the treatment system is exceeded. There is no margin of safety or protection for the families located in the vicinity of and below the proposed treatment facility, due to the rapid permeability of the soils at the location in point. At the public hearing, it was implied that the treatment facility proposed by the developer was acceptable to Dick Bowman and would be approved • • Garfield County Commissioners May 27, 1980 Page Three by the Colorado Department of Health. I am advised by a neighbor, who has discussed the matter with Mr. Bowman, that the developer has not even proposed the exact type of system which he intends to utilize. Accordingly, there is abso- lutely no assurance that the requisite approvals for the treatment facility will be forthcoming. Indeed, the soil characteristics of the area would indicte that the chances for approval of such a system are not good. Enclosed are copies of the soil report prepared by the U.S. Soil Conservation Department and the well permit refer- enced above. The language in these documents to which I have referred is underlined in red. These documents already form a part of the record, the soils report having been filed with the Planning Commission and the well application having been filed with the County Commissioners. Your consideration of the gravity of the potential health hazzards generated by the proposed development and your adherance to the prudent guidelines which you have followed in the past in connection with high density type developments will be greatly appreciated by the property owners in the impacted area and will serve the interests of the public in general. NWG/ska encls. c.c. Art Abplanalp Dick Bowman Very truly yours, NICHOLAS W. GOLUBA, JR. 1 �j.�; o•!`+�iti��'r:�j.`:��t�"LGP `�'.: :'{• '_[�'�.'i.-. �:i4il•�h SOIL CHARACTER ICS 0 Depth to Bedrock :moderately deep over sand, gravel Y,;Texture , .i . tSurface :gravelly lalm 1 •; Subsoil . • Substratum :sand and �,ravol Unified/AASHO Classification:ML, SM, GV, SV(; A-4, A-2, A-1 - >Permeability (below 2 feet) :rapid Percent Coarse Fragments (gravel, cobble, stone) :5 to 15 percent Soil Reaction (pH) :7.9 - 8.4 Shrink -Swell Potential :low Potential Frost Action' (surface) :low • Flood Hazard :none Hydrologic Croup :B Corrosivity - Steel :hi{h - Concrete :low 2,7 : DEGREE_4 KIND OF LIMITATIONS • (0 is Slight, M is Moderate, S is Severe) Septic Tank Absorption Fields :0* Sewage Lagoons :S - soepape Sanitary Landfill - Trench :S - seepag-o, too sandy - Area :3_7 scjclP.j ._ Shallow Excavations :S - rutbanks cave_ X11 Stnnos Dwellings w/basements :0 w/o basements :0 Local Roads and Streets :0 SUITABILITY AS A SOURCE OF.... Daily Cover for Landfill :Fair - seopage, thin layer Topsoil :Poor - small stones, too sandy Sand t Good Gravel :Good Roadfill : Good OTHER SOIL FENtURFS *rapid permeability may cause a pollution hazard. "ADVANCE COPY SUBJECT TO CHANGE" NOT TO RE USED IN PLACE OF ON -SITZ{ INVESTIGATION. / � • C`n?�)rY JV4� o7n i IC t, r:ci•r-,1:r�l;inr: /t+>u+Lic�H 'TI;••:;.s 1t-:rr•I:,, v,;l to r r,nt.1 slopin;r, sails al--; on alluvial. fans and - t }lir}1 t •rrq,-es at: r'.lr.'vions; of G;O00 to 7:i0Q f';r1t:. Thc u\'ur•utrc anrrncrl pro - C l p i t•.R .S nt1 is a 'ont 16 111c)1DD, t;lr' moon !UuL 1 nir tn,r•.pr; r&tur' is ahont 46°F., anl tl:r. t:r'r; :r rrp frost-fr :0 -in 1 is uhr)irt. 110 ,lays. Tho Atonc io so i 1 oc•:u:,ios the r;or-what connive: ports of thn lands cape. It makes up al,out 60 norr• int; u`' thn unit. 'l'hDD Azolti.ne soil ocr,u lies t;h^ s rightly convox positi•-ns. It n'tikes up about 30 percent of thn unit. Tho Atencio so• 1 has a his-hor 7)nr•c'ent.are or cohhlr, and s1.orr•: in the nrofi 10 than the Azclt.ine soil. Al'LIU1. 10 perccrrt, of tho unit in ;-rave I hu r•:r or finer tmxturcd soils. The A'.t:ric10 soil is modnr;tt.r;ly deep „rui well (} .wined. It formed in mixed snrdst-.one: shale, un 1 i& 1 1vint: . Typically tho su rCuco 11, or is dick ro. lr}lsl'-hrown sandy c lad; jor.m 9.110141 7 inches thick. The subsoil is rcrlrli nir-brown sand'.' clay loam about 4 inches hick. Tho suhstratum is y'•C>rtd...ttlt.1 ....L .G.ra t}1Ut VT..nrle and 17..rnvu1 at depths bctwonn 25 and 30 inches. �� 1'e 1eabi1' tv is merle rat; l� rani'l. t f'rr:chive rootinF, de' th is 2') to 30 • ir:ches ar.a the availrrlrlo wife, ca-,acity is 0.11 to 0.14 in../in. Surface runoff is slow and thn cs1•onion hazard is s li;-ht. The Aznitine soil is modor•at:' 1.' deep and wo11 drained. It formod in mixed sandstone, shale, and nuartziti; nl trr ri un. Tynical ly tho surface layer is nark reddish -brown r;r•av l Ly loon about 10 _1• Inchon thick. This grades int sand, gravni, a::d cobirin at depths lrutwoen 10 an•I 15; incho:;. -, rn l[ iti is rud 7,t'rectivo root;i 1g Jopth is 10 to 20 inches an' r. `•..,., thn ava i 'utile v'ater curacity is 0.0" to 0.09 in. din. Surface runoff is slow and Lk', ^rosion hazard is slight. 0 0 X 11 •-..P• TiThoy l":;•t 111.*o or. o•1 Col- Ito re :id 11•1,1 r croplt:nd. r 1. t d to L.. thet r low -..nti..or•Itold. n ca aci by . They will r crops of al NO rt -t , U• r oy, and notsditoos ...[1••••.;to:to of' n r i it t' 1 ion front ;la ilk ab 139rot o Ziir,Lljdotosoo, ^•,•1.4.4W.I.0,4r.-....r_ilwa r- Lin.1 Ca 1 ity 43 i rri70.1-,0(1 6S non rrijp.1.(1 1 .ianrso Sitf:: Loamy Slopos Application must oe complete where applicable. Type or print in BLACK ;N K. No overstrikes or erasures unless initialed. COL( DO DIVISION OF WATER RESO 813 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203 FOR: PERMIT APPLICATION FORM I A PERMIT TO USE GROUND WATER A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL A PERMIT TO INSTALL A PUMP ( ) REPLACEMENT FOR NO (J() OTHER ie - Ph. 7.o2.,'SZc WATER COURT CASE NO 70 coPY OCT 16 WI LAVA REZURLI/ CUL atCVlail (1) APPLICANT - mailing address NAME /6)11S 7-./A) STREET /"/+!r Pert /4 S ) ::iTYL A2B l��dt ,, ��• p/ ,_ 3 (State) (Zip) 91.3 -ais/l TELEPHONE NO (2) LOCATION OF PROPOSED WELL CountyO f12t /1�� • 7 St,) wp. Y. of the c Y. Section s Rng. _g� _I). 04.51;Evil P.M. (3) WATER USE AND WELL DATA 'Proposed maximum pumping rate (gpm) /DO >verage annual amount of ground water o be appropriated (acre•(eet): /1 LQ L. Number of acres to be irrigated: dp Proposed total depth (feet): /_0_2) Aquifer ground water is to be obtained from: - 9/)/ 1.S Jwner's well designation GROUND WATER TO BE USED FOR: ) HOUSEHOLD USE ONLY - no irrigation (0) ) DOMESTIC (1) ( ) INDUSTRIAL (5) I LIVESTOCK (2) ( ) IRRIGATION (6) `.. -) COMMERCIAL (4) ( ) MUNICIPAL (8) OTHER (9) DETAIL THE USE ON BACK IN (11) (4) DRILLER J.:I ne Ql,L //iS �//AGI .Ireet -.� Telephone Nu ?ice `1[x.1__ Ltc. No FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: DO NOT WRITE IN THIS COLUMN Receipt No I/.27,-/ 3 y , Basin Dist. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of the permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 1. A DECREE FOR THIS ,APYIti0 IATI04.. S... ...0.13-� TAINED FROM THE DIS22IC2' COURT IN A�ID la WATER DIVISION NO. 5. • • "4" .a .4. "OVAL IS SUI3JECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF SAID DECREE. 2. THE COMBINED PUMPING RATE OF THIS WELL AND WELL NO. ZuSc.$-r SHALL BE LIMITED TO 100 GALLONS PER MINUTE OR THE ACTUAL YIELD OF THE AQUIFER WHICHEVER IS LESS. 3. THE COMBINED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF GROUNDWATER TO B APPROPRIATED FROM THIS WELL AND WELL N0.24>c.�- SHALL BE LIMITED TO 150 ACRE- FEET PER YEAR. b) OR THAT AMOUNT CONSISTANT WITH TI -E MAXIMUM PUMPING RATE, WHICHEVER IS LESS. l+. A TOTALIZING FLOW METER MUST BE INSTALLED ON THE WELL DISCHARGE WHEN THIS WATER IS PUT TO BENEFICIAL USE. DIVERSION RECORDS SHALL BE SUB. MITTED, UPON REQUEST, TO THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES. 5. THE 600 FOOT SPACING REwUIREMENT SHALL BE WAIVED AS PER THE HEARING HELD ON OCTOBER 16,197 AND THE. ATTACHED HEARING REPORT. 6. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT CANCELS PERMIT NO. 82585. APPLICATION APPROVED PERMIT NUMBER DATE ISSUED EXPIRATION DATE BY I D _ 24567 -t-- DEC 311979 OFC31 _980 . ha,„:,„.6„ (STATE E GI ER) _ _lUNTY ATION OF THE PROPO " WELL and the areia on ,e water will be used must be indicated on the diagram below. c CENTER SECTION (1 section, G40 acres) for the well location. -I- -- ± — -F, — A- - --1- - -1- — -}- — -I- I • 1 MILE, 5280 FEET }I I + + `+ +• + --I- + + 3RTH+ -i- NORTH SECTION LINE f I 1 I I I ( II I 1 I ION LINE -1- 4 D t!I The scale of the diagram is 2 inches = 1 mile Each Small square represents 40 acres. + f 4- + WATER EQUIVALENTS TABLE (Rounded Figures) An trcre-foot covers 1 acre of lend 1 loot (Seep 1 cubic foot per second (cfs) ... 449 gallons per minute (gpm) A family of 5 will rt. -Quire approximately 1 acre -loot of water per year. 1 acre•fuot ... 43.560 cub.c feet ... 325.900 gallons. 1,000 gpm Dumped continuously for one day produces 4.42 acre-feet. (6) THE WE ST BE LOCATED BELOW by distances from section lines. �sv ft from ,Sia L, r7 sec. line (nortn or town) r.3s1° ft. from iQS-1" sec. line (cut or west) LOT SUBDIVISION/014 BLOCK FILING a (7) TRACT ON WHICH WELL WILL BE. LOCATED Owner: l4. f/Zi' CCN .rEG No. of acres `, Will this be the only well on this tract? VE -.S (8) PROPOSED CASING PROGRAM Plain Casing fl Gin. from 2.7 ft. to � ft. in. from ft to ft Perforated casing 7 in from ft. to ft in. from -_—__ ft. to t. (9) FOR REPLACEMENT WELLS give distance' and direction from old well and plans fur plugging it: LAND ON WHICH GROUND WATER WILL BE USED: description: No. of acres: /.0 77e9-. off'/;J DETAILED DESCRIPTION of the use of ground water: Household use and domestic wells must indicate type of disposal m to be used. SEPT /lam K. 4c"e.7c� vni z,F /017 OA/ rr off'/� t,'P'i £ /109R.� X . ' A c. 46 F-) .)S d /47/14),---/ 6).e -C t T QTHEF3 WATER jilauls1 used on this land, including welts. Give Registration and Water Court Case Numbers. Used for (purpose) Description of land on which used Type or right THE APPLICANTS) STATE(S) THAT THE INFORMATION SET FORTH HEREON IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE. Agri .s - •_ 1TURE OF A PLICANT(S1 Use additional sheers of nanPr if mnrP snace is renulred t,r(J•) Kos. 16 4pptication must ,e complete where applicable. Type or vint in BLACK NK. No overstrikes ,r erasures unless ritialed. COL DO DIVISION OF WATER RESO CO 818 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203 PERMIT APPLICATION FORM ( ) A PERMIT TO USE GROUND WATER ( ) A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL FOR: ( ) A PERMIT TO INSTALL A PUMP OCT 16 laiN tart REsoul3>:g Lau ataxia ( ) REPLACEMENT FOR NO. (J() OTHER _peg- - Ar Pte• fr"-.0 .e � 7c2.."--31,5--- WATER COURT CASE NO 1) APPLICANT , mailing address LAME /7US7 41 7� 1,/F[/GN.C4- z- TREETT� 1:)/Grr-f95 �qd , IT /s'?, �,e2• p/1v...,3 (State) (Zip) ELEPHONE NO 9L3 --/5// ?) LOCATIONOF PROPOSED WELL runty1l g`2 /2C /�',t D S4+/ '/. of the c5 E '/. Section vp. % S , Rng.g_1 P.M. IN.SI tE.wi 3) WATER USE AND WELL DATA oposed maximum pumping rate (gprn) / 00 'erage annual amount of ground water be appropriated lacre•fcct): I' �• Q .,tuber of acres to he irrigated: d oposed total depth (feet): ./jj a auifer ground water is to be obtained from: `. -5/94/.13S" r' ��A✓'tt-.S" I 1 .ner's well designation a F SOUND WATER TO BE USED FOR: F HOUSEHOLD USE ONLY • no irrigation (0) F ) DOMESTIC (1) ( ) INDUSTRIAL (5) E LIVESTOCK (2) ( ) IRRIGATION (6) t ') COMMERCIAL (4) ( ) MUNICIPAL (8) OTHER (9) DETAIL THE USE ON BACK IN (11) DRILLER F L ne �D4LIL/.S' �ieL�G t .✓—.�.� � t e�P - 1 4A0f9 L7D. ILL -15 1Z,p) :phone No. _� --2?/� ,ri35 B Lic. No FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:: DO NOT WRITE IN THIS COLUMN Receipt No. / f Z./ 3 Basin Dist. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of the permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 1. A DECREE FOR THIS APPROPRIATION MUST BE OB- TAINED FROM T„. ,DISTRICT CR S DIVISION NO. 5, STATE OF COLORADO THIS APPRQVAL IS Q.HL COMBINED� .. TCL..T .1rn G AT, EO I .S WELL A -,�.._ ND WELL N0. 2..451$-r"SHALL BE LIMITED TO 100 GALLONS PER MINUTE OR THE ACTUAL YIELD OF THE AQUIFER WHICHEVER IS LESS. 3. THE COMBINED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF GROUNDWATER TO B APPROPRIATED FROM THIS WELL AND WELL N0.2y,c.�-_F SHALL BE LIMITED TO 150 ACRE- FEET PER YEAR. b) OR THAT AMOUNT CONSISTANT WITH THE MAXIMUM PUMPING RATE, WHICHEVER IS LESS. �. A TOTALIZING FLOW METER MUST BE INSTALLED ON THE WELL DISCHARGE WHEN THIS WATER IS PUT TO 3ENEFICIAL USE. DIVERSION RECORDS SHALL BE SUB= IITTED, UPON REQUEST, TO THE DIVISION OF WATER ESOURCES . . THE 600 FOOT SPACING RE.,;UIREMENT SHALL B )AIVED AS PER THE HEARING HELD ON OCTOBER 16,197• .ND THF ATTACHED HEARING REPORT. >. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT CANCELS PERMIT NO. 2585. APPLICATION APPROVED ERMIT NUMBER ATE ISSUED 24567 - F DEC 311979 XPIRATION DATE OFC 31 1980 G. Aa,,,,L,L, (STATE E GIN ER) • ID --- - 35- _ '' 'LINTY 3 ATION OF THE PROPO `" WELL and the area on e water will be used must be indicated on the diagram below. pe CENTER SECTION (1 section, 640 acres) for the well location. + — -{- — -} - — -(- -1-- -- -t - 14 1 MILE, 52B0 FEET } - + • + -}- -} NORTH SECTION LINE 1 I — — 1 1 1 — +- — - I 1 -1 'I I I SOUTH SECTION LINE -} -+- -i I I 1- - -} - D m n O Z 1 m -4- -I --i- - - - -I- — -+ - The scale of the diagram is 2 inches = 1 mile Each small square represents 40 acres. WATER EOUIVALENTS TABLE (ROunded Figures) An :,ere -foot covers, 1 acre of land 1 loot clean 1 cubic foot per second (cis) ... 449 gallons per minute (gpm) A family of 5 will rtctuire approximately 1 acre•loot of water per year. 1 acre•luot ... 4.560 cubic leer . 325.900 gallons. 1,000 gpm Dumped continuously for one day produces 4.42 acre -leer. (6) THE WELl4:CJST BE LOCATED BELOW by distances from section lines. �sv ft from SD sec. line (norm or south) /3,-/-"4C) ft from sec. line Gast or west) LOT BLOCK FILING a SUBDIVISION (7) TRACT ON WHICH WELL WILL BE LOCATED Owner: /4 . 17/E11Crl4-"Fc. No. of acres - . Will this be the only well on this tract? -/e-5 (8) PROPOSED CASING PROGRAM Plain Casing ti in from ft. to v ft in from Perforated casing 7 to from in. from ft to G-� ft. to ft to it ft (9) FOR REPLACEMENT _WELLSgive distance' and direction from old well andJ plans for plugging it: AND ON WHICH GROUND WATER WILL BE USED: : '4J/4) ?. 4JXLi cNo. of acres: `�---- ,LD-Lfl L- oF-/:/ -� r:cription: ETAILED DESCRIPTION of the use of ground water: Household use and domestic wells must indicate type of disposal . to be used. SEAT /G 4'r4CN /"-% -5‘,47 4. QF / DI7 OA/ rr n2 /i..�' 'F "-t Z Ak49 IHER WATER RIGHTS used on this land, including wells. Give Registration and Water Court Case Numbers. Type or right Used for (purpose) Description of land on which used HE APPLICANT(S) STATE(S) THAT THE INFORMATION SET FORTH HEREON IS RUE TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE. Use additional sheers of nannr if mnrP snare is ranutrerl qo GARFIELD COUNTY • PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENW❑OD SPRINGS, COLORADO B1601 2014 BLAKE AVENUE August 12, 1981 Nicholas Goluba P.O. Box 931 Tamarack 1001 Grand Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Goluba: PHONE 945-8212 I am writing regarding Austin Heuschkel's Mobile Home Park Special Use Permit. mation: In answer to your questions, I submit the following infor- 1. As of August 11, 1981 the County Commissioners have issued a Special Use Permit for Mr. Heuschkel's Mobile Home Park. 2. Mr. Heuschkel has complied with the three (3) conditions of the approved resolution # 80-101. These conditions were as follows: a) b) c) Close access to County Road 167. Fence the Glenwood Ditch. Provided evidence of an approved decree Water Court ##5. 3. There was no requirement in the resolution County Commissioners for a plan of augmenta 4. Mobile Home Parks in the C/L Zone District I hope this letter has answered your questions. this office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Davis S. Farrar Planner DSF:ld from District signed by the tion. are a special use. Please contact 2❑14 BLAKE AVENUE GARFIELD COUNTY • PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COL❑RAD❑ B1601 July 30, 1981 Austin Heuschkel 0164 Thomas Road Carbondale, CO 81623 PHONE 945-8212 Dear Mr. Heuschkel: I am writing to inform you that in order to comply with the conditions of approval you must have: 1. A final approved decree from District Court in and for Water Division Number 5 from the State of Colorado showing evidence of water adequate for the mobile home park. 2. Construction of a 6 foot high chain link fence between the property and the Glenwood ditch. 3. Closure of the access road to 167 Road. 4. Filing of a plan of augmentation. All of these items must be completed prior to the issuance of the special use permit and occupation of the mobile home park. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, PLANNING DEPARTMENT DSF/ld Davis S. Farrar Planner GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 • 2014 BLAKE AVENUE July 30, 1981 Austin Heuschkel 0164 Thomas Road Carbondale, CO 81623 PHONE 945-8212 Dear Mr. Heuschkel: I am writing to inform you that in order to comply with the conditions of approval you must have: 1. A final approved decree from District Court in and for Water Division Number 5 from the State of Colorado showing evidence of water adequate for the mobile home park. 2. Construction of a 6 foot high chain link fence between the property and the Glenwood ditch. 3. Closure of the access road to 167 Road. All of these items must be completed prior to the issuance of the special use permit and occupation of the mobile home park. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Davis S. Farrar Planner DS F/ 1 d • • GOLUBA & GOLUBA ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 931 TAMARACK 1001 GRAND AVENUE (303) 945-9141 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81601 NICHOLAS W. GOLUBA, JR. DAVID A. GOLUBA July 28, 1981 Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: Davis Farrar Re: Austin Heuschkel Trailer Park - Status of Use Permit Dear Mr. Farrar: As you know, a number of property owners residing in the area of Austin Heuschkel's proposed trailer park met with the County Commissioners on July 27, 1981, to review the status of this matter and inquire as to the status of Mr. Heuschkel's compliance with the conditions attached to the original approval of the use permit. The Commissioners determined to check with the Planning Department in order to determine what evidence of compliance has been offered by Mr. Heuschkel. It was my impression from the meeting that a special use permit had been already granted (although it seems to me that a trailer park is a conditional use under that zoning) and that the use permit might have to be revoked if compliance with the conditions has not been made. I would appreciate it if you would advise. 1. Whether or not a use permit has issued and, if so, the type of permit and the date it was issued. 2. What evidence of compliance has been filed with the Planning Department as to the following requirements: (a) Approval of the water quality control board; (h) Approval of a water augmentation plan; rfr r _' , JUL 3 0 1981 y.,; GARFIEL[D CU., rLk li,. i • • Garfield County Planning Dept. July 28, 1981 Page Two (c) Closure of access to Road 167 from the mobile home park; and (d) Fencing the Glenwood Ditch. Your assistance in connection with this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help. NWG/ska c.c. Sam Bryan Very truly yours, NICHOLAS W. GOLUBA, JR. • Garfield County Commissioners Garfield County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Commissioners: 4 P , �7,77 s �, r L..i.a..�� 's +e 1,0 k 1 w 0 ,�Cr� i RARFl LO OGUUTV C i+j6', May 23, 1980 CERISE_.._!! JOLLEY VELASQUEZ.... ,,, FILE This letter concerns your decision on the mid -valley Sewage Treatment Facility proposed in conjunction with a proposed mobile park. Due to the fact the engineer for the project, Mr. Marty Oldford, waited until the last possible minute to contact the State Health Department with the application for this facility, I feel the citizens of Garfield County and imparticularly those living in the immediate area, have not been given adequate time to prepare a refutation. The nature of the extreme impact to be created by such a facility requires the utmost scrutiny of all available information before any intelligent and just decision can be made. As of this date the State Health Department Representative, Mr. Dick Bowman, has yet to complete an on site inspection of the area involved to determine the suitability for such a facility. Without all information concerning the specific type of facility proposed a premature decision could be made, resulting in catastrophy. We urge you gentlemen, the elected representatives of the people of Garfield County, to use all due restraint prior to making your decision. We request that you review the information acquired concerning possible polution hazards and confer with Mr. Bowman before making your decision. Thank you Sincerely, 5441jJ Samuel Bryan: Beverly L. Bryan • May 23, 1980 Mr, Tick Bowman Colorado T)ept. of Health 127 N. 8th Grand Junction, Colorado »1501 Dear Mr. Bowmia n , This letter is in regard to the nronosed ;;ownge treatment facility 1 have discussed with you on several occasions. The pronr,ned location of same being six miles south of Glenwood Springs, Colorado in the prcnosed Heuschkel Mobile Fome Park. It has been brought to mgr Rttention that, the sewarre facility presently planned to accomodate "5 mobile r,omes, ecu,]rt possibly and would probably become the manor treatment facility for all rcw development in the vicinity. I feel I must inform von of related it fonnntion, my krowled-re of the area to be effected as well as t}ie effect the nr000 ed facility would have on nearby existing Walls. I fear Crnta"]n.-nr :ii��11ltICn Of domestic wells an - springs of the homeowners in the :1'0:1 highl ;r orobahlo inldor tun not proposed nl_ans. My apprehensions are based on the folio:1r r information: Enclosure 1 Enclosure 2 Enclosure 3 - '?xernt from Mr. Feuschkel 's application to the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission. - Soil Consprvation Service report on Soil Characteristics for the property involved it development. - Map of area showing natural drainages, location of existing domestic wells and location of the Glenwood Irritation flitr_h(the effect on the surrounding ground to be noted later) In reference tc 'r closure 1: In Mr. Heuschke 1's report to the Planning and Zoning Commission, he states the true soil. conditions existing on hi s property (these statements 'nts are n 'tad bv arrows on the report). 'hese conditions hold generally true for the nurronnding area. These statements noting Very little :sc i_l over a 'ravel bar, Rrr, reinforced bv the fact there are several gravel pits in this aren. In fnct, the old county gravel pit was located less -1,harl 1/x.1 mile from his nro - r 1r on road 167, _ In referent(' to "enclosure ' The Soil Ge rvation r.enort on tLe area clearly states the tree soll c' p:)l' 1r.C1: f'hr. also felt it tieCAFsarV to wa:'n, throughout their ,'eport, r,f nollit epi hazard to ,round water due to the rocky nature and high/rani,' nerwmnnbi]it.y of the ground to he effected. r - 2 - In reference to Enclosure 3: Please note the natural drainage cut in the hillside, directing water to the river bottom land below Mr. Heuschkel's proposed development. Mr. 11euschkel has located his sewage plant and leach fields at the top of this natural drainage area, further causing danger to wells along this path and ultimately the Roaring Fork-_iver, Also note the location of the Glenwood i •rigatien Ditch. This ditch seeps water to the bottom land along the river at a rate that effects well water levels and it some areas perks to the surface causing swampy marshes. Knowing how rapidly the ditch perks its water downhill, I'm greatly concerned what 40,000 gallons per day will do. Finally, please note the well legs provided to -rou by Mr. He°asch'Vel. The only log showing the sup osed overburden suggested by Mr. Heuschkel's engineer, is up hill of the proposed plant. Wells closer to the river show considerably less overburden. In summary, we would request the Colorado rept. of E -alth and the Water Quality Control Comm. to make approval of this application contingent upon a direct effluent outlet into the Roaring Fork River, This will allow monitering of the effluent, by the T)epartrnent of Health and or Enviromental Protection Agency, The other alternative would be the relocation of the proposed sewage plant to an undeveloped arra nearby and on the River, such as the locations of the Carbondale, W. Glenwcvd and Glenwood Treatment Facilities. These alternatives r,rn nece:.sati'y to protect existir4 water suprlies. We feel certrjn the Co'._^redo Drat. of 'Health and the Nater Quality Control Commission will take all precautions tc make the proper decision to insure the health rind safety of individuals in the of ected area. Mr. Bowman, '.•7e aeoreciate your wit 1 i re w si ntance, expertise and cccneration in this matter. If ,_.P c„gin be of as: istance to you in gathering further facts on this prosier''_, TleaFe do no hesitate to contact us. Thank You ;�', rirF?rc?ly7 Samuel i . 1ryan welly L. Prean e.51 Road 167 ed Springs, Co. 81601 t}icr.e 9115-9920 eNic (os u ROAD Access road from Mobi]. Hone Park to County Road 154 Access to the Mobil Home Park would be by a road designated "Road C" on enclosed map, to it's junction with County Road 167 then on this road to it's junction with County Road 154. The distance would be approximately 1/4 mile on each road, or a total distance of 1/2 mile from the exit of the Mobil Home Park to a public road, which is County Road 154. Road C would be upgraded as a private access road from the Mobil Home Park to road 167. Road C has a rig -of-way from a minimum of 20 feet to 30 feet, and lays in the bottom of a ravine. There seems to idt little, if any, run off from this ravine, as homes have been built at the base of this ravine with no provision for any run off. The soil is very porous,absorbing any moisture that melts or falls on it. The area it drains does not exceed 5 acres. Therefore provisions for drain ditches along the road should be at a minimum. The ravine will be filled in to raise the road and make an even grade from Road 167 to the Mobil Home Park. Material used would be pit run gravel and surfaced with crushed gravel base. In the narrow part of the righy-of-way the road base would have a small crown with no ditches as the outside of the road is lined with extremely-couarse rock, which would absorb the run off from the road. Where the right-of-way widens, the road base would be raised ar'.d ditches placed on each side. Road C would be equal to, or betterthan road 167 and would have a grade of approximately 3.7%. STR ETS All streets running through the Mobil Home Park would have a sub -base of course gravel with 3 inches of crushed gravel over the sub -base. The sub -base would be determined by the soil and gravel already in place, as most of the Mobil Home Park lays on a gravel bar with only a few inches of rocky soil covering the surface. The streets will:be asphalt chip sealed to a width of 26 feet. Utilitie.i L XN.f5, Sewage Disposal The sewage plant and field would be designed by an engineer and approved by the state. The sewer collection pipes would lietrthe center of the streets and would be sized by an engineer. Water The water supply would be from two commercial wells and would meet all state requirement, and would be set up to meet all domestic, lawn, and fire protection regulations. All pipe would be laid in a utility zone in the back of all spaces Water storage tanks large enough to meet peak demands of water would be incorporated. Gas, electric, and telephone Gas and telephone lines would be buried in same utility zo ne Electric lines would be overhead, the poles would also support lights to keep the park well illuminated. Drainage The park has no low areas to retain water in stagant pools. The surface of the park is covered with 3" to 12" of soil underlaid with gravel and sand, thus eliminating very much run o'ff. . The streets will be lower than the lots and will carry off the excess water. The streets will have some crown thus letting water run along low places on each side of the streets. SOIL CHARACTER ICS Depth to Bedrock Texture Surface Subsoil 5.; c r (.:Nc(oSw c a. :moderately deep over sand, gravel :gravelly loam Substratum :sand and gravel Unified/AASHO Classification:ML, SM, GW, SW; ----�Permeability (below 2 feet) :rapid Percent Coarse Fragments (gravel, cobble, stone) :5 to 15 percent Soil Reaction (p11) :7.9.- 8.4 Shrink -Swell Potential :low Potential Frost Action' (surface) :low Flood Hazard :none Hydrologic Croup :B Corrosivity - Steel :high - Concrete :low DEGREE & KIND OF LIMITATIONS (0 is Slight, M is Moderate, S is Severe) A-4, A-2, A-1 Septic Tank Absorption Fields :0* Sewage Lagoons :S - seepage Sanitary Landfill - Trench :S - seepage, too sandy - Area :S - seepage Shallow Excavations :S - cutbanks cave, small stones Dwellings w/basements :0 w/o basements :0 Local Roads and Streets :0 SUITABILITY AS A SOURCE OF.... Daily Cover for Landfill Topsoil Sand Gravel Roadfill OTHER SOIL FEATURES .* rapid permeability may cause a pollution hazard. :Fair - seopage, thin layer :Poor - small stones, too sandy :Good :Good :Good "ADVANCE COPY SUBJECT TO CHANGE" NOT TO BE USED IN PLACE OF ON-SITE INVESTIGATION. O n1 kik, X J c,741 0 levrsl to p ntl.' slopin;r soils are on aLlrrval. raps and hirh t .+•r•a'.c,s at: relemtions of (;000 to 7:100 foot. Tho avurago annual pro- • c.tpitaLinn is n'out 15 inches, t:te mean annual air terrporr.tturo is about 46°F., an,l t-.ttie ete',e+'a p;c1 .f •o:,L-rr•:o ply rjn 1 is rthdrut; 110 days Ti.,eAtoncio soil • oc^uni.es the snr ewhat concave parts or the landscape. It makes up about 60 port'•ent; o'' tho unit. The Azoltine soil occu- ies . th'e s i ightly convex positi••ns. It makes up about 30 percont or the unit. The Atencio so' l has a hichc:r nercentar,e of cobble and stony in the profile than tho AzolLine soil. About. 10 percent. or the unit is rravel bar:; or finer textured soils. The A`..encio soil is moderately deep and wo11 drained. It for;nod in mixod sardstone: shaio, and nwtrt;zitic al l tviun. Typically the surl'aco lr,yor is rlo k reddish -brown sandy clay loam about 7 inches thick. The subsoil is reddish -brown sandy clay loam about 4 inches thick:. The substratum is stony sand;' loam that p;••ades into sand, cobble, `and gi•rtvol at depths between 25 and 30 inches. \s Permeabil'ty is moderately rapid. -r.f f',ctive rooting det'th is 20 to 30 inches and t;he- availa.lrlo grater canacity is 0.11 to 0.14 in./in. Surface runorf' is slow and the erosion hazard is s.liP:rt. The Azoltine soil is moderato!;' deep and well drained. It formed in mixed sandstone, shale, and quartzitic alluvium. Tyrtically the surface layer is dark reddish -brown gray fly loam about 10 inches thick. This grades int, sand, gravel, and cobble at doptbs between 10 and 15 inches. 'Prn:ability is rapid. Effective rootieg dopth is 10 to 20 inches an' the ava i !able s'ater capacity is 0.07 to 0.09 in. din. Surface runoff is slow and t:he erosion hazard is slight. 0 Tit s i is ttr 11:;o1 for pasture land and :;or•rr cropl.::ntt. Thny ne,!d L� froc+r+- t irr l;'rtti ,r ci s r t their low :•rr_t•erhold' nr capacity. They will yield 'air crops of al fa) fa b rley, anl notatoos . 1.!...c u o of rapt rt net tle:£1 1) lt.r, ef1'.1 tont from septic tank absorption fields ground water. Land Ca d l ity Unit: 4S irriTa;;od 6S non-irri a1.n l ,tanr,o Si.t+:: Loamy Slopos • GARFIELD COUNTY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602-0640 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Earl G. Rhodes, County Attorney DATE: February 22, 1982 SUBJECT: Heuschkel Mobile Home Park INTRODUCTION la);) P . ne 945-9158 The purpose of this memo is to outline for the Commissioners the issues raised by the public hearing of November 9, 1981, and your scheduled decision of March 1, 1982, in regards to enforcement of conditions contained in your resolution of approval of the Heuschkel rbbiie Home Park(Resoiution #80-101) . At the end of the hearing on November 9, 1981, the public hearing was closed, except for receipt of engineering reports. So that you may be fully informed about this matter, attached please find the following documents: y 1. Heuschkel's Attorney Letter of November 13, 1981 2. Wright Water Engineering Report of January 11, 1982 3. Bishop Associates, Inc. Engineering Report of January 12, 1982 4. Goluba Letter of February 4, 1982 5. Copy of Resolution *80-101 6. Copy of Minutes of June, 1980 CONCLUSION This matter is unnecessarily complicated because of two things: (1) a discrepancy between the resolution approving the mobile he home park estionshase mtouhow thetes of tpump� gloflonermotion well affects another. water qu The question for the Board, however, can be simply put. Has the applicant, Austin Heuschkel, complied with the conditions of the special use permit in accordance with §9.01.06 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. This should be answered in the Memo-Bd. of County Commissioners February 22, 1982 Page 2 affirmative, since Heuschkel has obtained a legal source of adequate water for the mobile home park, which legal source of water is an augmentation plan recognized by Colorado la . Therefore, there is no basis to revoke Heuschkes special use permit. This conclusion is buttressed by the fact that the complaining parties have right to seek redress in water court for any alleged damages, the fact that Colorado law does not allow either the Board or the complainers to challenge the validity of the original approval of the mobile home park, and the fact that the engineering reports indicate damage as a possibility in the future, but not one at the present. Therefore, a simple resolution that compliance with the conditions of the permit has been reviewed and determined to have occurred, is the best legal decision for the Board to make. DISCUSSION Resolution - #80-101 The initial question is the appearance of confusion between the minutes of the Board, which make reference to a water augmentation plan, and the resolution approved by the Board which simply says the applicant " shall provide evidence of final decree to water rights", and does not make reference to an augmentation plan. It should be noted, from looking at the minutes, that the resolution for approval was a motion "that a resolution be prepared", thus the written resolution is controlling over the verbal motion. However, to the extent that the written resolution is ambiguous, the minutes may be used as some evidence of the intent of the Board. As you are well aware, I was not working for Garfield County in June of 1980. Although I have not asked specifically, my guess is that Art Abplanalp prepared this resolution. The ten paragraphs containing the specific finding of fact indicate his attention to this matter. As to the neighbors' position that the purpose of the legal supply of water was to protect their wells, the only reference to that is in paragraph nine where it talks about "water quality of other affected water users". It should be pointed out that this type of concern about a supply of water is an exception to the general rule that the Board's concern is over the adequacy of the supply for consumption purposes, "people inside the park" and not a detrimental effect on neighbors. The question of damage to other water users is normally addressed in water court, not in a zoning hearing [see X37 -92-302(1)(a)]. In this regard, it is important to note that it is the application for an augmenta- tion plan which triggers the judge's responsibility to review the application for damage to nearby users. Thus, by the resolution Memo-Bd. of County Commissioners February 22, 1982 Page 3 80-101 in §2b requiring a final decree to water rights, the resolution is attempting to provide the neighbors the protection of the water court, as to the question of damage. If understood in this way, the broad language in §2b of Resolution 80-101 is meant to encompass the statement in the minutes as to an augmenta- tion plan approved by the Court, since of necessity, the consideration of the augmentation plan by the Court would give protection to the neighbors. In your considering this matter, it is very important to realize that the resolution approving the special use permit was adopted in June of 1980 and that you authorized the issuance of the special use permit in the fall of 1981. Means by which a resolution is challenged in Court is through a Rule 106 a (4) action, which must be filed within 30 days of the date of its adoption. The failure to appeal to Court within 30 days following the adoption of the resolution precludes any judicial review of the merits of the resolution. Civil Service Commission vs. District Court, 527 P2d 531 (1974). Therefore, you do not have before you the question of whether you should have approved or not approved the application for the mobile home park. You simply have before you the question of whether under 59.01.06,compliance with conditions of the permit, whether compliance in fact has taken place. To the e ->tent there has been compliance, you have no authority to modify your original resolution. LEGAL STATUS OF AUGMENTATION PLAN As stated above, the key condition for the Commissioners to look at is §2b which states: "Applicant shall provide evidence of final decree to water rights and applicant to use water adequate for the mobile home park use." The question is whether the evidence before the Board is sufficient to show whether the applicant has complied with this condition. The evidence contains the ruling of the referee in water court which shows the applicant's right to drill two wells and augmentation of these wells based upon a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. It is my opinion that this document constitutes evidence of a legal supply of water adequate for the mobile home park use. A technical question is whether an alte l]atP po nt of diversion can ee an augmentation plan. Section 37-92-103 (9) among other dings, defines a plan of augmentation as "development of a new Memo-Bd. of County Commissioners February 22, 1982 Page 4 or alternate means of points of diversion." The point of an augmentation plan is to allow a well to be pumped out of priority, because of another source of water to supply downstream users when there would be a call on the well. In this case, the augumentation is accomplished by the contract with Basalt Conservancy District to release water at any time that there is a call put on Heuschkel's well. Thus, it is my opinion that what the applicant has shown not only demonstrates his legal right to use his wells, but his right to pump his wells at a priority as to provide a continuous supply of water for the users of the mobile home park. Nick Goluba has tried to draw a distinction between a true augmentation plan and what Mr. Heuschkel has obtained. That is, an augmentation plan which somehow augments the supply of water on the site of the wells, as opposed to one which protects down stream users. It is my opinion that the condition imposed by the Board in June of 1980 is not meant to directly affect the neighbors, but rather the residents of the mobile home park. Indirectly, however, by requiring that the Court approve of an augmentation plan, the neighboring water users, including Goluba, are given rights to protest, and in this manner protection is afforded. THE ENGINEERING REPORTS The engineering reports are relavent to the Board's determination because your §9.01.06 of your Zoning Resolution (compliance with conditions of permits) indicates that in order to suspend a permit which has already been issued, the Board must make the finding that the violation of the condition is such as to endanger the safety or welfare of residents or property of residents within the County. Thus, in order for this Board to make that finding, the engineering reports must show a certainty or very strong probability of damage. In my opinion, neither of the engineering reports indicate this. The report, paid for by Mr. Heuschkel, describes the general hydo- logic setting of the area in question. It concludes that it is unlikely that the Goluba well would be damaged from pumping of Heuschkel's wells, unless pumping were done at a high rate and at such a time when there was no other source of water in the area. Based upon the projected pumping for the purposes of the mobile home park, it concludes that damage is unlikely. The report goes on to point out that underground instability which may have resulted in clouding the Goluba well, should clear up and not repeat itself. Also, it indicates that the other wells in the area, other than the Goluba well, should not be affected by the pumping activities from Heuschkel's well. Memo-Bd. of County Commissioners February 22, 1982 Page 5 The Wright Water Engineering Report concludes that under the most probable circumstances the Goluba well should not be affected. If, however, the Heuschkel wells were pumped to a maximum, there is a possibility of harm. It also indicates that the Basalt decree is insufficient to protect the Goluba well. From a legal point of view, these reports do not indicate the immediacy of harm, which I think is required to be shown as a sufficient basis for suspending the Heuschkel's special use permit. What the Wright Water Engineering Report indicates is that if Heuschkel were to pump his wells at the maximum amount allowed by the water decree, then there could be some harm. It seems to me that this concern is best addressed in water court, since these matters are speculative and of a technical nature, rather than before the Boar.. EGR/tb Attachments xc: Davis Farrar NICHOLAS W. GOLUBA, JR. • • GOLUBA & GOLUBA ATTORNEYS AT LAW TAMARACK 1001 GRAND AVENUE P.O. SOX 931 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO $1602 (303) 945-9141 February 4, 1982 Garfield County Commissioners P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Re: Heuschkel Mobile Home Park Gentlemen: DAVID A. GOLUBA Enclosed is a copy of the report which I received from Wright Water Engineers, Inc. dated January 11, 1982, regard- ing their preliminary evaluation of the applicable ground water conditions. As you can see, the pumping test which they would be able to conduct is limited by the present capacity of the storage tank which does not have an over -flow. Accordingly, given these limitations, Wright Water Engineers does not feel that any significant data could be obtained in conducting such a test. In the event the mobile home park were to be built out to its full capacity, the storage tank would be continually depleted and replenished and the actual volume of water pumped would be considerably greater than the volume required to keep the storage tank filled under current conditions. The well and the spring nevertheless take water from the same source and, as pointed out in the report of Wright Water Engineers, the alternate point of diversion decree for the Basalt Conservancy District water affords no protection to the Proffit Spring and, hence, no protection to the wells of the other land owners located on the lower bench. The original conditions of the special use permit were designed to protect the wells and spring on the lower bench. The course of action undertaken by Mr. Heuschkel actually has the opposite effect. Establishing an alternate point of diversion for Basalt Conservancy District w4ter to his wells gains those wells an earlier priority dates 1-7r71 (.7 —71-7171r7 1! • FEBO3 GARFIELD UM C'> . 1 • 1 Garfield County Commissioners February 4, 1982 Page Two Accordingly, you are respectively requested to maintain the existing moratorium on further expansion of the mobile home park until such time as Mr. Heuschkel has complied with the conditions of the original special use permit as outlined in the minutes of the public hearing conducted for that purpose. NWG/ska encl. c.c. Earl Rhodes Scott Balcomb Very truly yours, NICHOLAS W. GOLUBA, JR. ROBERT DELANEY KENNETH BALCOMB JOHN A. THULSON EDWARD MULHALL, JR. ROBERT C. CUTTER SCOTT M. BALCOMB DAVID R. STURGES LAWRENCE R. GREEN ANDREW 0. NORELL SCOTT MCINNIS DELANEY & BALCOMI3, P. G. ATTORNEYS AT LAW DRAWER 790 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 131002 November 13, 1981 Earl Rhodes Garfield County Attorney P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Dear Earl: 818 COLORADO AVENUE i 945-6546 ELEPHONE 945-2371 AREA CODE 303 LJo RE: Austin Heuschkel Mobile Home Park/ Hearing of November 9, 1981 Because it seemed that there was a considerable degree of confusion surrounding the motives for and grounds for opposition to Austin Heuschkel's mobile home park at the recent public hearing, we thought we should take this opportunity to explain Austin's position in detail to you and to request of you a clear exposition of the County's position. We would also like to inquire what portion of the Zoning Resolution or County regulation you feel may be violated by Austin's situation. At the public hearing Mr. Davis Farrar reiterated, for the Commissioners' information, the zoning regulations as they relate to water supply to mobile home parks. I believe these are contained in Section 5.02.08 and Section 5.02.09 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. It seems clear that none of these provisions are in any way violated by what Austin has done and proposes to continue doing. A designation of the section relating to the mobile home park usage that Austin has allegedly violated would be valuable to us in trying to advise Austin how to comply. We trust that such an action on your part would be possible without a great deal of trouble and expense to the County. The next general area of confusion seems to relate itself to some alleged difference between what the County actually wants (irrespective of whether it was in the writ- ten resolution) and what Austin has done in compliance therewith. I believe the County requested some sort of "augmentation" of the mobile home park water supply. Austin, in response thereto, obtained water service from an existing Earl Rhodes November 13, 1981 Page Two municipal entity (the Basalt Water Conservancy District). That service was implemented at Austin's existing wells by obtaining an alternate point of diversion of the Basalt District's decrees which are protected by Ruedi Reservoir releases. In other words, when the District's own decrees are out of priority, Ruedi releases would protect it against curtailment due to legal call virtually anywhere in the river system. There was an allegation made at the hearing that what Austin did did not constitute "augmentation" as re- quired by the Commissioners (pursuant to what portion of the Zoning Resolution we do not know). C.R.S. 1973, 37-92- 103(9) defines a "plan for augmentation" as follows: "'Plan for augmentation' means a detailed program to increase the supply of water available for beneficial use in a division or portion thereof by the develop- ment of new or alternate means of points of diversion by a pooling of water resources, by water exchange projects, by providing substitute supplies of water, by the development of new sources of water, or by any other appropriate means." (Emphasis added.) A change of water right is defined in Subsection (5) of the same section to be as follows: "'Change of water right' means a change in the type, place, or time of use, a change in the point of diversion, a change from a fixed point of diversion to alternate or supplemental points of diversion, a change from alternate or supplemental points of diversion to a fixed point of diversion, a change in the means of diversion, a change in the place of storage, a change from direct application to storage and subsequent application, a change from storage and subsequent application to direct applica- tion, a change from a fixed place of storage to alter- nate places of storage, a change from alternate places of storage to a fixed place of storage, or any combina- tion of such changes." (Emphasis added.) As you can see by the definitions contained in the statute, a change of water right is under some circumstances, such as the development of new or alternate means or points of diversion, actually a plan for augmentation. Austin, in • Earl Rhodes November 13, 1981 Page Three developing a new or alternate point of diversion, in effect and in compliance with the statute provided a plan for augmentation within the contemplation of the statute. Any argument or observation to the contrary is made without knowledge of the definitions contained in the statutes. Another issue that arose at the hearing, which I attempted to discuss with you during the recess but it appeared that the time and place might not be appropriate, was whether the County's augmentation requirement was for the benefit of those persons as yet unidentified who would live in the mobile home park, or other water users not expected to reside in the park. If, as you indicated, the County's obligation is to those who reside in the mobile home park, clearly Austin had complied. It is our position that while augmenting a supply to make reliable for park residents, if other water users are concerned, there is ample provision for them to appear in water court. C.R.S. 1973, 37-92-302(1)(a) provides: "Any person who desires a . . . determination with respect to a change of water right, approval of a plan for augmentation, . . . shall file with the water clerk in quadruplicate a verified application setting forth facts supporting the ruling sought . . . ." The immediately succeeding subsection speaks to those (outside the park) who are concerned with the park proponents' efforts to insure a water supply to its in- habitants: "Any person who wishes to oppose the application may file with the water clerk in quadruplicate a verified statement of opposition setting forth the facts as to why the application should not be granted or why it should be granted only in part on certain conditions." The statute even sets out the criteria based upon which the water judge is to determine the outcome of such a controversy at C.R.S. 1973, 37-92-305(3): "A change of water right or plan for augmentation, including water exchange project, shall be approved if such change or plan will not injuriously affect the owner of or persons entitled to use water under a vested water right or decreed conditional water right." Earl Rhodes November 13, 1981 Page Four Thus, the adjoining landowners to Austin's mobile home park who urged the Commissioners that their water rights may be injured are in fact in the wrong forum pur- suant to the water right statutes. Their case should be heard by the water judge. To underscore the significance of the foregoing, one need only review the additional portions of Section 305 both as originally enacted and as amended. For example, if the judge determines that injurious effect would exist, he then must afford the applicant or any person opposed an opportunity to propose terms and conditions which would prevent such injurious effect. The statute goes further to define such terms and conditions and further to specify depletions that cause injury and the like. A review of the statute in question should serve to convince that the water right pr.)ceedings therein contemplated are extremely complicated and decisions with respect thereto are best left to the discretion of the person appointed to deal with such problems -- the water judge. Thus, under the circumstances, Austin obtained municipal service, a preferred alternative under the County's Zoning Resolution (5.02.08(1)), filed his application for a change of water right (which is but one of a number of ways of "augmenting" the park's water supply), published the same pursuant to law and obtained a final decree of court. Austin, while implementing this process received the specific approval of both Ray Baldwin and Davis Farrar upon which he relied. Clearly, any person, including those in opposition at the recent public meeting, who was legitimately concerned about his water supply could have appeared in water court and opposed Austin's change/augmentation. That they over- looked doing so, or chose not to do so, surely must be persuasive under the circumstances facing the County. More- over, such failure to appear by the opponents may well deprive Austin of the right to propose conditions to protect their water supply. In concluding, let me explain the relevance of the considerable body of evidence we offered the Commissioners which related to the expenditures made by Austin since the date of the resolution (June 2, 1980) and since the date the Certificate of Occupancy was approved (approximately August 1, 1981). We also introduced testimony of others, park residents who have spent over a million dollars relying upon the Certificate of Occupancy. Such court decisions as follow: Earl Rhodes November 13, 1981 Page Five Crawford v. McLaughlin, 172 Colo. 366, 473 P.2d 725 (1970) . Denver v. Stackhouse, 135 Colo. 289, 310 P.2d 296 (1957) . Pratt v. Denver, 72 Colo. 51, Miller v. Trustees, 1232 (1975) . Pac. (1922) . Colo. App. , 534 P.2d would indicate that in the circumstances here the County lacks the power to modify or revoke the Certificate of Occupancy and the Zoning Resolution so obviously relied upon by Austin and the residents of his park. At the public hearing we interpreted what happened as an agreement by Austin to engage in testing procedures and to refrain from selling further lots pending the outcome of the test. As I indicated, the agreement was not that the County had the power to require such action on his part. If you feel otherwise, we would much appreciate an indication of the County's authority, in youropinion, to require either the action to which Austin agreed or any further modification or revocation of his Certificate of Occupancy. As noted at the outset, the comments herein made are made for the purpose of trying to clarify the atmosphere in which this proceeding is being held. We would much appreciate your observations and answers as herein requested and would not hesitate participating in an oral discussion if you feel the same would be fruitful. Thank you. Very truly yours, DELANEY & BALMB, P.C. By SB:sjg cc: Austin Heuschkel Scott Balcomb ASPEN OFFICE 0241 VENTNOR AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 CHEYENNE OFFICE 3130 HENDERSON DRIVE CHEYENNE. WYOMING 82001 GLENWOOD SPRINGS OFFICE P.O. BOX 219 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 STEAMBOAT OFFICE P.O. BOX 5220 STEAMBOAT VILLAGE, COLORADO 80499 411 WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 2420 ALCOTT STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80211 (303) 4586201 Glenwood Springs P.O. Box 219 Tel. 945-7755 January 11, 1982 Nick Goluba P.O. Box 931 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Dear Nick: We have completed our preliminary evaluation of the fact situation the local groundwater conditions affecting the Heuschkel wells and Proffit Spring. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with of our studies and conclusions to date. KENNETH R. WRIGHT WILLIAM L. LORAN RALPH L TOREN RICHARD D. JOHNSON FRANK J. TREIEASE LEO M. EISEL MARILYN M. STOKES regarding the the results We have obtained and analyzed available well permit and beneficial use statement data for wells in the area. The only available topographic mapping that we have been able to obtain, other than the standard USGS 7-1/2' quads, was a site plan map for the Heuschkel Mobile Home Park with 2 foot contours. Since the site plan map did not cover the complete area for our study, we partially relied on the USGS 7-1/2' quad. The well permit data, related to well location, was not specific enough to construct a groundwater contour map, however, we have evaluated a cross section through the Spring and wells. The cross section diagram was prepared from a level survey that we conducted, together with site plan elevations and available water level data. The cross section generally runs from the southwest to the northeast, through the Proffit Spring and Heuschkel's wells. The spring is located approximately 650 feet and 1050 feet southwest of Well #1 and #2 respectively. • • Nick Goluba _2_ January 11, 1982 Water level data for Well #2 was obtained from measurements Mr. Heuschkel made at the time of well completion in December 1979, and a measurement that we made on December 9, 1981. The December 9, 1981 reading indicated the water level to be 66 feet below ground. This conflicts with the reading of 56 feet below ground from Mr. Heuschkel's records. It is possible that our reading on December 9 was affected by recent pumping of the well and was showing a drawdown condition. In any case, based on our survey of the spring elevation, we believe that a static water level of about 56 feet would be reasonable. Due to the completion of Well #1, we were unable to obtain a water level measurement without disturbing of the well. According to Mr. Heuschkel's engineer, they can agree to a pumping test on Well #2 with the following guidelines: 1. Pump well #2 at 20 gallons per minute, which is the rate at which the well can physically pump. 2. Pump for 12 hours. 3. Discharge to existing 14,000 gallon water storage tank, which would be drawn down prior to the test. We would not be able to pump the well at a higher rate without the removal of the existing equipment and installation of a test pump. It is our understanding that the storage tank does not have an overflow, and there does not appear to be an available point of discharge other than to the existing storage tank without modification of the system. Our hydrogeologist has made an evaluation of the existing groundwater data and physical conditions regarding the spring. Based on preliminary calculations of the drawdown effect of a 12 hour, 20 gpm pumping test on the Spring, we do not believe that an impact at the Spring can be observed. Therefore we do not recommend proceeding with this test. --'� Nick Goluba January 11, 1982 -3- At this time, we hav: two basic concerns egarding the effect of Heuschkel's wells on the Proffit Spring; namely: 1. Increased pumping as allowed by the State Engineer's Office (SEO) permits and the alternate point of diversion decree could adversely effect the flow of the Proffit Spring. 2. If an adverse effect on the Spring does occur, the alternate point of diversion decree (Case No. 80CW256) utilizing Basalt Conduit water will afford no protection to the Proffit Spring. According to the well permits issued by the SEO, the two Heuschkel wells are allowed to pump at rates of 00 gp nd divert up to 150 acre feet of water per year. Further, the decree awarded in Case No. 80CW256 provides 0.22 cfs (99 gpm) of Basalt Conduit water for the alternate point wells. If well number 2 pumps at 100 gpm, calculations made by our hydrogeologist show that, for reasonable aquifer assumptions, a drawdown effect would be observed at the Spring. Therefore it is our opinion that if the Heuschkel wells are pumped at their permitted rates, an adverse effect could be observed at the Proffit Spring. And further t a_1ternatA paint of diversion decree utilizing Basalt Conduit water is inadequate to protect the Spring from injury. If physically possible, in order to demonstrate the potential effect on the Spring, we would recommed a 100 gpm, 72 hour pumping test be run on well number 2, and that flow observations be made at the Spring. If you have any questions regarding this report, please feel free to contact us. RDJ/pb 811-027.16 Very truly yours, WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC. By Richard D. John BISHOP ASSOCIATES, INC. 10 LAKESIDE LANE (SUITE 310) o DENVER, COLORADO 80212 • (303) 455.2760 Harold F. Bishop Robert E. Brogden January 12, 1982 Mr. Scott Balcomb Delaney and Balcomb P. 0. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Dear Scott: The following is my opinion of the general situation in regard to ground water supply in the area of Austen Heuschkel's mobile home park. his review is based on personal observations in the area, geologic and topo_•ra.hi' p data, records of A 0 .- s e ' - and information _tLQm Austen Heuschkel in regard to his water use, As no detailed field investigations or well tests or spring Flow measurements have been made, this report is superficial; however, the general hydrologic setting is well defined. The general problem is the possible impact of pumping the Heuschkel wells on the flow of the spring un property owned by Nick Goluba and on the wells located east of the Heuschkel property near the Roaring Fork. In addition, Mr. Goluba states that his spring flow became silty and muddy at one or more times in 1981, which caused the water to be unfit for domestic use. Mr. Goluba is concerned that the operation of the Heuschkel wells caused the spring flow to become muddy. The hydrologic setting is straightforward. The Heuschkel wells and the Goluba spring are fed by an aquifer which comprises the lower part of a gravel terrace, at about 6000 -foot altitude, that extends 7000 feet from Cattle Creek in the south to the mountains in the northeast and about 2000 feet from the mountains in the east to the bluff above the Roaring Fork in the west. The terrace extends south of Cattle Creek but probably is separated hydrologically at Cattle Creek by a ground -water recharge mound under the creek. The aquifer material is a clayey, silty, sandy gravel where observed near the river. Recharge to the aquifer is by direct infiltration of rainfall and melting snow, by infiltration from the Glenwood Ditch, by infiltration from intermittent streams running out of the mountains in the east, and probably for at least part of the year by infiltration from Cattle Creek. The static water levels in the Heuschkel wells are about 25 to 30 feet above £ Tfvex-_ indicatin• that the Roaring Fork does not recharge this part of the aquifer, and topographic relationships make it very unlikely that recharge from the Roaring Fork to this terrace occurs anywhere. The natural ground -water flow pattern probably is from the recharging streams in the east and south toward 'Watet R toutcts Enginttting and ground rlyattt ito%9y • • Mr. Scott Balcomb January 12, 1982 Page Two the west and northwest where springs and seeps discharge into the Roaring Fork. The Goluba spring is one of them. The thickness of the saturated part of the aquifer at the Heuschkel wells varies from about 25 to 30 feet. If this saturated thickness represents an average for the whole terrace, about 1000 acre-feet of ground water probably is in storage. In regard to the possible interference between wells and spring, the Heuschkel wells are used only for domestic water supply. Irrigation supply to the mobile home lawns comes from an irrigation ditch, Glenwood Ditch, that operates from about mid-April to early October each year. This Glen- wood Ditch runs between the Heuschkel wells and the Goluba spring. The gravel terrace material is fairly permeable and the leakage from the ditch is high in this area. When the ditch is operating, it provides local recharge to the aquifer which precludes any interference between the wells and the spring. The water table in the aquifer varies with the season and also with the amount of precipitation over a previous period of time that may encompass several years. Spring flow, and to a lesser extent well- n will vary with the water table. The local water table is highest after spring runoff and during the time that the Glenwood Ditch is operating. At such time, the spring flow is high and other seeps form along the edge of the terrace. When the water table is 1OW, spring production is curtailed. From static water level readings in the wells, it appears that the water table ac the laauschkel pr perty may fluctuate by about10 feet. If t e Heuschkel well production caused any appreciable reduction in the water tc.ile near the Goluba • ing, if would cause a reduction in ow •ut whether this occurs and the ma•nitude of any interference is very difficult to determine. To the best of my knowledge, the flow from Mr. Goluba's spring has never been measured and never been monitored to determine long or short term fluctua- tions in discharge. We do not know if the spring normally produces the 15 gpm allocated under its domestic water right in the low -flow season. Since the spring does fluctuate, even if long term records were available, it would be difficult or impossible to determine if the spring flow were affected by the wells unless the effect were major. Obvious major effects can not have occurred since Mr. Heuschkel's average pumping rate was only 3.5 gpm during the period from Aug. 1, 1981 to Nov. 1, 1981. The average pumping rate was 4.2 gpm in early November with 33 units occupied in the motor home park. The effect of this pumping would be negligible at a distance of 600 feet (from closest well to sprite in the gravel aquifer. Mr. Heuschkel's maximum development is 93 units which would require an average supply of about 12 gpm if the consumptive rate remains the same. A test of possible interference between the wells and spring was proposed by • 6 Mr. Scott Halcomb January 12, 1982 Page Three operating the closest well at full production of 25 gpm continuously for 12 to 24 hours while the spring flow was monitored; however, this proposal has been abandoned by Mr. Goluba's consultants, at least for the present. In my opinion, considering the aquifer parameters, the effect of theobabl pumping would take a very long time to reach Mr. Goluba's spring, probably over one month, and the effect at that time would be so minor as to be unmeasurable. It is true that a reduction in the elevation ofitheelwewaterc' r table in the gravel terrace would cause a more-or-Iess propo rt tion in sarin: flow but demonstratin• tt -, measurable reduction would' be caused by Heuschkei well •roduction would be best done by a computer - model stud of the entire -Trace aquifer. This is a comp ex and expensive process, especially since basic data such as reliable aquifer parameters are not available and would Itshould also berecognized at an unacceptable loss of accuracy)• t any widespread decline in the water table would be the result of all the wells on the terrace and not only the Heuschkel wells. I believe that it is most proba• e t a . P "Pwwrhkel wells um ed at the rate's ate above, would not b themselves cause a measurable decline in•rarate nof of sarin: flow during the low flow period; and that the wells cause any effect on spring flow while Glenwood Ditch is operating. In regard to the claim that' ltation a,dmudd inhatf6the 00fspring of resu'ted from operation of the wells, it should be gravel filter exists between the nearest well avid the spring. No rate of pumping could cause instability of the sarin: at such a distance in this aqu_ fifer. However, springs (and wells) in alluvial aquifers containing clay and silt do tend to produce small (and frequently unnoticeable) quantities of fine particles which are small enough to be moved by the water velocity. If this occurs, eventually enough material can be removed to create an unstable void which will eventually collapse and disturb the local aquifer enough that mud and silt is produced for a short time. Normally the situation is temporary and the spring becomes stable again when all the loose material is flushed out. It usually will occur at a period of high spring flow. This may have occurrthe Gioluba spring in the summer of 1981. If this happened, it may repeat atthe spring may ultimately become completely stable. Another possibility is that earth shock resulting from blasting or movement of heavy construc- tion equipment in the area may have triggered red antearth hocollapse e in theuu e is nder- ground spring channels. If this hasum the wells did not unless shocks are repeated. In anyevent, pumping in g cause muddying of the spring. In regard to the effect of the Heuschkel wells on the wells along the Roaring Fork, these latter wells are drilled in an area where the topo- graphic elevation is about level with the bottom of the Heuschkel wells. • • Mr. Scott Balcomb January 12, 1982 Page Four The intake screen section of the lower wells is much lower than the aquifer of the gravel terrace and the static water levels are so low that they indicate production from a different hydrogeologic unit. It is reported that the lower wells produce from an alluvial aquifer. Such an aquifer in this location, adjacent to and below the level of the Roaring Fork, is lower than nearby bedrock and probably is an old channel of the river. In this case, recharge is probably from the river where the abandoned channel deposits join the current channels. Thus pumping of the Heuschkel wells has no effect on the ground -water supply to these lower wells. Very sincerely yours, BISHOP ASSOCIATES, INC. •Eugene Rumph, P. E. ER/jmm 4400.64 Wit • • November 9, 1981 Page Six DRAFT OF MINUTES possible A Public Hearing was held regarding a/violation of a permit for a Mobile Home Park of Mr. Austin Heuschkel's. Appearing before the Board was Mr. Nick Goluba, Attorney of Goluba & Goluba, Glenwood Springs. County Attorney Earl Rhodes stated that he had received a letter from Mr. Nick Goluba regarding water damage to his property and existing well. County Attorney Earl Rhodes then published a notice and informed Mr. Goluba of the hearing. Mr. Rhodes also indicated he wished the Board to make a determination as to what is needed for a water supply for the Mobile Home Park and what which presently exists, is that sufficient and what needs to make it sufficient to meet this water supply? Chairman Velasquez stated this being a public hearing, he asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to testify for or against? Mr. Rhodes read the hearing procedures. Commissioner Cerise asked Mr. Goluba where they get their water? Chairman Velasquez also wanted to know what the issue was with regard to the resolution and why was it not in conformity? What exactly is the question, the Special Use Permit or violation of the permit? County Attorney Rhodes stated the issue today is the water supply and if the supply is sufficient to -this Mobile Home Park, and has Mr. Heuschkel complied with the conditions of the water supply? Chairman Velasquez then swore in County Planner Davis Farrar. Mr. Farrar stated that approximately 1 1/2 years.ago, Mr. Heuschkel applied for a Mobile Home Special Use Permit, which was reviewed and taken to the Planning Commission. They made several conditions, all of which have been complied, but a condition which evidentally stated in the minutes, was left out of the resolution which was a plan of augmentation, and the resolution was signed off without one. Chairman Velasquez then swore in Mr. Nick Goluba of 485 167 Road, living west of Heusckel mobile home park. Mr. Goluba stated when the resol'tion was made, condition was set that the water not be contaminated and, was there, in fact, enough water supply. Mr. Goluba then presented two pictures of a glass of his water, which was dirty gray, after Mr. Heuschkel has pumped 8,000 gallons of water from his well. He indicated to the Board that he would like the Commissioners to request tests performed on Heuschkel's water supply and also the surrounding land owners. Mr. Goluba asked Mr. Richard D. Johnson of Wright Engineers, 818 Colorado, Glenwood to testify that his water was contaminated. CHairman Velasquez then swore in Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson indicated that the water was tested and found contaminated, but that he needed to do an in- depth study to see if it, in fact, came from Mr. Heuschkel's result in pumping his well. County Planner Davis Farrar presented the following as exhibits as evidence: Exhibit A; copy of Pesolution''80-101 approving the Special Use Permit for Mr. Heuschkel's Mobile Home Park; Exhibit B copy of Commissioners minutes dated June, 1981; Exhibit C and D, Mr. Gouluba's photos of his contaminated water. Chairman Velasquez then swore in Mr. Ken Kriz of 0497 167 Rd. He stated that when he drilled, that the water supply came from the uphill side and not the river side, and also indicated his water won't pass the standards now. Commissioner Cerise asked the audience if anyone has witched the stream ? Chairman Velasquez then swore in Sam Bryan of 335 167 Road, Glenwood Springs., and Mr. Bryan indicated that the stream has been witched and the water comes from the Mesa. Mr. Heuschkel's well is in the main stream also. Mr. Bryan stated his water was recently tested and it was very good. Chairman Velasquez tnen swore in Virginia Hemp of 0475 167 Road, Glenwood Springs. Mrs. Hemp indicated she had her water check. and got a very good reading, November 9, 1981 November 10, 1981 PAGE SEVEN DRAri OF MINUTES Mr. Goluba stated he called the Glenwood Ditch and asked whether the water in the ditch has been shut off, and their reply was it had been off for over a week. Mr. Goluba stated, his problem continued anyway. Chairman Velasquez then swore in Mr. Scott Balcomb, Attorney representing Mr. Heuschkel, of Delany & Balcomb, 818 Colorado, Glenwood Springs. Mr. Balcomb presented to the Board a packet of his exhibits which he would like recorded as evidence. Mr. Farrar indicated they would be marked Exhibit E. Mr. Balcomb indicated that Mr. Heuschkel has, in fact, complied with all the rules and regulations set forth in the Resolution #80-101. He also indicated that Mr. Goluba should have done the tests prior to this meeting and then presented them to the Board. Chairman Velasquez then swore in Mr. Heuschkel. Mr. Heuschkel indicated he has invested approximately $600,000 to make this a good Mobile Home Park. Even the oldest well is drawing more water than ever. Mr. Heuschkel stated the results of a test that was performed on his well as one of the conditions indicated above standards. Chairman Velasquez then swore in Mrs. Bernice Par of 5387 Cty Rd. 154. She indicated she is representing some of the people who life in the park and she feels thatthe park meets all the specifications and would like to see this thing settled. Chairman Velasquez then swore in Mrs. Marlen Munsel of"5387 Cty Rd. 154. She indicated her and her husband just bought a brand new trailer and would liketo give the whole park an excellent rating. Mr. Balcomb summarized in stating there were a lot of people who roved into the Mobile Home Park -in good faith and feels that ar. Goluba should go to Water Court to settle this disagreement. In addition, Mr. Balcomb doesn't feel there should be any action taken on Mr. Heuschkel's permit. Mr. Heuschkel indicated he felt he had done everything in his power to keep the mobile home park up to high standards, and his water level is considerably higher than the stream. After further discussion, the Board agreed there needed to be some tests performed on Mr. Heuschkel's well and felt it should not take more than 30 days. Commissioner Drinkhouse made a motion that the Public Hearing be closed. Commissioner Cerise seconded the motion and it was carried. Commissioner Drinkhouse made a motion that two engineering firms coordinate to make a study and run tests on the water, such tests not to exceed 90 days. Commissioner Cerise seconded the motion and it was carried. The meeting recessed at 5:10 p.m. The regular meeting of the Garfield County Commissioners reconvened at 9:00 a.m., November 20, 1981 with all Commissioners present. Mr. Iap Greaves and Mr. Lloyd Lamont appeared before the Board repre- senting Peregine Aviation. Mr. Lamont presented their plans for their new building at the Garfield County Airport and expressed to the Commissioners'their interest in serving the County. They presented pictures of their airplanes and the rates, indicating it would be much less expensive to go through their services rather than the present commercial airlines. The Board felt it was a good plan and thanked them for their time. As of December 31, 1981, Mr. Don Alberts indicated to the Board that he is resigning aS Recreation Director for Garfield County. He stated he served 22 years. All the Commissioners expressed gratitude and appreciation and were sorry to see him leave. Ms. Nancy Page, Finance nffirnr nrPC[]ni-na • STATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield Ata.„ regular ss. meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado x held at the Court House in Glenwood Springs on Monday the 2nd .day of „ June A. D. 19 d0 • •here were present: _„ Richard C. Jolley , Commusionere.'uirmart „ Larry Velasquez , Commissioner ,„Flaven J. Cerise1 Comrussiorer _.. Arthur A. Abplanalp, Jr. ,County Attorney Nancy SpricK Page, beputy Clerk of the Board when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 80-101 RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH TEE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY AUSTIN HEUSCH{EL•. WHEREAS, an application has been submitted by Austin Heuschkel for a special use permit for a mobile home park, in accordance with Section 7.03 of the Garfield County Zoning • Resolution, on the following described tract of land: A parcel of land situated in G over=ent Lots 20 and 21, Section 1, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the Sixth ?rine Mal Meridian, lying• Easterly of the Easterly right-of-way of the Glenwood Ditch, • Northerly of the Northerly -Boundary of Government Lot 31, located in said Section, and Westerly and Southerly of Document No. 261923 .as recorded in the'Clerk and Recorder's Office of Garfield County, Colorado, is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Lot 20. ; an ircn most with .a brass cap found in place; thence S. 26° 04'07" W., 1232.88 get to a point on said Document 261923 Southerly Boundary. the "True Point of Beginning"; ence leavingBL::car . said C•, South 60.00 — e, J thence S.4415'54" E. 1L.8.82 feet; thence S. 27° 22'03" W. 210..-'•4+ feet to a point on said Lot 31 Northerly Boundary; thence S. 89`'. 42 W. 4" 1 said Boundary; �ence leaving 'S9" '37. � feet along sZi �' .r ; t said Boundary, N. 57° 36'25" W. 667.40 feet to a point on said Ditch right-of-way; thence N.7° '41'47" 3. 1 ,170.0 fait. along said right- of-way; t- of -way; thence N. 47°52'25" E. 139.1.8 feet along said right-of-way; thence N. 52° 16'46" E., 189.68 feet along said right-of-way; thence N. 570 16'07" E. 213.85 feet along said right-of-way,the_nce N._55° 22'27" E. 45.84 feet along said y i _ht -of -way to a point of inter- section with said Document 261923 3oundary; thence leaving said right-of-way South,298.72 feet along said Boundary; thence _S. 26° .00'00"E., 238.93 feet along said Boundary; thence East, 265.1 feet along said Boundary to the "True" point of beginning. The above described parcel of land contains 9:52 acres, more of 'fess. A parcel of land situated in Lots 20, 21 and 30 of Section 1, To re- ship 7 South, Range 89 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Garfield County, Colorado, partially described by Document No. 276349 as filed in the Garfield County, Colorado records, said oa_rcel of land is more fully described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast Corner Of said Lot 30, whence the North - 'east Cerner of said Lot 20 bears; N.30° 40'18" E. 1752.90 feet; -thence S . 02° 20'00' W. 181.76_'ee along y t �lon� the easterly lire Cl said document; thence West 553.46 feet along the southerly lire of said document; thence along the centerline of a 20 foot road easement, N. 07° 33'35" W. 139.87 feet; thence N.12° 45'40".W. 278.44 feet; thence N.41° 45'51" E. 32.69 feet; thence N.32° 59'08" E. 75.80 feet: ---thence N.190 05' l5" E. 43.35 feet to the Northwest Corner of said document thence leaving said centerline. S. 57° 36'25" E. 667.40 feet along the northeasterly line of said document to the point of beginning. • WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has conducted public hearings duly advertised and held in accordance with the requirements of Section 9.03.04 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution regarding the question of whether the requested special use permit should be granted, and, if granted, whether any conditions should be imposed upon such special use permit, and during such hearings received extensive testimony and other evidence from the applicants and interested parties; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has considered said application and impact statements, the recommendation of the Garfield County Planning Commission and the testimony and other evidence presented at said public hearings, and based thereon, said Board of County Commissioners hereby makes the following findings in respect to such application, to -wit: 1. That all procedural and notice requirements set forth in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution with respect to special use permit applications have been met and this proceeding is properly before this Board; • 2. That said application is complete in all respects except as hereinafter noted, in accordance with the provisions and requirements of Section 9.03 of said resolution, and the applicant has paid the required fee. 3. That the proposed facility and all buildings and structures proposed in connection therr3with are in compliance with all applicable zoning, subdivision, building, health and sanitation regulations except for approval of a special use, as required by Section 9.03 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. 4. That the Board must, for purposes of analyzing the subjet application against the provisions of the Garfield Councy Zoning Resolution, establish the neighborhood which may be affected by the Possible granting of the proposed speical use permit, and further that _he.Boa=d has determined that, except as otherwise noted herein, such neighborhood is that area of Garfield County, Colorado, Sections 6 and 7, T. 7 S., R 88 W, and Sections 1 and 12, T. 7 S., R 89 W. 5. That the general character of the neighborhood of the tract proposed to be subject to the special use permit is agricultural, and commercial uses, all of which are operated in compliance with all applicable zoning, subdivision, builidng, health and sanitation regulations, whether under special use permits or in the status of a non -conforming use. 6. That landowners adjacent to and in the area of the subject property and the other citizens of Garfield County have indicated concern regarding the affect of the proposed mobile home park on the residential nature of the neighborhood, upon the value of adjoining properties and other properties in the area, and upon other sectors of the economy of the County. 7. That the protection of the health, safety and wel- • fare of the population and uses in the neighborhood require that certain conditions set forth herein be imposed upon the .location and use of•the subject property as a mobile home park. 8. That the impact of the proposed use would require denial thereof, due to impact upon the uses and value of ad - .joining properties in the neighborhood and upon traffic vol- ume and safety caused by increased population of the subject lands if conditions were not imposed on the subject special �.SA permit. • • 9. That the impact of the proposed use upon the health, safety and welfare of the population and uses in the neighbor- hood requires the imposition of certain conditions relating to assurance of water availability to the proposed use and the water quality of other affected water users, road construction, .and safety of the occupants of the mobile home park. 10. That the impact of the proposed facility upon the health, safety and welfare of the population and other uses in the neighborhood requi es that the applicant demon- strate certainty of water supply prior tothe time the facility is placed in operation. NOW, THIEREFOIRE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, Section 1. That the issuance of a special use permit for a mobile home park be and hereby is authorized upon the above-described lands, to be issued and effective upon and during compliance with the conditions more fully set forth herein; Section 2. That prior to the issuance of the subject special use permit and in any event within twelve months of the date of this resolution, unless extended by this Board within such period, the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. Applicant shall submit to the Board evidence of its permit from the Colorado Department of Health for a safe and adequate sewage treatment plant on the sub- ject property. b. Applicant shall provide evidence of final decree to water rights in applicant to use water adequate for the mobile home park use. Section 3. That prior to the commencement of use of the subject property as a mobile home park, the following conditions shall be satisfied: ATTEST: a. Applicant shall improve to at least Garfield County road standards that road connecting Garfield County Road 154 with the subject property. b. A chain-link fence at least six feet high shall be installed between the subject property and the Glen- wood Ditch. c. The road providing direct access to public road 167 shall be closed to access from the subject property. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO �J'r difiA % �� / De• ty C(fern of the oard Chairman .- WI upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the foUo vote: • Richard C. Jolley .Aye Larry Velasquez .Aye Flaven J. Cerise STATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield .Aye Commissioners 1, ..._.._ ........ .............. _....... County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commis•inners In and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexes ano foregoing Order is truly copied from the Records of the Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. • • Utilities Sewage Disposal The sewage plant and field would be designed by an engineer and approved by the state. The sewer collection pipes would lie"he center of the streets and would be sized by an engineer. Water The water supply would be from two commercial wells and would meet all state requirements and would be set up to meet all domestic, lawn, and fire protetion regulations. x,11 pipe would be laid in a utility zone in the back of all spaces. Water storage tanks large enough to meet peak demands of water would be incorporated. Gas, electric, and telephone Gas and telephone lines would be buried in same utility zo ne Electric lines would be overhead, the poles would also support lights to keep the park well illuminated. Drainage The park has no low areas to retain water in stagant pools. The surface of the park is covered with 3" to 12" of soil underlaid with gravel and sand, thus eliminating ve'ry much run off. The streets will be lower than the lots and will carry off the excess water. The streets will have some crown thus letting water run along low places on each side of the streets. • • Variance in lot area The above applicants would like to obtain a varince in the ratio of floor area to lot area. The present ratio is 1-4. We would like to have this ratio changed to a ratio of 1.2-4— or 30% of floor area to lot area. - 1 a ;, As none of the lots are under 4500 sq. ft., this would leave an open area of 3150 sq. ft. on these lots and 3500 sq. ft. on the 5000 sq. ft. lots. On these larger lots, the ratio is still going to make a lot of yard maintance that some people will not care,°maintain. • ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATURAL OAS COMPANY, INC. P.O. BOX 700 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 • TELEPHONE: (303) 945-8617 November 2, 1979 Mr. Austin F. Heuschkel 0164 Thomas Road Carbondale, Colorado 8162:1 Dear Mr. Heuschkel: Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company, Inc. (RMNG) provides natural qas service to the Glenwood Springs and Carbondale, Colorado areas and also includes the area where your proposed mobile home park is to he situated. RMNG has adequate supplies of natural gas to serve your proposed devel- opment, and looks forward to providing said natural gas service. Prior to natural gas system installation a qas main Extension Contract will have to be negotiated between RMNG and yourself. The terms of this Extension Contract regardinlconstruction cost advances and rebates will be in accordance with the terms of RMNG's Extension Policy on file with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. If you have further Questions or require additional information at this time, please let me know. Very truly yours, i� ; AC' Roy Elwell Engineer RE/mjb HOLY CROSS �LECTR1C ASSCqhATION, INC. E AREA COD 1301 GRAND AVENUE P. O. DRAWER 250 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 October 26, 1979 Mr Austin Heuschkel 0164 Thomas Road Carbondale, CO 81623 Dear Mr. Heuschkel: 303 945 - 5491 945 - 6056 Be it known that Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. is the certificated electric public utility in Section 01, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. Be it further known that Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. has the capacity and ability to extend electrical service to the new trailer park in Section 01, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, with the provision that contractual arrangements between the Developer/Owner and Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. are made, and that easements can be acquired. Sincerely, CROSS ELEC'2IC, SOCIATION, INC. • J-'" rey A. F nke Staking Engineer JAF:lsz cc:Job#79-8264:64-01:Heuschkel(Trlr Park) 1 GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone (303) 945-7255 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT Owner System Location Licensed Contractor * Conditional Construction approval is hereby granted for a _ Septic Tank or Aerated treatment unit. gallon This does not constitute a building or use permit. Absorption area (or dispersa a) computed as follows: Perc rate of one inch in � Gj minutes requires a minimum of 436- sq. ft. of absorption area per Oedroom. Therefore the no. of bedrooms Maywe suggest Date Inspector FINAL APPROVAL OF SYSTEM: x sq. ft. minimum requirement = a total of q. ft. of absorption area. Ct c No system shall be deemed to be in compliance with the Sewage Disposal Laws until the assembled system is approved prior to cover- ing any part. Septic Tank access for inspection and cleaning within 12" of ground surface or aerated access ports above ground surface. Proper materials and assembly. —-------- Trade name of septic tank or aerated treatment unit. Adequate absorption (or dispersal) area. --. _ Adequate compliance with permit requirements. Adequate compliance with County and State regulations/requirements. -__ Other Date *CONDITIONS: 1. All installation must comply with all requirements of the County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations, adopted pursuant to au- thority granted in 66-44-4, CRS 1963, amended 66-3-14, CRS 1963. 2. This permit is valid only for connection to structures which have fully complied with County zoning and building requirements. Connection to or use with any dwelling or structures not approved by the Building and Zoning office shall automatically be a viola- tion of a requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit, 3. Section III, 3.24 requires any person who constructs, alters, or installs an individual sewage disposal volves a knowing and material variation from the terms or specifications contained in the appliion oft Petty Offense (5500.00 fine - 6 months in jail or both). permit commits a Class I, Budding Official - Permit White Copy Applicant - Green Cony Dept. -Pink Copy -- - — -_ Inspector RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE " t' v$I J % 110 . i Alit; Fart !3 SOIL CHARACTERMICS Depth to Bedrock Texture Surface Subsoil Substratum :sand and gravel Unified/AASHO Classification•ML, SPM GW, SW; A-4, A-2, A-1 Permeability (below 2 feet) :rapid Percent Coarse Fragments (gravel, cobble, stone) Soil Reaction (pit) Shrink -Swell Potential Potential Frost Action' (surface) : low Flood Hazard Hydrologic Group :Benne B Corrosivity - Steel :high - Concrete :lam,,, DEGREE & KIND OF LIMITATIONS (0 is Slight, M is Moderate, S is Severe) Septic Tank Absorption Fields • :moderately deep over sand, gravel gravelly loam :5 to 15 percent :7.9 - 8.4 :low Sewage Lagoons Sanitary Landfill - Trench Area :0* :S - seepage :S - seepage, too sandy :S - seepage Shallow Excavations :S - cutbanks Dwellings w/basements :0 w/o basements i0 Local Roads and Streets :0 SUITABILITY AS A SOURCE OF.... Daily Cover for Landfill Topsoil Sand (:ravel Roadfill OTHER SOIL FEATURES * rapid permeability may cause a pollution hazard. cave, small stones :Fair - seepage, thin layer :Poor - small stones, too sandy :Good :Good :Good "ADVANCE COPY SUBJECT TO CHANGE" NOT TO BE USED IN PLACE OF ON-SITE INVESTIGATION. N ,11C 111 ,.rly level to gent1,, sinning, soils are on alluvial fans and hip -h t 'rrn•'es at elevations of (,OOO to 7500 feet. The avorago annual pro- c i n i to Li nn is a`ortt 16 i nchon,mean annual air temperature is about 46 an 1 t} Eros .-('r:e rr�._i.n 1 is rzl,nt; 110 lays. Tho At^ncio soil OC'^.I1tii 3 t}le somewhat concave parts ()f' t -ho landscape. ' It makes up about 60 norolnt; o' the unit. The Azeltine soli occupies the slightly convex positi ns. It makes up about 30 r)erc(rnt of t;he unit. The Atencio so' l has a hit-hor -,orcentage of cobble and stone in the ,profile than tho Azoltino soil. Aloud. 10 percent; of tho unit is (-ravel barn or finer textured soils. The A'.WLCIo soil is moderately ;loop and well drained. It formed in mixed srir•dstonr.; shale, and ouartzi.tic all tvium. Typically the surt'aco lr,yor is dark reddish -brown sandy clay loam about 7 inches thick. The subsoil is reddish -brown sandy clay loam about 4 inches thio-. The substratum is stony sandy loam that; g ades into sand, cobble, and gravel at depths between 25 and 30 inches. Permeabil'ty is moderately rapid. lf.fective rooting death is 21 to 30 inches and the available grater canacity is 0.11 to 0.14 in.,/in. Surface runoff i.s slow and the erosion hazard is slight. The Azeltine soil is moderatol.,. deep and well drained. It formed in mixed sandstone, shale, and quartzitic al.ltzritun. TyPically the surface layer is dark reddish -brown grav 1 ty load about 10 inthick. This grades int sand, gravel, and cobble at depths between 10 and 15 inches. P3rn:ability is rapid. effective rooti ir; dopth is 10 to 20 inches an' the ava i :able rater capacity is 0.07 to 0.09 in. /in. Surface runoff is slow and the ^rosion hazard is slight. 6 • • �1 C ytr SH1S rir ua0,1 for pasture land and sorra cropland. They need fronra,,. i, 1� ri;'n.t1�3n d i+3 their low ra+.Fa7-ho1d• nr; capacity. They will yield 'air crops of alfalfa, b r1ey, ami Potatoes. rap; d nerr,1,:3a' ilit,r, effluent from septic tank absorption fields y )oli to ground water. Land Ca ability :Unit: 4S i rrip'at;or1 GS noxi-i.rrio:at.ed ,tango $i te: Loamy alopos • • WATER Exs-iBtT Water will be supplied from one 50 gallon per minute commercial well, and one 30 to 50 gallon commercial well. There will be a 12,000 gallon storage tank providing 8,000 gallons for peak water demands and domestic water use, and 4x00 gallons that will be static and can only be drawn on for fire purposes. This 1,000 gallons larger than County Zoning regulations call for and will meet the Fire Inspecter's regulations. This will be added to automaticly by pumps replacing the water which will more than meet minimum requirements. The water supply in the well in present operation was tested by the well driller, Mr.Collins, to yield 30 gallons per minute for 24 hours with a minimum in water level drop.. The former owner, Mr. Dan Ogen, Stated that he had never run short of water. At present, the water is used to irri-- gate a large yard, garden and furnish water for one house with no draw down. The water has some hardness, but present renters, even though they have a water softener, prefer to use the water as it comes from the well. These wells will be augmented by 18 shares or .6 second foot of water in the Glenwood Ditch, which will be exchanged to meet priorty rights, and will also be used for yard sprinkling. 0'H • ROADS Access road from Mobil Home Park to County Road 154 Access to the Mobil Home Park would be by a road designated "Road C" on enclosed map, to it's junction with County Road 16' then on this road to it's junction with County Road 154. The distance would be approximately 1/4 mile on each road, or a total distance of 1/2 mile from the exit of the Mobil Home Park to a public road, which is County Road 154. Road C would be upgraded as a private access road from the Mobil Home Park to road 167. Road C has a riga -of-way from a minimum of 20 feet to 30 feet, and lays in the bottom of a ravine. There seems to be little, if any, run off from this ravine, as homes have been built at the base of this ravine with no provision for any run off. The soil is very porous,absorbing any moisture that melts or falls on it. The area it drains does not exceed 5 acres. Therefore provisions for drain ditches along the road should be at a minimum. The ravine will be filled in to raise the road and make an even grade from Road 167 to the Mobil Home Park. Material used would be pit run gravel and surfaced with crushed gravel base. In the narrow part of the righy-of-way the road base would have a small crown with no ditches as the outside of the road is lined with extremely couarse rock, which would absorb the run off from the road. Where the right-of-way widens, the road base would be raised a: d ditches -.laced on each side. Road C would be equal to, or betterthan road 167 and would have a grade of approximately 3.7%. STREETS All streets running through the Mobil Home Park would have a sub -base of course gravel with 3 inches of crushed gravel over the sub -base. The sub -base would be determined by the soil and gravel already in place, as most of the Mobil Home Park lays on a gravel bar with only a few inches of rocky soil covering the surface. The streets will be asphalt chip sealed to a width of 26 feet. 5-1Th A Scarrow Walker Incorporated Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors ExHiSiT B • • DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT Presently, the site (contains 14.5 acres, owned by Applicant) is not developed, except for one single family house. Proposed development will be 95 lot mobile home park. The treatment plant is located within the property boundary in the lowest topographical portion. Service area will expand outside the project boundary east to State Highway No. 82 (contains approximately 22.8 additional acres). This area is not developed yet, except for two businesses, presently being serviced by their own septic systems. Proposed sewage treatment plant is a package plant, which can be expanded as the area will further develop. 303 Basin Plan is showing our plant location within Plan 201 Glenwood Springs Facilities. To connect our proposed development into Glenwood Springs System would require approx- imately 22,000 L.F. of sewer pipe, which is impossible for a private individual because of cost and time involved to acquire right-of-way and construction cost of 4 miles of sewer line. Simi APPLE TPEE M#P. © NEW' CASTLE R/VEEP Bsf'N,Q 1_ : ..J fl et• '� • 1:OUTT ,+ y�r ! .,J V�y�Y/1 ^- M rM1�1N,.1'r j it 1(1... y • �/ �: - ._ 51R�mboat t -W Sr REM �tl'o :r ireP� •''•'� f �/ / i 1� r.w off-' I. i FNWO DD SPEP/IVG,S')..',.--g,!,!--ll%/ • . J , : 1 / ,. 1 a"1-- ,,,;.,e.,. T) -,.. •. NATIONAL - .I•iii� ,OR+ 4L. © CAPBOND4LE SAN. t 21.;.`\ [ :_ ;� a MCMC-SPR/NG VALLA - 1 j EL- ,013E1.— AV P. y'L . i, ®' BASAL r..,. _ ----I-) ,',- �7i. i„, p SNOWMA[Ss ..' ! 1 • -0"4. . 4 ,[—•.- FOREST y • to ...* Air 17-4GARFIELD'r".. Irne r13'' •_/' 11 i la -mud va 0 ', , .n!C3rt4 2 , Silr XII1.3■•..• a..• i7 .`� *n.:1 N. "I 771i41.;"1 enwood Pri ¢s • NATIONAL an1o. ,• t' ... I, �r 10, NEST • 1' , • _f e7�' jr • t.; f �w. • Toaster JACKSON \.r , could 4-14;.,.. r land tft Cah'anl AHO • .I TONAL 1 • ,:' $3...(v.•• R!7aaa :.;44:4 tf t y .�10.•,,-7.:04.- .4". ,..� :f•j.- •u Y �. ` ® .` � CONAL Y. ' \r r f pc"• m . WNii:i R1vER •.-. f r'ORFST ` - o oli NATtorIAL:,�FORE57'•:,\' ire �.A: a I..: ,. 15UMMIT f.MEt 14.4.41---4-,...---t • `%,..---'...4. �. 1. SIi iIC• • - �;lm.�,: R..mjFiulAr ..sem - t WHITE RIVER '�*: \s.„. �r ?: �iE f -:M,. 'NATIONAL ` �/ }; et • ."..,;: l , Breckec `1:./..'. , �:� FOREST I,.as Nur-- .' sn' QIIM , .j” � S` -- ,.7,71-.: $1$.•..A., Mwi _.. p ' .1.x 3 CI.Aa.;w •;� rr: ,� fes- �! 7 � ,.fir.-'•_. Vie;?:� W tl.... r .I f r f4'"- --.N.,-.4.'rk: Calr flarrn Cre:ii 1-4" 1: \1/4S' ‘-' ..e,'L . ....' ..fr '1. '''' r:/1" PITKIN ; i LE D.ts,ro +•_ 6 YM N 3 Scale. ;":.• i5 yv)i !eQ •.R N a-teMvifIB�u s" 7 ...�ro_ru alrple r. `44.114 vr` .��r K'!e4. w" .k •. ! C •�.. •—c►�?f:� •' >r &I.r.i�- 1 / j�M 13Rt1, S to a. •,.' r r :,, L 45.+14.4. j` 101231 . ( j 'LIGUNNISO • lo�,." gasubOi «,•^.. ^ �. �!"�".',w, w .e .,. Rf.wa,•. �s �l•: VivfWiOr.R sw. yp .15,0•017, , i.• �1..w s • s oo. ;may Atm _•'�?dee a y r.. • ev. NATIONAL' L443.. 7 • ,�J,, 1 • ,•6' .1' r w•+ ,• f�,ly ueru 144 0 �• .victs � 1 •• 8LA CANT ON NE SOGUNN/3Oh VO NA fIONA 1! MJONUMENT ::Montrose fa (t7 _.: = � �rI�Yalw tt i / '..\ `�}•i' 4.efinetranA i • 4SI., !, 1173ifieunnLson 1r •? ff• 3. . 3.64.n . • Y. •...• I.r• .a i 1 r-�. MAPA SEWAGE TREATMENT 1 ' WORKS. est - 00 • 7-7v G 1 In44.4 Ca. SI 111 lj,iy .jI AL 1A A • rI 4 '.1 �A., mac • .: 1r••• am. • • %�t` i 1C I •Ip. mai jWI" ." �' l' II *HatdLg 31 Nk - 1 1 1" rowswrtwffra zu� 1/ tJ aTr'INN iffftc:✓ai isiii lam 04.48 36 —10471 �1044,4"Z �„-' f 1 y 1404' • I a� ,4 t %c-• ! ?J %. GA - FIELD 4, PITKIN IDOL! I 'r I. M FION , J MIMF - ll N1 A P B Do ec Waterf/y I1-t�stkes (None) BM 595: • • \ 36 .69B: V • • 6946 a • II i -35 tGrave • • { 959 \.� v r, a= Grave •I +\` o\• •9�'O• .(4\ �cz ravel Pit • Kr[, �. 'l7:? • 12 • 4373 4372 Sccr/e : /"=2,000 '71 27'30' LEGEND 0 POTABLE WATWELLS 7'4 ••♦ • \.• 66 1\ • MAP C HAD/TABLE BU1 LDIAIO^S POTABLE WATER WELLS `TOPOG,4P:gy Wadontiak andMum/ i2e2akction gi��i 300 Meadowood Dr. Sfateondaie, Vaiogado 81623 December 3, 1979 Austin Heuschkel 0164 Thomas Rd. Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Lxrt/6)7 , RE: FIRE PROTECTION FOR PROPOSED TRAILER PARK Dear Austin: As per our discussion on 11-30, the installation of a 4000+ gal. water reservoir for the exclusive use of the Fire Dept. meets the minimum water supply requirements fcr your trailer park. The reservoir should be installed and maintained as we discussed (buried below frost line with a 6" standpipe with 6" NST connection easily accessible by fire dept. The tank should have an automatic filling apparatus and be inspected bi-monthly for proper operation.) Thank you for your inquiry in this matter. ere 1� Tom esk C&RFPD an • ROADS ExH 1817 The entrance road to the Mobil Home Park will come from County Road 154 at a place just west of the railroad right-of-way and at the point where County Road 154 crosses and enters Highway 82,opposite the entrance to the road to Colorado Mountain College. The entrance road will be on a 50 foot right of way.. The road will be finished with a 24 foot chip and seal surface and will follow the Glenwoof Ditch in a Southerly direction to the Mobil Home Park. The Mobil Home Park will be composed of 95 lots for mobil trailers and one 3 year old house. Lots will vary from 4500 square feet to 5500 square foot lots. All streets will be 24 foot chip and seal. Parking pads will be 24 foot by 24 foot chip and seal, located off streets. There will be a park approximately .8 acres in size. The Mobil Home Park will have strickly enforced covenants to keep yardsup, buildings skirted and in good repair, and two only operable vehicles to each mobil home. All other vehicles, boats,ect. to be stored in a provided storage area. old &fool Pit :1444: .•e)4 In E• GEND : e -i PRcPoSrb • i/ %VE�2N2 rut NS +fw-f Ae<-7 NKmb•ck'e.� kosci, ke,r suyr;, ! (mil 1,0 -IN D PERCOL A T/ON T'ES r HOZ E GIw.WOot 1:),‘i ei\ j peox se Ab.ti+• boAe-k,.I.•.e( f P(evaii; k 0.1 r d.u4 �r:M.r pi.,,,+ V�J C• R� -1- �� �•, IIe 36 03 PRO�EC /T� FIGURE I 2351) .e72•OC•'C2 I • • e a i 0C4 0:9 co CC • n 0 SCO/e: /IC*4 0 cc Roaring Fork School District RE -1 P.O. Box 820 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone (303)945-6558 NICHOLAS R. MASSARO, Superintendent DWIGHT L. HELM, Assistant Superintendent ROBERT D. LAFFOON, Assistant Superintendent, Business October. 21, 1980 Mk. Ray BaedwLn, County Pwannetc 2014 i3.ba!ze Avenue Gwenwood Sp& ng4, Cowonado 81601 Decut Ray: At the negu an meeting o4 the Roc ng Fotch School. VL ttie Boa/Ed o4 Education hoed Cctobett 14, 1980, the Board nev-Lewe.d the pwat 'on a 95 6po.t tnaiten count on the Aurtin Heu4schhee pnopenty south o4 Gwenwood Sp' Lng�, . The Board unaninourty approved a motion to ne.quezt the Gang.ieed County Comm,L44Joner4 to a.imez4 a one-6utndne_d and 4.iity dotean ($150) pelt unit 4ee to be used 4on 4schoow punpo6ez ass pet Senate Baia 135, The °WS-titLet wouwd as o £L(Ze to go on record that bu4 isettv.iee into the tttaitett patch zubdLvij Lon .vs not pwanned. Student6 wLU. have to board the buts at one o 4 the ptu ent neguwan to pis . Peeaze 6ece 6/tee to contact me you have. 1t.tttthe'L qtr 4 -ions. NRM/mw cc: pain. Amtin Heuzchhee S-incetteey youtts, 4 kcfiowaz R. ;Ma.34atto GARPELD GO.. RAWER obile Home Management Corpor n d/b/a H Lazy F Mobile Home Park 5387 County Rd. 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 303/945-5200 April 23, 1987 ❑ Please Reply Business Office 'J' I APR 27 1987 GARFIELD COUNTY Box 283 Aspen, Colorado 81612 303/925-4993 Mr. Glen Hartman Garfield County Planning Office 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Glen: This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of April 22, 1987, in which we discussed the total number of allowable units at the H Lazy F Mobile Home Park in Glenwood Springs. The total number of units that have been approved by Garfield County is 95. There are presently 93 constructed units. Space #24 and Space #47 were eliminated at the time of construction of the park to allow for larger space areas for the contiguous spaces. Earlier this month, a fire destroyed a single-family residence that was located in the park. We intend to demolish the remnants of the single-family residence and construct two additional pads. This will then give us the total allowable pads of 95. You indicated to me that Garfield County had no objection to our proposal to demolish the residence and install two pads. I thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely yours, MOBILE HOME MANAGEMENT CORPORATION By JDS:slb jds4b/11 Jon D eigle, President COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HOTH WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 Applicant: Address: • APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL OF NEW SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT (Required if Serving More Than Twenty Persons) (Submit in Duplicate) Austin F. HPnsc'h1c 1 0164 Thomas Road, Carbondale, CO 81623 A. Information Re.ardinq Pro ect Submitted for Review: 1. Briefly describe on a separate sheet of paper the justification for locat- ing the sewage treatment works on this particular site. This should include, but is not necessarily limited to, a description of the present and possible development of the site location and service area. 2. Size and type of treatment facility proposed: Package sewage treatment plant (extended aeration) and leach field. G?D: 40,000 PE served: 400 (Gal/day) (Population equivalent) % Domestic: 1000/o % Industrial: 0 Proposed class of facility: B Class of operator required: 3. Location of facility: Map Attach a map of the (a) 25 -mile radius: (b) 5 -mile radius: (c) 1 -mile radius: See Map C 4. Wastes will 5. Watercourse B area which includes the following: all sewage treatment works: See Map A domestic water supply intakes:See Map B habitable buildings, location of potable water wells, and an approximate indication of the topography. be discharged to: N/A - Nondischarginq treatment facility (Name of watercourse) Classification of watercourse N/A Subsurface disposal Leach field system Land N/A Evaporation N/A Other None If the discharge is to a watercourse, what is the waste load allocation for that watercourse? N/A What is the remaining wasteload allocation uncommitted in the basin? (See 303(e) and 208 Plans) N/A approved 1/77 -9, 1 n\ III 6. Does your proposeP facility require lift stations anywhere in the plant or area? Yes - 1 lift station is required. service 7. What is the zoning for the proposed service area? Commercial limited & commercial general Present zoning of site area? Commercial limited. Zoning within a 1 -mile radius of site? Commercial limited; Commercial genrl Please explain zoning: Residential general urban density; agricultural residential rural density; Garfield County Zoning District 8. What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest domestic water supply intake? N/A - Nondischarging Owner and address: (Closest well for potable water intake is 250 1.f. trom leach field) What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest nor. - domestic water supply intake? N/A - Nondischarcing Name and address: 9. Sewer lines: Approximate number of feet: Sizes: 4" and 8" diameter 3700 1.f. 10. Who has the responsibility for operating the facility? Applicant What is the legal status of the responsible party? Property Owner 11. Who owns the land upon which the facility will be constructed? Applicant Please attach copies of the document creating authority in the applicant to construct the proposed facility. 12. Estimated project cost: $80,000 plant + $4,000 leach field Who is financially responsible for the facility? Applicant What is the method of finance? Private Financing WQCC approved 1/77 WQ-3(rev. 3-77-40) -2- • • 13. Are there any major land developers involved in the development of the proposed service area? No Give the name, address, and percentage of service area developed by any person if that percentage of development is greater than 10 percent. Of the total PE that you indicated in No. 2, how many of those PE's are presently existing? 0 ; are presently committed? 0 . How many PE's are proposed? 370 14. Names and addresses of all water and sanitation districts within 5 miles of proposed wastewater treatment facility site and proposed service area: Water and wastewater treatment City of a1 Piwcir r cpr1 nga, 806 Coo•er. CMC - S•rin• Valle Sani •! • 115 Road, --Glenwood Springs Attach separate sheet of paper if necessary. 15. What is the relationship of this facility to any Areawide (208) Plans or Basin (303(e)) Plans? (Contact Planning Section, Water Quality Control Division.) 303 Basin Plan is showing proposed waste watpr treatment facility within Plan 201 Glenwood Springs Facilities Plan 16. Is the facility in an area subject to flooding? No If so, what precautions are being taken? Has the flood plain been designated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Department of Natural Resources? N/A If so, what is that designation? 17. List other sites other than the proposed site that were considered. None 18. Are there any available laboratories for your use? Yes If so, give name and location of lab. City of Glenwood Springs, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 WQCC approved 1/77 WQ-3(rev. 3-77-40) • • 1S. Attach proof that a copy of this application was sent by certified mail to each of the following federal agencies, requesting their comment. (a) United States Forest Service, Director of Watershed, Soils and Minerals Management, 11177 West 8th Avenue, Lakewood, CO 80225. (b) National Park Service, Office of Cooperative Activities, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 655 Parfet Street, P. 0. Box 25287, Denver, CO 80225. (c) Bureau of Land Management, State Director (911 Planning), Room 700, Colorado State Bank Building, 1600 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 Please note: These federal agencies do not need to be contacted if the site that is being proposed bears no relationship to any of the lands, streams, lakes, or rivers operated by these agencies. The burden is on the applicant to show that the proposed site does not affect anything within the jurisdiction of these agencies. 20. Please attach proof of mailing to Director of State Parks, 1313 Sherman, Denver, CO 80203. The same criterion applies here as in No. 19. 21. Consulting engineer: Scarrow & Walker/ KKBNA. Martin S. Oldford, P,E. Address: 1001 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Telephone: (303) 945-8664 22. Please include all additional factors that might help the Water Quality Control Commission make an informed decision on your application for site approval. Please see attached material - "Site Soil Suitability for Treatment Plant with Absorption System". Date WQCC approved .1/77 WQ-3(rev. 3-77-40) -4- Signature of Applicant B. SIGNATURE OF GOVERNMU4iAL OFFICIALS The undersigned have reviewed the proposal for the location of the above-described wastewater treatment facility and recommend approval or disapproval in spaces provided below: Recommend Recommend No Date Approval Disapproval Comment Signature of Representative Local Government TCitTes, Towns, and Sewer Districts) Board of County Commissioners Local Health Authority City/County Planning Agency Regional Planning Agency Council of Government C. Natural Hazards: Comments of State Geologist regarding possible natural hazards: Recommend approval: Recommend disapproval: Date: WQCC approved 1/77 WQ-3(rev. 3-77-40) Signature PUBLIC NOTICE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Austin F. and Doris R Heusrhkel () (have) applied to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to grant a special use in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit: a portion of land situated in Lots 20 and 21, Section 1, T.7S., R.89W. of the 6th P.M. containing 14.50 acres, more or less Said special use is to permit the Petitioner(s) to develop a mobile home park on the above described property. This special use application may be reviewed at the office of the Building Official located at 2014 Blake, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. That public hearing on the application for the above special use has been set for the 19th day of May , A.D. 19 80 • , at the hour of 10:00 a.m. in the office of the Board of County Commissioners at the County Courthouse, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Ray aldwin Planning Director, Garfield County, Colorado �eember 5, 1979 111 dust would also be a problem. Tom Beocher said no matter what they do, there will be an impact to the beauty of the valley. This was designed to have the least amount of impact visually. The silo size was adjusted down. They tried to locate it as far off the road as possible and if it were across the river, they would have to raise the conveyor and it would be closer to the river. Barbara Lorah suggested they put it all on the other side of the river. Tom Beocher said there was no place to loop the train, and they could not back the train up that far. Arnold Mackley asked if it could go on the bench on the other side. Tom Beocher said that is not where they want it. The only thing that would accomplish, would be to remove the silo. It was not nearly as objection- able as other things. They have tested this in every way and there is no other way for investment. It was important to keep the mine operating. 200 people are working at the mine and they hope to have 300. The Board should be thinking about what can be done to keep the mine operating and the concerns are important. Arnold Mackley asked how the company has helped housing. Tom Beocher said they don't have any quick answers but will have to come up with some. There is no program. Peter Craven said they hired Bill Lorah and he recommended an augmentation plan. They have sufficient water to handle the year round problems. Mr. Lorah recommended they make a 6 acre pond. It will require the drying up of 3 acres of land. Will Perry, resident, said he thought bussing would be quite an improvement. The dust situation would be better and people would not run through his fence. Kelley Meyer said he could support it if the facility was built on the west side of the river with less visual impact and he would recommend approval. Carter Jackson made a motion to recommend that further study of design and future location of the silo be done. Barbara Lorah seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. THIRD ITEM ON THE AGENDA: Heuschkel Mobile Home Park Chairman Mackley explained this was a 95 lot mobile home park application on a 14.5 acre site located midway between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale. Ray Baldwin said this proposal is zoned Commercial/Limited and could be allowed under a special use. There are several mobile homes in the area which are pre-existing uses. They will have central water and sewer, and they have (5) deCember 5, 1979 • not filed with the State at this time. There are separate mobile home park regulations. They are looking at an alternative access. Austin Heuschkel said there is one well now. There will be an underground sewer plant. He owns 18 shares of a ditch right which is about 1890. The Carbondale Fire District requires a 4,000 Gallon water tank. A site review was scheduled for January 14, 1980. FOURTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA: Amichaux Zone Change Ray Baldwin explained this was a request to change zoning from A/R/RD to C/G on 24 acres adjacent to Ami's Acres in West Glenwood. Paul Amichaux said he would like to put in apartments, commercial, and storage along the front of the property. He said it was not spot zoning because some of the land is unusable because the mesa rock goes straight up. He is asking for Commercial/General rather than Commercial/Limited because Commercial/Limited does not allow for storage. The frontage would he commercial area and drive behind would be mostly a type of storage. Also, there will be apartments. There will be domestic water and be served by the West Glenwood Sanitation District. A site review was scheduled for January 14, 1980. The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m. Ray B'al dwi n, Secretary (6) WRJt5•R-ev. ]6 Application must be complete where applicable. Type or print in BLACK INK. No overstrikes or erasures unless initialed. COL.DO DIVISION OF WATER RESOUR. 818 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203 FOR: PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1 A PERMIT TO USE GROUND WATER A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL 1 A PERMIT TO INSTALL A PUMP OCT161474 ow Mai ( ) REPLACEMENT FOR NO (JC) OTHER .e0 -19P Ph. /=D.e 7,:acst.r WATER COURT CASE NO COPYdI (1) APPLICANT - mailing address NAME /19a.tr/4) 04I€11GNA41E STREET d/4',I ,/ /rf NS �TOAG CITYf AA2d'sw/e0,0 ,.0%, C2• 2/4..73 (State) (Zip) TELEPHONE NO 9 .3 -.2/5// (2) LOCATION OF PROPOSED WELL County bfs�2r sft 45 4) ''/aofthe :5 e- '/. Section Twp. % S Rng. 19 1), tN.SI �E.WI P.M. (3) WATER USE AND WELL DATA Proposed maximum pumping rate (gpm) / 00 Average annual amount of ground water to be appropriated (acre-feet): Number of acres to be irrigated: 4 Proposed total depth (feet): �� D Aquifer ground water is to be obtained from: SA/)/p S ‘X1,91./ Owner's well designation GROUND WATER TO BE USED FOR: ( ) HOUSEHOLD USE ONLY ( ) DOMESTIC (1) ( ) LIVESTOCK (2) .L ») COMMERCIAL (4) no irrigation (0) ( ) INDUSTRIAL (5) ( ) IRRIGATION (6) ( ) MUNICIPAL (II) ( ) OTHER (9) DETAIL THE USE ON BACK IN (1 1) (4) DRILLER Name J— D[1/I�S� �iQ/.CLi odd' Street 3.21"' City [-'pedO.HOA Z2 . r, -.25 (State) (Zip) Telephone No 14t3 --7p/z Lic. No dP33 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: DO NOT WRITE IN THIS COLUMN Receipt No 3? / Basin Dist. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of the permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 1. A DECREE FOR THIS APPROPRIATION MUST BE OB- TAINED FROM THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR WATER DIVISION NO. 5, STATE OF COLORADO. THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF SAID DECREE. 2. THE COMBINED PUMPING RATE OF THIS WELL AND WELL NO .24511-F SHALL BE LIMITED TO 100 GALLONS PER MINUTE OR THE ACTUAL YIELD OF THE AQUIFER WHICHEVER IS LESS. 3. THE COMBINED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF GROUNDWATER TO BE APPROPRIATED FROM THIS WELL AND WELL NO.2H>6,S--f SHALL BE LIMITED TO 150 ACRE- FEET PER YEAR. b) OR THAT AMOUNT CONSISTANT WITH T I -E MAXIMUM PUMPING RATE, WHICHEVER IS LESS. 4. A TOTALIZING FLOW METER MUST BE INSTALLED ON THE WELL DISCHARGE WHEN THIS WATER IS PUT TO BENEFICIAL USE. DIVERSION RECORDS SHALL BE SUB- MITTED, UPON REQUEST, TO THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES. THE 600 FOOT SPACING REQUIREMENT SHALL BE WAIVED AS PER THE HEARING HELD ON OCTOBER 16,1979 AND THF' ATTACHED HEARING REPORT. 6. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT CANCELS PERMIT NO. 82585. APPLICATION APPROVED PERMIT NUMBER DATE ISSUED 2456~1 _ DEC 311979 EXPIRATION DATE QFC 31 1980 BY D ha.„,i,L, (STTZE E GI ER). ' JNTY THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOS. WELL and the area on which the water will be used must be indicated on the diagram below. Use the CENTER SECTION (1 section, 640 acres) for the well location. --f- — ± — — -I--= -1- -- -+ — -1- — -I- IA 1 I -4A1 MILE, 5280 FEET *1 f -}- + + -+- 0 -t-- ± 4- + i r -- i — NORTHI 2 J 2 0 U 1) rA W NORTH SECTION LINE 1 ) - — -IL -- _ l 1 — + — — I ( I 1 UTH SECTION LINE m rn rA m _1 O 2 2 m -1_ -� f- -1- - — -)- -- -I- — +- The scale of the diagram is 2 inches = 1 mile Each small square represents 40 acres. WATER EQUIVALENTS TABLE (Rounded Figures) An acre-foot covers 1 acre of land 1 foot deep 1 cubic foot per second (cfs) . 449 gallons per minute (gpm) A family of 5 will require approximately 1 acre-foot of water per year. 1 acre-foot .. 43,560 cubic feet . . 325,900 gallons. 1,000 gpm pumped continuously for one day produces 4.42 acre-feet. (6) THE WELL -_ ST BE LOCATED BELOW by distances from section lines. s/o SO ft. from SD L.'7? f sec. line (north or south) /3So ft. from rig S 7 sec line (east or west) LOT BLOCK FILING SUBDIVISION A)//g (7) TRACT ON WHICH WELL WILL BE, LOCATED Owner: )9 . dew rF4. No. of acres Will this be the only well on this tract? VES (8) PROPOSED CASING PROGRAM Plain Casing iv 7 in from 0 ft to �/v ft in from ft to ft Perforated casing 7 in from G---4"- ft to ft in from ft to `t (9) FOR REPLACEMENT WELLS yivedistance and direction from old well and plans for plugging it: (10) LAND ON WHICH GROUND WATER WILL BE USED: l.S r �` -� Owncr(s): AN F � e-�/JDe/$ g 01,1SC4-46c-e.� No. of acres:/p%4L OF/S,4 Z Legal description: (11) DETAILED DESCRIPTION of the use of ground water: Household use and domestic wells must indicate type of disposal system to be used. `374-0(27- iG ?sl.✓.0 1L ePc"? ,e 4..47 A. Q.c /Old )4( rr di/0 A -t £ ,449 e' f#0,ve ,X. S A. 4.AtJNs, .0e,rf 6'e A.7" (12) OTHER WATER RIGHTS used on this land, including wells. Give Registration and Water Court Case Numbers. Type or right Used for (purpose) Description of land on which used (13) THE APPLICANT(S) STATE(S) THAT THE INFORMATION SET FORTH HEREON IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE. SIGNATURE OF A'PLICANT(S1 lJse additional sheets of saner if more snag is renuired 0 '.'. p ,�-,'~ 7 R C ice. w . O •^ a) O ti n 'O 'p a) s. >-, '0 = co .. 3 a ,uas ° .-� �r y C E°s �• a) " as .,,., '-a V E C.•y0 O c = y c C •3 ca ca '0., — 0 ct 0 t..ts 03 as i' 3 0' O 0 W v L. O C G .a .c '6 CG '� Gni '� O >. c" "o V c'o6 S p C G y.. L w cC O L C cC p C ._� y "'' L. ,� y • O ca O p .'> O 'n cC s "6 ✓ p C. w "' a a >> © d p >, O � a`a)i w >1 >•, .CC S" v/i .O ..▪ ' cif F - p 3 s .0 •x" y^omawa3 v. cac�j34.OR c� •�ccc • o� y "a• ° 3 w 3 L. d 0: 3 .p c c V 0 " v. 3 �0 L. ,� o ▪ aEs .% y as E= v -o es) 'c� o L. L. c v a o E o o E c�pov �� a,��a�,��C�'a�' co oma_'�8 = �ya`sa 8"'�ooc° • ¢ ,4? 0 ^3 as .0 0 s@. O p• •O $' C > O ° C O s. O 0 cC v • V as 011 .47, .c▪ �-. 'O w f. cu 0 'fl .....+ O '.> '6...! _ 7 > a• w _ co) t1C Cb ''''29 ' '4›.' w o c `, a c 6 ..v Rs 3 o aci t c°i a, : ° s°. -;>" 0co Soy c coo to aci c `j ��yc.c�o>,Ec y �c.....;.-Ln caa '°v �� ccD6,oE •�a 1) . .! a: ll E4 .0 .0 tD >': CC f. c .O : p c N a •c p, 5 "C V ti 0.Y O' 'C -' t. i -0 '.' a+ .-..". a Ti y A^, a acao5°"c~a`,°.a�cRa...L. c0.. $.c.0'"'«xy:o -6 CD •a) 0 y > 0 0 0 - .c a, > 00iza cb c a>i ca E". 0 0 a>i s0. O 3 0 `" s' . s. m .: y F as G C7 x v .'�xCY3 o3s, o.�'vo3 Unna o>�� 42'.. LI EG) 4E Lc`��c a mc. 3cc ��c"C ow'av��c�nL. en 0c>u s . [asasaso �" �O c dovc ca c COCs ��� nsaeo .c c cn 3V�w°ai a) a) >`aY o°vU Qn3Lcampa�v.. sn ° ai ui ai�o ccc oR�'a`°'c "V co � =tscc c EE'l' 12 •as•�css.'wai co CD (in `w▪ a O U. C ,0w ,-CO er.p '- O ft'Cf•p"4 'IA; �0i. O 6 C >> - .0 .' O C >>�3.o'C wo0...t,F..,-3''v,3�> az-E05it0 5y .151 C7 c°aai�� c, Lyc Ca m ca 0 asc�`cn n °- v E ca0. c rn°s^oI Ix da ccU c v.f...7 v � N "°3[cz oa�G; ccccm^ca=>moo �o°� c v")z:ro �o .c cat'jot °c• .a3v p tr:4 �a aoN'as3a;vi-�asc i E>o E�cvaC L. uvoas�va••>z.accE��3cca , a 0 ° r. o 2 vvcw. � 0.0 pNc. sro, © . v =I:,Lt a) —. a . .,:,c) ,, 0 ca s° 0.c "pt - c " L °' aa`c s.csvcops`�avbc 0 cx av °>6 2 -0 ° 3 a� c �� ���•o`' F aE� -6E>3 Et .c a 3 oa L d :• >,a><5g•^E,va) e, ETsa jN-�L e73=°�yom�a�ca" °sEUcvcv<.cE Ew? ' o c c x c 0 0 .0 iL c7 .. 2 �w2 �.' ) ' 2 "Th 03 _ Cc -2- 2) 5 5 21 d la Py ' 10 C, // or; i/y /ii/?JJ , CS, 7 3 7 3 9-; • .:-.17; 77. 071 ,2) 7 JP') / , /••• 4) / • i) ;1 . r •""' • 1. •;• ,F t 7 /1 4 f` -._..., Q• ' 0 i 5 \ II \ 1 1 --7-f--- ,",--:"-------:\ 1 ._ / /i .5 • - 61w -- 1T/ 1::..,"11- _ •'�,^\ ti — .v. A Q �, 4 ? ep �' r.€- : n • �� Ati's ti' C' 'a Q. 121 24 o Q ro n ti j. .. O �., O a '� c., ti a a te„ Z. �- a m A x = y a f� Z. A - A m in a O '" < n 1 • N F• N V n ar z n 3 Q 0 o b• Z (Jl a Z Q GI N n CZ1 a A y O .; rD _ x N c,0 1:64(11 0 % o /moo 0 n ti z h y y �. ° Q O �1� O^ �' 2s1 v `�'• a c, c, h �� V ..t c, o A. Q n• 0.. VS 3 E.') ?:1... , ti r , tiOy O US el — tl. In ti . W e„' O O �_ ...... O ti ? .66 n y' ` s car S Q a 0. - m Cn i:: b3 ., A V s : �. �0 .� is tie ,' R. ti ti n aha. w a a n a '31 o Q Z _ ,1 "I 7 _; y ti, 91 ,'at e Sias' ' ,li's.r� ",s�ifA 4h:1 rr44e {moi iikwil s • AN APPLICATION FGR ESTABLISHMENT OF A MOBITT HOME PARK This application to build a Mobile home park is subject to the state-' accepting the sewage treatment plant and leach field and is made at this time, so that both permits could be filed simultanously and shorten the time to get the paper work done. Applicants A tin F. Heuschkel • Doris B. Heuschkel 0164 Thomas Road Carbondale, colo.81623 • • Legal Description of Proposed Mobil Home Park A parcel of land situated in Government Lots 20 and 21, Section 1, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, lying Easterly of the Easterly right-of-way of the Glenwood Ditch, Northerly of the Northerly Boundary of Government Lot 31, located iri said Section, and Westerly and Southerly of Document No. 261923 as recorded in the'Clerk and Recorder's Office of Garfield County, Colorado, is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Lot 20.;an iron post with a brass cap found in place; thence S. 26° 04'07" W., 1282.88 feet to a point on said Document 261923 Southerly Boundary, the "True Point of Beginning"; thence leaving said Boundary South 60.00 feet; thence S.44'15'54" E. 148.82 feet; thence S. 27° 22'05" W. 210.64 feet to a point on said Lot 31 Northerly Boundary; thence S. 89° )2'59" W. 337.48 feet along said Boundary; thence leaving said Boundary, N. 57° 36'25" W. 667.40 feet to a poinnt on said Ditch right-of-way; thence N. 17° 41'47" E.,170.00 feet along said right- of-way; thence N. 47°52'25" E. 139.48 feet along said right-of-way; thence N. 52° 16'46" E., 189.68 feet along said right-of-way; thence N. 57° 16'07" E. 213.85 feet along said right-of-way,thence N. 58° 22'27" E. 45.84 feet along said right-of-way to a point of inter- section with said Document 261923 Boundary; thence leaving said right-of-way South,298.72 feet along said Boundary; thence S. 26° 00'00"E., 238.93 feet along said Boundary; thence East, 265.15 feet along said Boundary to the "True" point of beginning. The above described parcel of land contains 9.52 acres, more of less. A parcel of land situated in Lots 20, 21 and 30 of Section 1, Town- ship 7 South, Range 89 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Garfield County, Colorado, partially described by Document No. 276349 as filed in the Garfield County, Colorado records, said parcel of land is more fully described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast Corner of said Lot 30, whence the North- east Corner of said Lot 20 bears; N.30° 40'18" E. 1752.90 feet; thence S. 02° 20'00" W. 181.76 feet along the easterly line cf said document; thence West 55.46 feet along the southerly line of said document; thence along the centerline of a 20 foot road easement, N. 070 33'38" W. 139.87 feet; thence N.12° 45'40" W. 278.44 feet; whence N.41° 45'51" E. 32.69 feet; thence N.32° 59'08" E. 75.80 feet; thence N.19° 05'15" E. 43.35 feet to the Northwest Corner of said document thence leaving said centerline, S. 57° 36'25" E. 667.40 feet along the northeasterly line of said document to the point of beginning. The above described parcel of land contains 5.05 acres, more or less. • • ROADS Access road from Mobil Home Park to County Road 154 Access to the Mobil Home Park would be by a road designated "Road C" on enclosed map, to it's junction with County Road 167 then on this road to it's junction with County Road 154. The distance would be approximately 1/4 mile on each road, or a total distance of 1/2 mile from the exit of the Mobil Home Park to a public road, which is County Road 154. Road C would be upgraded as a private access road from the Mobil Home Park to road 167. Road C has a riga -of-way from a minimum of 20 feet to 30 feet, and lays in the bottom of a ravine. There seems to be little, if any, run off from this ravine, as homes have been built at the base of this ravine with no provision for any run off. The soil is very porous,absorbing any moisture that melts or falls on it. The area it drains does not exceed 5 acres. Therefore provisions for drain ditches along the road should be at a minimum. The ravine will be filled in to raise the road and make an even grade from Road 167 to the Mobil Home Park. Material used would be pit run gravel and surfaced with crushed gravel base. In the narrow part of the righy-of-way the road base would have a small crown with no ditches as the outside of the road is lined with extremely couarse rock, which would absorb the run off from the road. Where the right-of-way widens, the road base would be raised a:'.d ditches 121aced on each side. Road C would be equal to, or betterthan road 167 and would have a grade of approximately 3.7%. STREETS All streets running through the Mobil Home Park would have a sub -base of course gravel with 3 inches of crushed gravel over the sub -base. The sub -base would be determined by the soil and gravel already in place, as most of the Mobil Home Park lays on a gravel bar with only a few inches of rocky soil covering the surface. The streets will be asphalt chip sealed to a width of 26 feet. 20 -2- 1 1 0 • • Utilities Sewage Disposal The sewage plant and field would be designed by an engineer and approved by the state. The sewer collection pipes would lietthe center of the streets and would be sized by an engineer. Water The water supply would be from two commercial wells and would meet all state requirements and would be set up to meet all domestic, lawn, and fire protetion regulations. All pipe would be laid in a utility zone in the back of all spaces. Water storage tanks large enough to meet peak demands of water would be incorporated. Gas, electric, and telephone Gas and telephone lines would be buried in same utility zo ne Electric lines would be overhead, the poles would also support lights to keep the park well illuminated. Drainage The park has no low areas to retain water in stagant pools. The surface of the park is covered with 3" to 12" of soil underlaid with gravel and sand, thus eliminating veay much run off. The streets will be lower than the lots and will carry off the excess water. The streets will have some crown thus letting water run along low places on each side of the streets. • • Variance in lot area The above applicants would like to obtain a varince in the ratio of floor area to lot area. The present ratio is 1-4. We would like to have this ratio changed to a ratio of 1.2-4� or 30% of floor area to lot area. As none of the lots are under 4500 sq. ft., this would leave an open area of 3150 sq. ft. on these lots and 3500 sq. ft. on the 5000 sq. ft. lots. On these larger lots, the ratio is still going to make a lot of yard maintance that some people will not care"maintain. • • ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC. P.O. BOX 700 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 • TELEPHONE: (303) 945-8617 November 2, 1979 Mr. Austin F. Heuschkel 0164 Thomas Road Carbondale, Colorado 81628 Dear Mr. Heuschkel: Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company, Inc. (RMNG) provides natural qas service to the Glenwood Springs and Carbondale, Colorado areas and also includes the area where your proposed mobile home park is to be situated. RMNG has adequate supplies of natural gas to serve your proposed devel— opment, and looks forward to providing said natural gas service. Prior to natural qas system installation a gas main Extension Contract will have to be negotiated between RMNG and yourself. The terms of this Extension Contract regardirr construction cost advances and rebates will be in accordance with the terms of RMNG's Extension Policy on file with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. If you have further questions or require additional information at this time, please let me know. Very truly yours, i Poy Elwell Engineer RE/mjb HOLY CROSS •LLCTRIC ASS&CIATION, INC. AREA CODE 1301 GRAND AVENUE 303 P. O. DRAWER 250 945 - 5491 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 945 - 6056 October 26, 1979 Mr Austin Heuschkel 0164 Thomas Road Carbondale, CO 81623 Dear Mr. Heuschkel: Be it known that Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. is the certificated electric public utility in Section 01, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. Be it further known that Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. has the capacity and ability to extend electrical service to the new trailer park in Section 01, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, with the provision that contractual arrangements between the Developer/Owner and Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. are made, and that easements can be acquired. Sincerely, CROSS ELEC'RIC,79SOCIATION, INC. • ti J-'" rey A. F nke Staking Engineer JAF:lsz cc:Job#79-8264:64-01:Heuschkel(Trlr Park) GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone (303) 945-7255 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT Owner This does not constitute a building or use permit. System Location Licensed Contractor Conditional Construction approval is hereby granted for a Septic Tank or Aerated treatment unit. gallon Absorption area (or dispersA1 area) computed as follows: Perc rate of one inch in ,minutes requires a minimum of /35" sq ft of absorption area per bedroom. Therefore the no. of bedrooms ' x "'� sq ft minimum requirement = a total of sq ft of absorption area. May we suggest Date //?./79 Inspector FINAL APPROVAL OF SYSTEM: No system shall be deemed to be in compliance with the Sewage Disposal Laws until the assembled system is approved prior to cover- ing any part. Septic Tank access for inspection and cleaning within 12" of ground surface or aerated access ports above ground surface. Proper materials and assembly. Trade name of septic tank or aerated treatment unit. Adequate absorption (or dispersal) area. Adequate compliance with permit requirements. Adequate compliance with County and State regulations/requirements. Other Date Inspector *CONDITIONS: 1. All installation must comply with all requirements of the County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations, adopted pursuant to au- thority granted in 66-44-4, CRS 1963, amended 66-3-14, CRS 1963. 2. This permit is valid only for connection to structures which have fully complied with County zoning and building requirements. Connection to or use with any dwelling or structures not approved by the Building and Zoning office shall automatically be a viola- tion of a requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit. 3. Section III, 3.24 requires any person .vho constructs, alters, or installs an individual sewage disposal system in a manner which in- volves a knowing and material variation from the terms or specifications contained in the application of permit commits a Class I, Petty Offense ($500.00 fine — 6 months in jail or both). RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE Building Official -- Permit White Copy Applicant — Green Copy Dept. — Pink Copy tta Biu _1 t. h0 . SOIL CHARACTEJICS Depth to Bedrock Texture Surface Subsoil Substratum Unified/AASHO Classification Permeability (below 2 feet) Percent Coarse Fragments (gravel, cobble, stone) Soil Reaction (pH) Shrink -Swell Potential Potential Frost Action (surface) Flood Hazard Hydrologic Group Corrosivity - Steel - Concrete DEGREE & KIND OF LIMITATIONS (0 is Slight, M is Moderate, S is Severe) Septic Tank Absorption Fields Sewage Lagoons Sanitary Landfill - Trench Area Shallow Excavations • :moderately deep ovor sand, gravel kfravelly loam :sand and gravel SM, GVi , SW; A-4, A-2, A-1 : rapid :5 to 15 percent :7.9 - 8.4 :low :low. :none :B :high :low :0* :S - seepage :S - :S - :S - Dwellings w/basements :0 w/o basements :0 Local Roads and Streets :0 SUITABILITY AS A SOURCE OF.... Daily Cover for Landfill Topsoil Sand Gravel Roadfill OTHER SOIL FEATURES * rapid permeability may cause a pollution hazard. seepage, too sandy seepage cutbanks cave, small stones :Fair - seepage, thin layer :Poor - small stones, too sandy :Good : Good : Good "ADVANCE COPY SUBJECT TO CHANGE" NOT TO BE USED IN PLACE OF ON-SITE INVESTIGATION. 7::1 IC t--() 111 �1(.(: 1 , i r r : lav triz+ o/ • 11.':;rl•.. lovr!1 to rr':nt1T sl')Pin;r, soils a1•, on ailuv;al rat's and }rl,-}r t ,,.,.,,.,,;;; at: nlevutions of 6000 to 7500 fool:. The avu,•a(r(: annual prn- o c i i t.fl L i en i ti 'ilrlt 16 inches, Ver moan :Lnnua 1 air tempt: '!Ltur' is a1:'.�lt 46 ., ani ti • rL'"'s a rte frost-fr:o i"' -i " 1 is uhout. 110 days. Ti,o At'+nc id soil `i')n'nwhat concave parts or t:}'n landscape. It makes u1) anout 60 nor • )nt; e,'' the unit. 'I'hn Azelti.no soil occu ;les th s lightly convox positius. It makes up about 30 percent of the unit. The Atencio so' 1 has a h1c h r nerc'entare of' cobble and ston.) in the profit() than tho Azoltine soil. ,1h'ntt. 10 percent: or tho unit is ;-ravel bars or finer textured sol is. inc A'.cncio soil is modorateJy doep and well d:•ainod. It ('orn 1 in mixot1 scr dstonc s}ealo, ant "uart;zi.tic all rviurn. Typically the su rl'aco layer is dark roddi sb-brown sandy clay loam about 7 inches thick. The subsoil is reddish -brown sandy clay loam about 4 inches thick. The substratum is stony sank' loam that; g-ades into sand, cobble, and gravel at depths between 25 and 30 inches. Perrleahil'ty is ..moderatoly rapid. Tlffcctive rooting de•th is 2.1 to 30 inches and the availa.hlo water capacity is 0.11 to 0.14 in./in. Surface runoff i.s slow and the erosion hazard is s li_,•:rt. The Azoitine soil is rnoder•atoiy doop and well (trained. It formed in mixed sandstone, shale, and quartzitic: al.luvi+un. Ty>>ically tho surfor,o layer- is (lark rert.dish-brown f*rav fly loam about 10 inchru; thick. This grados int, sand, Pravol, a:rd cobble at doptl's between i0 and 15 incheu. P•irn ability is rapid. Efrective rooti i ,lopth is 10 to 20 inches an the avai:able ''ater capacity is 0.07 to 0.09 in. /in. Surface runoff' is slow rnd the ;ros ion hazard is slight. / ! • (O fi) 1-4A- X a 7.11C i -,\ 7.011'; i n A4i4+444444, le vH frnnt r s 1 opinr, soils al-) on a1i,iI Cans ,k1c1 111.-h t • ,•,-.1.-3 n 1 trizttions of 6000 to 7:)00 Tip? tow ,-afro ,trtiaI pro - e, r,n a )11-1-, 16 1 nel Aen, t.•1 moan annual al r t prttturo is al -,1t; 460F• , a/1 frt) rost-rn ,n -11 -io 1 is al)(pli. 110 ,lays At.Yne io soj 1 oeWi t: f; Or, twhat C fla ',IQ r1-. o r t;}, n lafllSCLtpO. It makes up about 60 noro-Int 0' the unit. The Azoltine soil occulies th-- slightly convex positi It makes up about 30 percont of the unit. The Atencio so •1 has a hi,+er nercentar,o of cobble and stone in tho profile than the Azoltino soil. \b id. 10 percent or the unit is rravel bars or finer textured soils. Tice Atencio soil is modorateiy deep and well (I./tined. It rormed in mixo4 sardstone shale, and ouart;zitic all tvium Typically the surface 1ayor is dark reddish -brown sandy clay lorm about 7 inches thick. The subsoil is reddish -brown sandy clay loam about 4 inches thick. The substratum is stony sandy loam that g-ades into sand, cobble, and rrRvel at depths between 25 and 30 inches. Perneabil'ty is:moderately rapid. Effective rooting de7-th is 2 to 30 inches and the avaiAblo water canacity is 0.11 to 0.14 in../in. Surface runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is sli;-•ht. The Azoltine soil is moderatel:, deep and well drained. It formed in mixed sandstone, shale, and euart2itic alluvium. TyRically tho surface layer is dark reddish -brown grav lly loam about 10 inchos thick. This grades int. sand, gravel, and nobole at deptl,s between 10 and 15 inched. PirnAbility is rapid. Effective roothg Aopth is 10 to 20 inches an' the avai able ,:rater capacity is 0.07 to 0.09 in. /in. Surface runoff is slow rnd 1..ho Irosion hazard is slight. -- x C., - 2 - 6 1 WI ID • pasturen noel ICI(1 !'; Or rop1.:0(1. Th',' d It; I:1101 I. I OW rho 1 Cripzicli,y• T1:0" wi r crops of' al NI fa,b riny, and ,otatoos. 0f r0n4 efflnont from septic tank absorption yoollnte uonnd water. t.:a ability Unit: 4S irri7atod 61; ,Anro1 1, 1.603.Ply '61,110a o,2 a2' c2 / C. 93 ! /!/ j, 1 z l/ad / / Cr-Za, t /14 -- far GGG a, 4 /5i (gel. 76 Q .,_,e,„, C4,4/ ?aa 3 r/4.0/ Y/Go/ Y� dzo� 7/19 r Y7/ e/ J1Gv/ /'o/ • KKBNA Scarrow Walker Incorporated Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors Ex►+�r3►T C • • SITE SOIL SUITABILITY FOR TREATMENT PLANT WITH ABSORPTION SYSTEM Proposed absorption system location is shown on enclosed Figure I. Percolation test (location also shown) was done by Garfield County Department of Environmental Health (copy enclosed). Percolation rate is one inch in eight minutes, which is a good percolation rate for absorption trenches. There is an irrigation ditch along the NW Boundary Line. During percolation test work, the ditch was running full and there was no groundwater in the test holes, (one of them was 7' deep). General geological situation is shown on Figure II, which is adapted from "Garfield County Groundwater Resources Study" by Wright Water Engineers. Project is located in area identified as "Terrace Deposits and Older Alluvium". Figure III is showing typical geological cross section (also adapted from abovementioned study). Enclosed are 6 copies of existing registered wells, surrounding proposed development. Location of wells is shown on enclosed Figure I. All wells have the same basic soils characteristics. • • Summary of Well Data: -2- Terms Used by Terms by Geological Well Log Cross Section, Figure III Layer 1 (Top) (Depth varies from 10' to 46') Overburden Layer 2 (Depth varies from 10' to 46') Boulders & Gravel Terrace deposits and older alluvium Layer 3 (Depth varies Tertiary sedimentary from 20' to 30') Gravel, Clay & Sand rocks Layer 4 (Depth ±20') Sand & Gravel Layer 5 (Top of at ±80' from surface) Shale Mancos Groundwater table was not reached by percolation test holes. Static water level, as recorded in enclosed well logs, varies from 40' to 58'. Final pumping water level varies from 47' to 72', (average depth 62') which locates them into Layer 4, as described in Summary of Well Data. Absorption system will be located in Layer 1. Layers 2 and 3 will be acting as additional filtration material. Layer 3, with its clay contents, will act as an impervious layer, protecting aquifer in Layer 4. -51 c. C(( (JCR w 0 O w� 0,1 Scale: 1'1'4'0 2!SS A2 U^- C2 SLEGEND: O WEL1 N2 PERCOLA r/oN TES' HOLE FIGURE I 2395-01 2 CC CC O N ' c O •47411104 • • / • 1 4.1 JO; :• . i• • 275511 Q ALLUVIUM Q Pe EAGLE VALLEY EVAPORITE 1k85,; 50 , TERRACE DEPOSITS AND OLDER ALLUVIUM ,r,G UREI1 GEOLOC/CAL MAP 15287 380 - 3 023055 2 ;f344 Z O U w C ?- O z CC 0U U I- S2oc J O w 0 w Cr� 0U 0 w N J Q CC w Z w 0 • • GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone (303) 945-7255 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT This does not constitute Ia building or use permit. Owner System Location Licensed Contractor " Conditional Construction approval is hereby granted for a gallon Septic Tank or Aerated treatment unit. Absorption area (or dispers. - a) computed as follows: Perc rate of one inch in minutes requires a minimum of sq ft of absorption area per bedroom. Therefore the no. of bedrooms x sq ft minimum requirement = a total of sq ft of absorption area. May we suggest Date %f�/Z.g-/7 9 Inspector FINAL APPROVAL OF SYSTEM: //I/ M tfl No system shall be deemed to be in compliance with the Sewage Disposal Laws until the assembled system is approved prior to cover- ing any part. Septic Tank access for inspection and cleaning within 12" of ground surface or aerated access ports above ground surface. Proper materials and assembly. Trade name of septic tank or aerated treatment unit. Adequate absorption (or dispersal) area. Adequate compliance with permit requirements. Adequate compliance with County and State regulations/requirements. Other Date Inspector RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE `CONDITIONS: 1. All installation must comply with all requirements of the County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations, adopted pursuant to au- thority granted in 66-44-4, CRS 1963, amended 66-3-14, CRS 1963. 2. This permit is valid only for connection to structures which have fully complied with County zoning and building requirements. Connection to or use with any dwelling or structures not approved by the Building and Zoning office shall automatically be a viola- tion of a requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit. 3. Section III, 3.24 requires any person who constructs, alters, or installs an individual sewage disposal system in a manner which in- volves a knowing and material variation from the terms or specifications contained in the application of permit commits a Class I, Petty Offense ($500.00 fine — 6 months in jail or both). Building Official — Permit White Copy int - Gro �u; .r� FOF#M MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 60 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF THE WORK DESCRIBED HERE- ON. TYPE OR PRINT IN BLACK INK. COORADO DIVISION OF WATER RES•CES 300 Columbine Bldg., 1845 Sherman St. Denver, Colorado 80203 WELL COMPLETION AND PUMP INSTALLATION REPORT PERMIT NUMBER 374576 WELL OWNER PAM/F CA^/ ADDRESS 114 Y 7 31 SIt/gc 'r tII_ T. � R. 29 _Re_ es TA PM DATE COMPLETED 3- 36 , 19X HOLE DIAMETER WELL LOG We// 0/2 tyt/re7 Y. of the SF 'h of Sec / From To Type and Color of Material ,90 bide, ; S4ads Gr@ vel •• - y;or., ; r`w 4- K Water Loc. TOTAL DEPTH Use additional pages nec'- ; , , r complete log; in. from _ to ft) ft in from to in. from DRILLING METHOD CASING RECORD: ft to ft CabLe Tat Plain Casing Size & kind ?O A from __ to Gift Size & kind Size & kind from from so Perforated Casing Size 7 & kind Q 4' _ from Size & kind from Size & kind from GROUTING RECORD to to ft ft. 43 to ?0 ft. Material C(24i7 Intervals /0 3,1 Placement Method to to ft. ft. GRAVEL PACK: Size Interval' TEST DATA , - s Dme. Vested AA IX. 1 •,, Olf. 19• stitivilv 4.! rio,iest- -7v ,.5.7 Type of r!st Pump Qf Test Sustained Yield (Metered) .: ;Final Pumping Wa I , r Level 3 M... ,From' To WELL LOG Type of Miial L' deer Loc. 0 So • af11-y'Oilo) yd i tfleooi e i vary, =la additional paper if necessary to complete tog. State 'of Colorado. County o! I Subscribed and sworn to before me this My Comission expi m►F„ ) ss We// (21 WELL DATA Type Drilling HOLE DIAMETER: 7 in from D ft. in from ft in from ft CASING RECORD Plain Casing Siz�, kin from_t ft. Size_, kind from ft. to�9ft. to ft to ft. to ' 1 ft. to ft. Size_. kind from ft to ft Perforated Casing Sizg, kins froml5" ft. toSiL ft Size_ , kind from ft to ft kind from_ ft to GROUTING RECORD Material ft 67/57 Intervals Q • ZS - Placement Method GRAVEL PACK RECORD Size Interval TEST DATA Date Tested Type of Pum !� _tr Length of Test Constant -Yield __.__Drawdown ------ _.___._-- WEU: DRIU.SS-STATEMENT The underiiiiiidAgeing duly son. deposes and says: he is the driller of the well hereon —described;--he-his-reed,•, tr+radeliereon; knows the content thereof.,.an ,jhq -mama ;fp:trje of know! UeenserNo:'i j ---- - y o f ','t .1� :4-26-72 THIS FORM MUST 8E SUBMITTED' WITHIN 60 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF THE WORK DESCRIBED` HERE* ON. TYPE OR PRINT 1N 8LACKKi4' 1. INK.. CIORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESCES Weil 0 300 Columbine Bldg., 1845 Sherman St. Denver, Colorado 80203 WELL COMPLETION AND PUMP INSTALLATION REPORT' PERMIT NUMBER qe) cif ADDRESS. DATE COMPLETED? WELL LOG 19 From J s W ,. Type and Color of Material r k`/.i L;:. /, r ; /nom TOTAL DEPTH (-- �►- Use additional pages necessary to complete log. Water Loc. 14of the T.' 1/ `*7 R: / HOLE DIAMETER ms% in from e� " of Sec. �' r .4.); 44#1 p ft. in. from to ft in -from to ft. DRILLING METHOD (/ 4 11.._ CASING RECORD: Plain Casing Size / & kind Size & kind Size & kind Size ! & kind Size & kind Size » & kind X from (- to 4,,Z ft Perforated GROUTING RECORD Material (4. A/f4 „74.- Intervals 1f' from to ft from to ft Casing ii i from to 7 ft from to ft from to ft Intervals /4" - Placement Method ./// r x GRAVEL PACK: Size Interval TEST DATA Date Tested Static,Water Level Prior to Test Type of Test Pump Length of Test Sustained Yield (Metered) Final Pumping Water Level K, r/ , 19, ft THIS FORM MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 60 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF THE WORK DESCRIBED HERE- ON. TYPE OR PRINT IN BLACK INK. COOADO DIVISION OF WATER RESO•ES 101 Columbine Bldg., 1845 Sherman St. Denver, Colorado 80203 WELL COMPLETION AND PUMP INSTALLATION REPORT PERMIT NUMBER '/ i)/, '. WELL OWNER /r' /: fes: si ,/ 'h of the 4ofSec ADDRESS T. R DATE COMPLETED WELL LOG , 19 4./.171 HOLE DIAMETER .1 in from From To Type and Color of Material Water Loc. • ('• r7y, / • • 1'1. • 4 TOTAL DEPTH y .*J tJse additional pages necessary to complete log. to in from to in from to ft ft ft CASING RECORD: Plain Casing Size > & kind from Size & kind Size & kind Size '71 & kind Size & kind Size & kind GROUTING RECORD from from PM to. J j ft to to Perforated Casing • 7'1 from 1 '"' to Material /(- ,,4..e. from from to to ft ft ft ft ft Intervals — ' Placement Method ,4 GRAVEL PACK: Size Interval TEST DATA Date Tested Static Water Level Prior to Test - - Type of Test Pump :aci ft. Length of Test .s/,,!? 4.2) Sustained Yield (Metered) ; r Vii," Final Pumping Water Level . 07740 WELL LOG • LOG AND HISTORY Ground Elevation Type Drilling From To Type of Material Water Loc. Perf. Use additional paper if necessary to complete log and attach. State of Colorado ) ss Weil r � WELL DATA Date Started Date Completed Hole Diameter: '1/ in. from ft. to / i ft. in. from ft to ft. in. from ft to ft CASING RECORD Cemented from Plain Casing Size .4 , kind from ft. to ft. Size , kind from ft. to ft. Size , kind from ft to ft. Perforated Casing, Size , kind from -ft to e ft. Size , kind from ft. to ft. Size , kind from ft. to ft. TEST DATA Date Tested Type of Pump Length of Test Constant Yield Drawdown PUMP DATA (To be filled in) / Type of Pump Outlet Size 1 Driven by Horsepower/ DE8 TO WATER WELL DRILLERS STATEMENT TOTAL, DEPTH //0 County of �,,.: e :I- t. (.... -..... being duly sworn, deposes and says: he is the driller of the above described well; he has read the above map and statement, knows the content thereof, and the same is true of his own knowledge .silit. Eli h•t?M. .i. o! ,• / si• 4t 1 t 3 '~ f •v #J<�f -,:'it r: 1 License No rI ..i --_... __ _,. { : ubscribed and sworn to before me this day of r ; My Commission expires 19--• - _I Notary Public • :.. ..�rii -._. FORM '!'O ''E MATE OUT IN QUADRUPLICATE: r • 1, sides) L Triplicate GREEN Copy must be filed with the State Engineer -.. for the Owner L YU-LOW copy for the Driller. WHITE FORM Mir ,ys after well is completed. TGINAL COPY ON BOTH • SRM MUST BE SUBMITTED ,IN 60 DAYS OF COMPLETION • THE WORK DESCRIBED HERE- ON. TYPE OR PRINT IN BLACK INK. • I !:6 y 1 C•RADO DIVI; ON OF WATER RLSO•ES 300 Coll, ,,, Bldg., 1845 Sherman St. Denver, Colorado 80203 WELL COMPLETION AND PUMP INSTALLATION REPORT PERMIT NUMBER WELL OWNER ADDRESS DATE COMPLETED From To c4-LCt J ¢ t � WELL LOG g 55' % of the % of Sec T. r _ R. iet? f , 19 '24, HOLE DIAMETER Type and Color of Material 0 V, C Water Loc. (jcy 'tea TOTAL DEPTH yes Use additional pages necessary to complete log. in from in from in from DRILLING METHOD CASING RECORD: Size/ f & kind Size & kind Size & kind Size & kind Size & kind Size & kind "to ` 4(--`:- ft to ft ft / 1 PM Plain Casing from to ^ ft from to ft from to ft Perforated Casing from to <,ft. from to ft from to ft GROUTING RECORD Material Intervals Placement Method /1/ r 11/4 GRAVEL PACK: Size Interval ' TEST DATA Date Tested ey— ,f Static Waterevel.Eior to Test Type of Test Pump ft. Length of Test 414 Sustained Yield (Metered) Final Pumping Water Level _ _ -17 ," Colorado Department of Frank A. Traylor, Jr., tv/ [� Health Executive Director 4210 East nth Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 Phone(303) 320-8333 March 13, 1981 rr. Martin S. Oldford, P.E. KKBNA 1001 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: Heuschkel MHP Sewage Treatment Plant -Garfield County Dear Marty: This is in response to our conversation during the field inspection of Hr. Heuschkel's wastewater treatment facility site and your letter of March 9, 1981. I offer the following comments: 1. The flow equilization basin must contain two pumps to insure reliability. Will you please determine the reason that Clow Corporation sized the flow equilization basin at 8,000 gallons. Did they use a larger peaking factor or a longer runoff time? 2. The separate blower for the sludge return should be interconnected to the aeration blowers to insure backup air for the sludge return. The sludge return must have the flexibility to flow either to the aeration basin or the sludge holding tank. 3. The V -notch weirs should be installed to measure sludge return and sludge wasting. I suggest that influent flows be measured with a parshall flume. 4. Please contact Garfield County Planning concerning the possible relocation of the wastewater treatment facility. If you have any questions, please call me at 245-2400. Sincerely, FOR DIRECTOR, hAATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION .-3 Richard H. Bowman, P.E. District Engineer RHB/zp cc: Denver Office Garfield County Planning 77TR57,57775T--q �'. MAR 1 6 1981 LbL GARFIELD CO. PLANNER GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTKENT GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 2014 BLAKE AVENUE PHONE 945-B212 January 12, 1981 Austin Heuschkel 0164 Thomas Road Carbondale, CO 81623 Dear Mr. Heuschkel: The area in which your mobile home park is being constructed is zoned Commercial/Limited. Under this zone district, retail sales are allowed. Therefore you may buy mobile homes, put them on your lots and sell them. This does not constitute any violation of zoning. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, ay Ray Baldwin Planning Director RB;rgg • • STATE OF )OLORADO 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 80246-1530 Phone (303) 692-2000 Located in Glendale, Colorado http://www.cdphe.state.co.us Laboratory and Radiation Services Division 8100 Lowry Blvd. Denver CO 80220-6928 (303) 692-3090 October 28, 1998 Jon Siegle Mobile Home Management Corp. P.O. Box 69 Carbondale, C081623 Nov 9 1998 G"iirlimpeXA)NTY Colorado Department of Public Health _ and Environment' Re: Change in Permit -'H Lazy F Mobile Home Park,' #COG -584035 (formerly CO -0038806), Garfield County Dear Mr. Siegle: The Division has determined that this operation should be covered under a General Permit for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Your new permit number will be COG -584000, your new facility number will be COG -584035. All future correspondence should reference this number. Enclosed please find a copy of your certification and permit which was issued under the Colorado Water Quality Control Act. This permit requires that specific actions be performed at designated times. You are legally obligated to comply with all terms and conditions of the permit. It is especially important to note the effective date which can be found on page one of the Certification. It is illegal to discharge per the conditions of this permit until that date. Please read the permit and if you have any questions contact this office at 692-3597. ely, Phil Hege !" 1,)e4r1:".""tnitlErZinal.7rganager Water Qual y Protection Section Water Quality Control Division xc: Permit Team, Environmental Protection Agency Regional Council of Government Local Health Department District Engineer • PLANN Regular Members Members Present Laverne Starbuck Carter Jackson John Tripp Barbara Lorah Dale Albertson Kelley Meyer Arnold Mackley, Chairman E X N-180- G • ING COMMISSION January 14, 1980 County Officials Present Ray Baldwin, Planning Director Davis Farrar, Assistant -Planner Art Abplanalp, County Attorney Robert Scarrow, County Surveyor Hope Roberts, Recording Secretary Chairman Mackley called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. Dale Albertson made a motion to approve the amended minutes of the December 5, 1979 meeting and the minutes of the December 10, 1979 meeting. Kelley Meyer seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Ray Baldwin introduced Dale McPherson who will fill a vacancy on the Board when the appointment becomes official. Mr. Baldwin also introduced the new Assistant Planner, Davis Farrar. FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA: Heuschkel Mobile Home Park Chairman Mackley advised this was an application for a 95 lot mobile home park on 14.5 acres located midway between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale. Ray Baldwin said they were applying for a special use under a commercial/ limited zone district. Marty Oldford, representing Austin Heuschkel, showed maps and explained the access of the existing road. He also said that there will be a subsurface absorption area for sewage, the well is to be drilled in the southern corner, and there will be a storage tank for fire protection. The lot sizes will depend on the type of units on the lots themselves, but will exceed minimum County standards. The streets will meet County specifications, the right-of-way will not be 60' for streets but they will be private streets and not dedicated. Austin Heuschkel explained the access road and said it was very narrow but they would widen the road and fill the gully for a 20'' easement, and at some point widen it to 30'. He is willing to work with others to fix the road to the north. He hopes to obtain an easement along the railroad track. Each lot will have a 25 x 25 parking space. Utilities will be laid in the rear of the trailers with sewage in front; and there will be approximately a 1 acre leachfield. Marty Oldford said perc tests were about 8 minutes per inch, and based on tests by the County, they have sized underground leachfields to take that over- sized to accomodate 95 lots. plater will be supplied by a well, 50 gallons per minute, with 2 pumps which will be pumped to a tank. There will be a 4,000 -1- January 14, 1980 • • gallon storage tank for fire protection, which is adequate according to the fire district. They have a 1892 decree for 18 shares of ditch rights and will augment about 1/3 of the decrees. Irrigation water will possibly be taken from the Glenwood Ditch, and roads within the park will be chip and seal. Nick Tenlamis said this is creating a dangerous situation. There will be about 700-800 vehicle trips a day, questioned what the leachfields would do to the water wells, and was concerned about drainage. He feels the road is very narrow, there is no way a fire truck can be brought in quickly enough, and he had never heard of a fire system that was not pressurized or gravity fed. He also questioned snow removal. Sam Brian, another resident, said that rapid sewers may polute ground water. There was a chance for sewage to go into their wells and then into the river. He would like to see them put in a package sewer plant, and advised he now plows Road 167 because the County will not plow it. Norm Histon said that most County roads have a 60' easement. Henry T. Wissisen said the entire road is on his property and if the trailer court goes in, the road will have to be moved or he will put up a fence. Ross Huff said he lives to the west of the proposed sewage area and asked if there would be considerable runoff from the ditch in the spring. Virginia Hobb commented that the corner where you get on 167 road was very dangerous, and felt there was no way that much traffic should be put on the hill. Robert Brownella asked how Mr. Hueschkel proposed to cross the ditch to get onto the property. Austin Hueschkel explained that they would not use that access and he would build a pipe bridge. Bob Young said the State required him to install a self-contained unit, and he also has run out of water 3 times in April. Dale Albertson stated that the road seems to have a real problem. Barbara Lorah said she had never seen leachfields this size and there should be approval from the State Health Department before they go any further. John Tripp expressed concern regarding the sewer, access road, and said they should have to prove the water. Carter Jackson said that water from the Glenwood Ditch does create seepage and was also concerned about the septic system. Laverne Starbuck asked Mr. Hueschkel if he had alternative plans for this property if the mobile home park was not approved. Mr. Hueschkel said he had no other plans. -2- January 14, 1980 • • Arnold Mackley felt this is a good use of the land if the problems could be worked out. Ray Baldwin said there is very little land in the County that is zoned for mobile homes and this serves the need for low income housing. The road is a problem. With a 20' wide road with snow, it puts it back to one lane. He also hoped that Mr. Hueschkel could purchase additional property along the railroad track. The idea of a mobile home park fits into surrounding property and the road should meet the County width with drainage. Dale Albertson said he felt the ditch should be fenced. Dale Albertson made a motion to recommend approval of the special use permit to the Board of County Commissioners with the following conditions: 1. Some type of areated sewage treatment system be provided. . An augmentation plan be filed. 3. The access from old Highway 82 be improved. 4. The road in the gulch be a minimum of 24 feet in width with a 6 foot ditch section, or a suitable alternative access be provided. 5. A fence along the Glenwood Ditch be provided. Barbara Lorah was appointed a voting member and seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA: Amichaux Zone Change request Ray Baldwin explained this was a request to change zoning from A/R/RD to Commercial/General on 24 acres near West Glenwood. Paul Amichaux said that he would like to put storage units on a portion of his property and he could only do that under Commercial/General. At the present time he has a camper park on the property under a special use permit. He felt this was not spot zoning because there is no Commercial/General in West Glenwood, and his area is partially isolated. Ray Baldwin advised that Mr. Amichaux will have to go through subdivision procedures and suggested he look at a P.U.D. and obtain a site plan. This would allow him to set his own zoning. Mr. Amichaux said he did not have the funds available. He will have central water and is within the West Glenwood Sewer District. Dale Albertson said he felt Commercial/General zoning was too broad and his application should be amended to Commercial/Limited. Paul Amichaux said that it would be acceptable to him. Kelley Meyer made a motion to approve the zone change from A/R/RD to Commercial/Limited subject to Mr. Amichauxsubmitting a letter requesting this change - 3-