HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-09-12 WSB AGENDAWATER& SEWER BOARD
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2012
PUBLIC WORKS CONFERENCE ROOM
1. MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 14, 2012 WATER BOARD MEETING .
PHONE VOTE-AUGUST 22, 2012. (ATT. 1)
2. ALLEN PLANT ULTRA VIOLET SYSTEM DESIGN. (ATT. 2)
3. INFORMATIONAL ARTICLES:
ARTICLE FROM THE AUGUST 21, 2012 DENVER POST,
"HICKENLOOPER TO OBAMA: COLORADO FACES GAP IN WATER."
(ATT. 3)
ARTICLE FROM THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LAW, "ATTORNEY
GENERAL ANNOUNCES INDICTMENT OF CENTENNIAL BUSINESS
SUSPECTED OF DEFRAUDING WESTERN SLOPE RESTAURANTS.
(ATT. 4)
4. OTHER
WATER & SEWER BOARD
TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2012
5:00 p .m .
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE R O OM
Present: Wiggins, Waggoner, Oakley, Penn, Burns, Woodward, Olson ,
Absent: Habenicht, Lay, Moore
Also present: Jason Clark, Tom Brennan , Y asser Abouaish
The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m . tlJI
1. ~ MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2012 WATER BOARD MEETING.
The Minutes of the July 17 , 2012 meeting were approved as written.
Motion: Approve the Minutes of the July 17 , 2012 Water and Sewer Board meeting.
Moved: Penn Seconded: Burns
Motion passed unanimously.
l?l1 2. -~ WATER CONSERVATION PLANNING GRANT.
Yasser Abouaish , Utilities Engineer IV , reviewed the Water Conservation Planning Grant
that was submitted and approved for implementing the Water Conservation Plan. The
City will received $46,316.00 from the State, with the City matching $20 ,000 with in -
kind services , which is 30% of the total project. This would cover implementation of
Englewood's Water Conservation Plan from 2012 to 2021. Staff also requested
permission to proceed with hiring the specialized outside expert, Clear Water Solutions ,
Inc., to provide technical assistance.
Motion:
Moved :
To recommend Council approval of a Bill for an Ordinance approving the
acceptance of the planning grant for the Englewood Water Conservation
Plan .
Bums Seconded: Waggoner
Motion passed unanimously.
3. r?ll PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF POSITIVE TOTAL COLIFORM
RESULTS ON W. HILLSIDE AVE.
Jason Clark, Allen Filter Plant Superintendent , appeared to discuss the Public Notice of
Positive Total Coliform Results letter that must be mailed to Englewood water customers
by August 24 , 2012.
Jason noted that the water sampling process was reviewed and new protocols are in place.
On August 15, 2012 City Council will receive via e-mail the notice that will be mailed to
Englewood water customers.
The Board received the public notification of positive total colifonn results notice to be
sent to Englewood residents and directed that it be sent.
5. ~ LETTER FROM SOUTH PLATTE RIVER WORKING GROUP.
The Board received a letter from the South Platte II Working Group to the Corps of
Engineers. The South Platte II Working Group's purpose is to maximize recreational
opportunities along the South Platte River. Stu explained that their position is that the
low potential flows from Chatfield Dam downstream though the Denver metro area are
not included in the Corp 's Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and their concerns
seem to be underemphasized in the study's analysis. Their purpose is to maximize the
potential of the South Platte River to preserve river habitat and provide recreational
opportunities for metro Denver residents. The letter is addressed to the Corps of
Engineers.
6.~ MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS (MS4)
PERMIT -TARGETED PERMIT QUESTIONNAIRE.
Yasser Abouaish and Stu Fonda explained the ramifications of the Colorado Storm water
Council's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit Questionnaire, which
is a state-wide self-audit that every Colorado municipality received . Yasser explained
that the stormwater permit may require an ordinance modification for stonnwater runoff
from non-emergency firefighting situations. The grace period for violations was another
potential issue. The City Attorney's office is reviewing. The deadline for submitting the
permit questionnaire is October 15, 2012.
Motion: To direct Utilities Staff to fill out and submit the Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems (MS4) Questionnaire, per City Attorney approval, for the Mayor's
signature.
Moved: Olson Seconded: Penn
Motion passed unanimously.
7. BUDGET.
Stu reviewed the 2013 Utilities Budget and water and sewer cash flows. Possible sewer
rate increase scenarios were discussed. The Board preliminarily indicated that a 4%-4%-
4% sewer rate increases starting in 2013, 2014 and 2015 was recommended.
Stu will present more information on the 4% sewer rate increase scenario at a future
meeting.
2. GUEST: MIKE DRAW -6836 S. BROADWAY. REQUESTING LATE
FEES WAIVED.
The Board reviewed the request from Mike Draw, owner of 6836 S. Broadway to waive
his late fee.
Motion: To deny the request from Mike Draw to waive his sewer late fee for 6836
S. Broadway.
Moved: Bums Seconded: Waggoner
Motion passed unanimously.
8. OTHER.
None.
Meeting adjourned at 6:57 p.m .
The next Water and Sewer Board meeting will be Tuesday, September 11, 2012 at 5:00
in the Community Development Conference Room .
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Burrage
Recording Secretary
WATER & SEWER BOARD
PHONE VOTE -WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2012
Phone Vote Roll Call.
Contacted: Clyde Wiggins, Chuck Habenicht, Tom Bums, Kells Waggoner, Jim
Woodward, Linda Olson, Joe Lay, Wayne Oakley, John Moore, Randy Penn
1. MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 14, 2012 MEETING.
Motion: Approve minutes of the August 14, 2012 Water and Sewer Board meeting.
Moved: Bums Seconded: Woodward
Abstain: Habenicht, Moore, Lay
Motion passed unanimously.
The next Water and Sewer Board meeting will be Tuesday, September 11, 2012 at 5 :00
p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Burrage
Recording Secretary
r
Date
April 19, 2010
INITIATED BY
Utilities Department
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Agenda Item Subject
Allen Plant Ultraviolet System
Design
STAFF SOURCE
Stewart H . Fonda, Director of Utilities
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
April 19, 201 O City Council approved the contract for engineering and pilot testing to Camp, Dresser &
McKee, Ramey Environmental Compliance and NEI (CDM/REC/NEI) for ultraviolet (UV) system design
and softening feasibility study in the amount of $453,264.00.
June 18 , 2012 Council approved an Amendment #3 for additional engineering and design services to
Camp, Dresser & McKee in the amount of $53,240.00 for design of electrical upgrades to the plant
load center.
June 18 , 2012 Council approved Amendment #4 for additional engineering and construction
management services to Camp, Dresser & McKee in the amount of $272,814.00 for construction
management services.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board, at their September 12, 2012 meeting, recommended Council
approval, by motion, to award the bid for construction of the Allen Filter Plant Ultraviolet (UV) system to
Asian Construction in the amount of $3 ,952,439 .00 .
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
The Long Term Two Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule was adopted by Congress on January
5, 2006. In this rule , the Environmental Protection Agency required that water systems meet additional
cryptosporidium (crypto) removal requirements. Crypto is a chlorine-resistant pathogen. The system
must be operational by October 1, 2013 . The proposed UV system will exceed the minimum
requirements of the L T2ESWTR mandate.
Allen Plant personnel conducted an investigation of the types of treatment available to comply with
EPA regulations, and found UV the most effective and beneficial for the inactivation of crypto while
being compatible with future potential regulation requirements. The UV process will reduce sodium
hypochlorite (chlorine) use, is an extremely fast process to inactivate crypto , is proven technology,
requires the smallest footprint and is the most cost effective.
UV operates with a band of light that disinfects water at a certain wavelength in the ultraviolet light
spectrum . Water at the Allen Filter Plant will be treated by the UV system after the filtration process
and before chlorination , then pumped into the distribution system.
The UV disinfection project construction will include labor, materials , equipment, installation and testing
of improvements. Construction is to convert the existing eastern portion of the clearwell into a dry
space to contain UV reactors, piping, valves, flow meters, sample pumps and process equipment. The
new UV building will house electrical equipment, a bridge crane, electrical gear, instrumentation and
controls. Building construction will also include HVAC and plumbing , finishes and furniture, lighting,
yard pipe and drainage installation, concrete roadway, curb and gutter, rock excavation , site grading ,
security, landscaping, connections and cleanup.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Utilities Department received seven bids :
Velocity Constructors, Inc .
Hydro Constructors
Stanek Constructors
RN Civil Construction
Archer Western
Layne Heavy Civil Constructors
Asian Construction
$4, 155,302.00
$4 ,584 ,552 .00
$4 ,525 ,512.00
$4,012 ,000 .00
$4 ,619,000 .00
$4 ,547,000 .00
$3 ,952,439 .00
Camp Dresser & McKee Engineers reviewed the bids and recommends Asian Construction as
the lowest acceptable bid in the amount of $3,952,439.00 .
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Contract with Asian Construction
COM Letter of Recommendation and Bid Sheet
Minutes of Sept. 12 , 2012 Water Board Meeting
Phone Vote of Sept.m 13, 2012 approving Minutes of Sept. 12
CONTRACT
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
THIS CONTRACT and agreement , made and entered into this __ day of
_____ , 20_, by and between the City of Englewood , a municipal corporation of
the State of Colorado hereinafter referred to as the "City", and
Asi a n Con stru c 1i o 11. In c. , whose address is
120 11unv~n Av~nu e. S uik 20ll . Oe rrh oud . CO 8051 3 , ("Contractor"), commencing on the
day of _, 20_, and continuing for at least ten (10) days thereafter the City
advertised that sealed proposals would be received for furnishing all labor, tools ,
supplies, equipment, materials and everything necessary and required for the following:
PROJECT : Allen Water Treatment Facility UV Disinfection Project
WHEREAS, proposals pursuant to said advertisement have been received by the Mayor
and City Council and have been certified by the Director of Utilities to the Mayor and City
Council with a recommendation that a contract for work be awa r ded to the above named
Contractor who was the lowest reliable and responsible bidder t herefore , and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said recommendation, the Contract has been awarded to the
above named Contractor by the Mayor and City Council an d said Contractor is now
willing and able to perform all of said work in accordance with said advertisement and
his proposal.
NOW THEREFORE , in consideration of the compensation to be~ paid and the work to be
pe rformed under th is contract, the parties mutually agree as follows:
A . Contract Documents : It is agreed by the parties hereto that the following list of
instruments, drawings and documents which are attached or incorporated by
reference constitute and shall be referred to either as the Contract Documents
or the Contract and all of said instruments, drawings, and documents taken
together as a whole constitute the Contract between the parties hereto and
they are as fully a part of this agreement as if they were set out verbatim and
in full :
Invitation to Bid
Contract (this instrument)
Insurance
Performance Payment Maintenance Bond
Technical Specifications
Drawings sheets :
0. Scope of Work : The Contractor agrees to and shall furnish all labor, tools,
supplies, equipment, materials and everything necessary for and required to
do, perform and complete all the work described, drawn, set forth, shown and
included in said Contract Documents .
C. Terms of Performance: The Contractor agrees to undertake the performance
of the work under this Contract within ten (10) days from being notified to
commence work by the Director of Utilities and agrees to fully complete said
work by October 31st. 2013, plus such extension or extensions of time as may
be granted by the Director of Utilities in accordance with the provisions of the
Contract Documents and Specifications.
D. Indemnification: The city cannot and by this Agreement/Contract does not
agree to indemnify, hold harmless, exonerate or assume the defense of the
Contractor or any other person or entity, for any purpose . The Contractor shall
defend, indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, agents and
employees from any and all claims, demands, suits, actions or proceedings of
any kind or nature including Worker's Compensation claims, in any way resulting
from or arising out of this Agreement/Contract: provided, however, that the
Contractor need not indemnify or save harmless the City, its officers, agents and
employees from damages resulting from the sole negligence of the City's
officers, agents and Employees .
E. Termination of Award for Convenience: The City may terminate the award at
any time by giving written notice to the Contractor of such termination and
specifying the effective date of such termination, at least thirty (30) days before
the effective date of such termination. In that event all finished or unfinished
service, reports, material (s) prepared or furnished by the Contractor after the
award shall, at the option of the City, become its property . If the award is
terminated by the City as provided herein, the Contractor will be paid that
amount which bears the same ratio to the total compensation as the services
actually performed or material furnished bear to the total services/materials the
successful firm agreed to perform under this award, less payments of
compensation previously made. If the award is terminated due to the fault of the
Contractor the clause relating to termination of the award for cause shall apply.
F. Termination of Award for Cause : If, through any cause, the Contractor shall fail
to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations or if the Contractor shall
violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of the award, the City
shall have the right to terminate the award by giving written notice to the
Contractor of such termination and specifying the effective date of termination .
In that event, all furnished or unfinished services, at the option of the City,
become its property, and the Contractor shall be entitled to receive just , equitable
compensation for any satisfactory work documents, prepared completed or
materials as furnished.
Notwithstanding the above, the Contractor shall not be relieved of
the liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of
breach of the award by the Contractor and the City may withhold
any payments to the Contractor for the purpose of set off until such
time as the exact amount of damages due the City from th e
Contractor is determined.
G. Terms of Payment: The City agrees to pay the Contractor for the performance
of all the work required under this contract, and the Contractor agrees to
accept as his full and only compensation therefore, such sum or sums of
money as may be proper in accordance with the price or prices set forth in the
Contractor's proposal attached and made a part hereof, the total estimated
cost thereof being Three million nin e hundred firtv tw o thou sand four hund red
thi11\' nin e doll a rs and no cent s. ($ 3,9 52.4 J lJ .OO ).
A 10% retainage of the awarded project amount will be withheld until final
inspection and acceptance by the Project Manager.
H. Appropriation of Funds: At present, $ has been
appropriated for the project. Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Agreement to the contrary, the parties understand and acknowledge that each
party is subject to Article X, § 20 of the Colorado Constitution ("TABOR"). The
parties do not intend to violate the terms and requirements of TABOR by the
execution of this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that this Agreement
does not create a multi-fiscal year direct or indirect debt or obligation within
the meaning of TABOR and, notwithstanding anything in this
Agreemenl/Contract to the contrary, all payment obligations of the City are
expressly dependent and conditioned upon the continuing availability of funds
beyond the term of the City's current fiscal period ending upon the next
succeeding December 31 . Financial obligations of the City payable after the
current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being
appropriated, budgeted, and otherwise made available in accordance with the
rules, regulations, and resolutions of the City and applicable law. Upon the
failure to appropriate such funds, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated .
The City shall immediately notify the Contractor or its assignee of such
occurrence in the event of such termination .
I. Liquidated Damages: The City and Contractor recognize that time is of the
essence in this Agreement because of the public interest in health and safety ,
and that the City will suffer financial loss, and inconvenience, if the Work is not
complete within the time specified in the bid documents, plus any extension s
thereof allowed in accordance with the General Conditions. They also
recognize the delays, expense and difficulties involved in proving, in a legal
proceeding, the actual loss suffered by the City if the Work is not complete on
time . Accordingly, instead of requiring any such proof, the City and Contractor
agree that as liquidated damages for delay, but not as a penalty, Contractor
shall pay the City $1,400 for each calendar day that expires after the time
specified in Section C above for final completion , as described in Section
00800 and ready for final payment until the Work is completed. These
amounts represent a reasonable estimate of Owner's expenses for extended
delays and for inspection, engineering services, and administrative costs
associated with such delay .
J. Assignment: Contractor shall not, at any time, assign any interest in this
Agreement or the other Contract Documents to any person or entity without
the prior written consent of the City specifically including, but without limitation,
moneys that may become due and moneys that are due may not be assigned
without such consent (except to the extent that the effect of this restriction may
be limited by law). Any attempted assignment which is not in compliance with
the terms hereof shall be null and void. Unless specifically stated to the
contrary in any written consent to an Assignment, no Assignment will release
or discharge the Assignor from any duty or responsibility under the Contract
Documents.
I\:. Contract Binding: It is agreed that this Contract shall be binding on and inure
to the benefit of the parties hereto, their heirs, executors, administrators ,
assigns, and successors.
L. Contractors Guarantee: The Contractor shall guarantee that work and
associated incidentals shall remain in good order and repair for a period of two
(2) years from all causes arising from defective workmanship and materials, and
to make all repairs arising from said causes during such period without further
compensation . The determination of the necessity for the repair or replacement
of said project, and associated incidentals or any portion thereof, shall rest
entirely with the Director of Utilities whose decision upon the matter shall be
final and obligatory upon the Contractor.
VERIF I CATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH C.R.S. 8-17.5-101 ET.SEQ. REGARDING
HIRING OF ILLEGAL ALIENS
(a) Employees, Contractors and Subcontractors: Contractor shall not knowingly
employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Contract. Contractor
shall not contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify to the Contractor that the
subcontractor will not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work
under this Contract. [CRS 8-17.5-102(2)(a)(I) & (II).]
(b) Verification: Contractor will participate in either the E -Verify program or the
Department program, as defined in C .R.S. 8-17.5-101 (3.3) and 8-17 .5-101 (3.7)
respectively, in order to confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are
newly hired for employment to perform work under this public contract. Contractor is
prohibited from using the E-Verify program or the Department program procedures to
undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while this contract is being
performed .
(c) Duty to Terminate a Subcontract: If Contractor obtains actual knowledge that
a subcontractor performing work under this Contract knowingly employs or contracts
with an illegal alien, the Contractor shall :
(1) notify the subcontractor and the City within three days that the
Contractor has actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or
contracting with an illegal alien; and
(2) terminate the sub -contract with the subcontractor if, within three days
of receiving notice required pursuant to this paragraph the subcontractor does
not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that the Contractor
shall not terminate the contract with the subcontractor if during such three days
the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not
knowingly employed or contracted with the illegal alien .
(d) Duty to Comply with State Investigation: Contractor shall comply with any
reasonable request of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment made in the
cour se of an investigation by that the Department is undertaking pursuant to C.R.S . 8-
17 .5-102 (5).
(e) Damages for Breach of Contract: The City may terminate this contract for a
breach of contract, in whole or in part, due to Contractor's breach of any section of this
paragraph or provisions required pursuant to C.R.S . 8-17.5-102 . Contractor shall be
liable for actual and consequential damages to the City in addition to any other legal or
equitable remedy the City may be entitled to for a breach of this Contract under this
Paragraph .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Contract the day and
year first written above .
CITY OF ENGL EWOOD
Date :---------
City Clerk
Date : xm 12
l\!ic ha el P<!lphrey. I res idner
(Print name and Titl e )
ST A TE OF Co lorad o
S S .
COUNTY OF La n11i .:r ------
On this Sern11h day of A u!!u st , 201 2 , before me personally
appeared Mich a el Pelphrey , known to me to be the _l'_re_si_d_en_t ___ _
___ of A s ian C o n s tru c tion In c . , the corporation that
executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to
be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation for the uses and purposes
therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said
instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF , I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal
the day and year first above written .
My co mmission exp ires : _11_'1_41_1_.:1 ____ _
"
CDMth Sm1
55517'" Stree t Suite 11 00
De nv e r, CO 80204
t e l: 303 383-2300
fax: 303 308-3003
Augu s t 141", 2012
Mr. Tom Brennan
City of Englewood Utilities
J 000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 80110
Subject: City of Englewood Allen Water Treatment Plant UV Project
Recommendation to Award
Dear Mr. 13renn ~m:
On August 7'", 2012, the bid opening was held at the COM Smith office for the City of Englewood
Allen Water Treatment Plant UV Disinfection Project. Attachment A is the bid tabulation sheet.
Given that Asian Construction of 13erthoud, CO submitted the apparent low hid COM Smith focu se d
its review on Alsan Construction. RN Civil had the second lowest bid and COM Smtih also reviewed
their references . Table 1 below shows the complete bid tabulations for Asian Constructors and RN
Civil.
I. Evaluation
Asian Construction (since 2001) is a Berthoud, CO based company engaged primarily in water and
wastewater construction in Colorado and Wyoming.
The Ilartford f<ire Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut provided the bid bond for thi s
project. The Department of the Treasu1y, as of December 21, 2007, li sts the Hartford f<ire In s ura nc e
Company in its most c urrent Circular 570 as a company holding certificates of authority as an
acceptab le Surety of Federal Bonds. COM Smith contacted the llartford f<'ire Insurance Comp a ny
r ega rding Asian's bonding capacity. The project value of$3,952,439 is well below the company's
single contract bonding limit of$30M and the company is currently well below their aggregate
bonding capacity (which is $35,000,000).
We have a lso obtained a Dun & Brad stree t Comprehensive Report on Asian Con s truction. They h a ve
a low financial stress index and therefore are at a low risk of payment delinquency over th e n ex t 12
month s .
COM Smith requested bidder qualification documentation from each of the bidders pursuant to
Articl e 3 in Section 00300:
WATER+ ENVIRONMENT +TRANSPORTATION+ ENERGY t· FACILITIES
CDMth Sm1
Mr. Tom Brennan
Augu s t 1'1 1h, 2012
Page 2
"I3idder must demonstrate having experience in retrofit and construction of water treatment
facilities of similar type and on a similar schedule for at least two (2) previous projects in the la s t
five (5) years. Each of the projects submitted by the bidder for Owner consideration shall have had
a demonstrated contract value of five million dollars ($5,000,000.00) or greater."
The following three acceptab le projects were submitted:
I. Parker Water and Sanitation District -15.2 MGD Regional Pumping Facility; $5,005,965
2 . City of Lammie -Lara mie East Side Tank, $5,005,965
3 . Avon WWTP, Edwards WWTP, Avon WTP upgrades, $4,958,268
To summarize our reference checks, we learn ed Asian Construction is known to perform high
(]Uality work, good project management and excellent communication standards and a high leve l of
professionalism. It was also reported that As ian Construction is very responsive to Owner a nd
Eng in eer re(]uests. Everyone reported that they would do busin ess again with Asian Construction.
COM Smith has not worked directly with Asian in the past, but have colleagues who have and
r e ported very highly of Asian Construction.
II. Conclusion
It appea r s, based on this eva lu ation, Asian Construction ha s th e qualifications and resources
necessary to complete th e work under this contract. Therefore, COM Smith recommends the City of
Englewood to award the Allen Water Treatment Plant UV Disinfection Project to the lowest
responsive and responsible bidder -Asian Construction of f3erthoucl, Colorado, based upon their
low hid price of$3,952,439.
If yon have a ny (]U est ions or re(]uire further inform ation, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Tim Rynders, P.E.
Project Engineer
COM Smith In c.
Attachment A -13id T abu lation
cc: Vas se r Abouaish, City of Englewood Public Works
Stu Fond a , City of Englewood Public Works
Jason Clark, City of Englewood Utilities
Chris Schulz, COM Smith
Aeco rm nenddtion to award I.JOCK
CDMth Sm1
555 17" Street Su ite 1100
:Jenver , CO 80204
tel: 303 383-2300
fax : 303 308-3003
Company Name
----· . -··-· ---·-· --
Veloc ity Con structors Inc.
Hydro Con structors
St anek Construcotrs
RN Ci~I Construction
Archer Wes t ern
Layne He avy C i ~I Constructors
Asian Constru cti on
App arent Low 8 idd er
B'd B d Signed ,.. st f ""1 1 •0 n Contract ""0 or "
Submitted Submitted (mob/Demob)
. ------------·-~---.. ------
x x $228 .304
x x $112 .793
x $200.000
x x $140 ,000
x x $20,000
x x $210 ,000
I x x $200.000
Attachment A
Cost tor t;3 Cost for l'4 (Site Cost for ;;2
(UV bldg) (Site St ructures) Work/Sto r mwater)
---------·-·'---·
$2 , 132.480 $186,607 $65,507
$1 ,666.406 $167 ,442 $201 627
$2 ,300,000 $205,000 $245,000
$1 ,862,000 $540 ,000 $90,000
$2 ,550,000 $235,000 $120,000
$1 ,954 ,000 $175 ,000 $350,000
$2 ,027 ,439 $25 ,000 $50,000
Cost for ;;5
{Elect)
----~--.. -
$1,092,927
$962.2 13
$1 ,200,000
$980,000
$1 ,068,000
$1 ,275,000
$1,100,000
Cost for i'6
(l&C)
-~--
S388 .ES4
$369 ,330
$374,512
$390 ,000
$336,000
$373 ,000
$400,000
Cost for 1'7
(misc)
-.. ----
$60 ,883
$646,285
$1 ,000
$10 ,000
$290 ,000
$200.WO
$150 ,000
WATER + ENV IR ONMENT + TRANSPORTATION + ENERGY + FACILIT IES
Cost for ::8 Base Bid For
Contract
-·-· ------
$337 ,296 $4 , 155,302
$300,07 3 $4 ,584 552
$286 ,488 $4,525,512
$300,073 $4 ,012 ,000
$300,07 3 $4 ,615 ,000
$300,073 $4 ,547,000
$3 00,07 3 $3 ,952,439
-t..1
Subtota l
Complete
Bid
--·-------·---
$4.492,598 x
$4 ,864 ,62 5 x
$4 ,812,000 x
$4 ,312 .073 x
$4 ,919 ,073 x
$4 ,647 ,073 x
$4,252,51 2 x
..
Hickenlooper to Obama: Colorado faces gap in water supplies
Hickenlooper to Obama: Colorado faces gap in water
supplies
By Bru ce Finl ey Th e Denve r Post Th e Denver Post
Posted :
Page 1 of 2
Denver Post.com
Driven by drought, Gov. John Hickenlooper is urging President Barack Obama and federal
engineers to speed decisions on proposed water projects designed to sustain urban growth.
A letter to Obama seeks help spurring decisions on Denver Water's diversion of 18,000 acre-
feet of Colorado River Basin water from the west side of the Continental Divide to an
expanded Gross Reservoir west of Boulder. A separate letter to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers asks that the Northern Integrated Supply Project -which would siphon the Cache
la Poudre River into new reservoirs storing 215,000 acre-feet of water -be given a high
priority.
Colorado faces "a significant gap in our supplies to provide water for future growth -a gap
that cannot be met by conservation and efficiencies alone," Hickenlooper began in a June 5
letter sent to the White House and copied to cabinet secretaries and agency chiefs.
"We urge you to exercise your authority to coordinate your agencies and bring an expeditious
conclusion to the federal permitting processes for this essential project, in order that we can
have certainty moving forward as a state," he wrote.
For years, state planners have warned of a looming water supply gap in Colorado, where
today's population of around 5.1 million is expected to reach 8.7 million to 10.3 million by
2050.
Hickenlooper has emphasized water conservation as a solution to avert shortages. He
appointed former state agriculture commissioner John Stulp as a special advisor to help
address water issues. State natural resources officials, while not ruling out major projects,
have mostly stayed mum as federal review and permitting processes take their course.
Hickenlooper's quest for quicker decisions wins praise from water providers.
"Yes, we're going to keep doing conservation. But you cannot conserve your way to a future
water supply," said Brian Werner, spokesman for the Northern Water Conservation District,
which is driving the $490 million NISP project. "We're going to have to store more of it.
We're optimistic that he gets that."
But it irks some conservationists.
"Water projects that further drain and destroy Colorado's rivers are a non-starter for us. The
rivers already are in terrible shape," said Gary Wockner, director of Save the Poudre, a Fort
Collins-based NISP opposition group.
"A bit discouraging"
http://cpf.cleanprint.net/cpf/cpf?action=print&type=filePrint&key=The-Denver-Post&url=... 8/21 /2012
Hickenlooper to Obama: Colorado faces gap in water supplies Page 2 of2
Water conservation "is the faster, cheaper, better alternative" to ensuring adequate water
supplies, said Drew Beckwith, a Water Resource Advocates policy expert and organizer of a
campaign to cut daily per capita water consumption across the seven-state Colorado River
Basin to less than 90 gallons.
"It's a bit discouraging that the governor isn't taking as aggressive a posture on water
conservation as on new water supply projects," he said.
A response to Hickenlooper's letter from Corps of Engineers District Commander Robert
Ruch said a draft environmental impact analysis for NISP should be done by 2013.
Denver Water officials have been told a final federal environmental statement for the
proposed diversion from the Colorado River Basin will be done by January, utility
spokeswoman Stacy Chesney said.
The diversion, "is essential to Denver's long-term water supply," Chesney said, adding that it
would ensure "environmental benefits" under a cooperative agreement with western slope
communities.
Bruce Finley: 303-954-1700 twitter.com/finleybruce or bfinley@denverpost.com
http://cpf.cleanprint.net/cpf/cpf?action=print&type=filePrint&key=The-Denver-Post&url=. .. 8/21 /2012
PRESS RELEASE
Colorado Department of Law
Attorney General John W. Suthers
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 19, 2012
CONTACT
Mike Saccone
Communications Director
303-866-5632
ATTORNEY GENERAL ANNOUNCES INDICTMENT OF CENTENNIAL BUSINESS
SUSPECTED OF DEFRAUDING WESTERN SLOPE RESTAURANTS
DENVER -Colorado Attorney General John Suthers announced today that his office has obtained an
indictment of Frank Brandse (DOB: 9/1/1969), Erica Wicklund-Brandse (DOB: 11 /4 /1 968) and
Centennial-based Pro Grease Trap Services, Inc. on suspicion that they lied on official fonns and
defrauded restaurants in Grand Junction .
According to the indictment, filed in Arapahoe County District Court, Brandse and Wicklund-Brandse
defrauded restaurants by failing to evacuate the grease traps of their client restaurants . Instead, the
couple 's company is suspected of only partially drawing down the grease traps , moving the truck and then
redepositing the waste into the restaurant 's grease traps. According to the indictment, Brandse and
Wicklund-Brandse submitted fraudulent documents to their pennitting authorities and their clients.
In addition, Brandse and Wicklund-Brandse are suspected of making misrepresentations on their grease-
hauling application form from the Persigo Waste Water Plant Pretreatment Division. In that application,
Brandse and Wicklund-Brandse are suspected of failing to disclose grease-hauling violations they had
been cited for by the Littleton Englewood Waste Water and the Arapahoe County Sheriffs Office.
If convicted, Brandse and Wicklund-Brandse could face up to six years in prison and up to $500,000 in
fines on each of the four class-four felonies included in the indictment.
The Office of the Attorney General investigated the case and secured the indictment with the assistance of
the Colorado Environmental Crime Task Force, the Environmental Protection Agency 's Criminal
Investigations Division and the Persigo Waste Water Plant Pretreatment Division.
Consumers who believe illegal dumping or other environmental crimes have taken place can file a
complaint online via www.coloradoattorneygeneral.gov/environmentalcrime.
MS4 Targeted Permit Questionnaire
White Paper
Background
CONCERNS
• Language cited in the Questionnaire does not match permit language
• Questionnaire includes interpretations that serve as guidance and should not be included within a
legal document
• Compliance examples within the Questionnaire may become part of the regulatory process
• Potential enforcement for signatory/MS4
HISTORY
January 30 2012 Division held a meeting to introduce Questionnaire
February 21 CSC sends letter to Division with concerns
April 6 Division sends final draft Questionnaire to MS4s
May 23 CSC approves seeking legal counsel
June 7 RFP to obtain legal counsel
June 12 PCC provides suggested ordinance language to members
June 25 2012 PCC meeting with Division to review concerns
June 27 CSC approves budget of $10,000 for counsel
July 12 PCC kick -off meeting with Ryley, Carlock and Applewhite
July 26 Draft deliverables to PCC from RCA
August 6 Final deliverables to PCC from RCA
August 16 PCC hosts working meeting for all members
ATTORNEY DELIVERABLES
The following deliverables were requested and provided by the attorneys hired to assist the CSC:
• Assist in preparing a letter to CDP HE on behalf of the Council identifying policy inconsistencies
between the Division's general interpretations of the MS4 permit language formed in the
Questionnaire and the legislative policy set forth in HB12-1119
• Provide a legal memorandum, including:
a) An analysis of the Divisions' legal authority to ask the questions in the Questionnaire
b) An analysis of the legal implications to the MS4 by responding to questions related to
paraphrased permit language as opposed to responding to questions related to actual
permit language
c) A discussion of the potential legal ramifications to the signatory of the Questionnaire
d) Develop a letter to the Division on behalf of the Council that draws on the work from the
legal memorandum that is designed to advance the Council's evolving strategy in
responding to the Questionnaire
Page I 1
·-
PCC DELIVERABLES
The PCC recommends that members consider using one of the following two cover letters when
submitting the completed Questionnaire:
Letter 1 (non-disclaimer)
• Use this letter if answering the Questionnaire as is, without modified Questionnaire language
provided by RCA
• Describes concern with Questionnaire language differing from permit language
• States that Questionnaire responses are based on current permit language
Letter 2 (disclaimer)
• Use this letter if changing the Questionnaire by including modified Questionnaire language
provided by RCA
• Same as Letter 1, but includes language for MS4s utilizing modified Questionnaire language
from RCA and modifying the Questionnaire by:
Summary
Incorporating attorney d isclaimer within the Questionnaire on the certification page
and/or
Choosing to include modified Questionnaire language provided by RCA within the body
of the document
Each permittee is advised to review its permit and stormwater program before answering the
Questionnaire . The PCC is providing these documents that can be used by the permittee if they wish to
do so . The PCC also advices each permittee to review legal counsel documents before deciding whether
to use either of the cover letters or the legal disclaimers in the Questionnaire body.
Page I 2
Date:
Michelle Delaria
Environmental Protection Specialist
Permits Section
Water Quality Control Division
Colorado Department of Publ ic Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80246
RE: TARGETED PERMIT QUESTIONNAIRE
Ms . Delaria:
The City/County of would like to express our gratitude for the opportunity to
conduct a self review of our MS4 Stormwater Program.
The interpretations and examples of compliant and non-compliant programs provided in the Targeted
Permit Questionnaire are appreciated . However, in the future we would like to have interpretations and
examples in a stand-alone guidance document, separate from the document certified by the legal
contact. Due to the flexible nature of the MS4 Permit, we recognize that all interpretations and
examples of compliant and non -compliant programs are not detailed in the Targeted Permit
Questionnaire.
As you may be aware, the Colorado Stormwater Council (CSC) consulted outside legal counsel to assist
the CSC membership with the Targeted Permit Questionnaire. This was done at the request of the CSC
membership pursuant to concerns with interpretation language compared to MS4 Permit language.
Based upon recommendations from legal counsel, and to provide accurate answers, the language in the
current Permit was relied upon to complete the Targeted Permit Questionnaire.
Further, a statement was added to the certification page of the Targeted Permit Questionnaire. This
statement serves to incorporate reliance on the current permit language within the certified document.
We appreciate working with you and look forward to continuing this collaborative process with the
Division on the upcoming MS4 Permit renewal process .
If you have any questions, please contact ________ _
Sincerely,
c T y 0 F
September 12, 2012
Ms. Michelle Delaria
Environmental Protection Specialist
Permits Section
Water Quality Control Division
ENGLEWOOD
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80246
RE: TARGETED PERMIT QUESTIONNAIRE
Ms. Delaria:
The City of Englewood would like to express our gratitude for the opportunity to conduct a self review of
our MS4 Stormwater Program .
The interpretations and examples of compliant and non-compliant programs provided in the Targeted
Permit Questionnaire are appreciated. However, in the future we would like to have interpretations and
examples in a stand-alone guidance document, separate from the document certified by the legal
contact. Due to the flexible nature of the MS4 Permit, we recognize that all interpretations and
examples of compliant and non-compliant programs are not detailed in the Targeted Permit
Questionnaire .
As you may be aware, the Colorado Stormwater Council (CSC) consulted outside legal counsel to assist
the CSC membership with the Targeted Permit Questionnaire. This was done at the request of the CSC
membership pursuant to concerns with interpretation language compared to MS4 Permit language.
Based upon recommendations from legal counsel, and to provide accurate answers, the language in the
current Permit was relied upon to complete the Targeted Permit Questionnaire .
Further, a statement was added to the certi fication page of the Targeted Permit Questionna ire . This
statement serves to incorporate reliance on the current permit language within the certified document.
We appreciate working with you and look forward to continuing this collaborative process with the
Division on the upcoming MS4 Permit renewal process.
1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Phone 303-762-2635
www.englewoodgov.org
If you have any questions, please contact Vasser Abouaish at 303-762 -2652 .
Sincerely,
Stewart Fonda
Director of Utilities
City of Englewood
Cc : Targeted Permit Questionnaire
TARGETED PERMIT QUESTIONNAIRE -Due October 15, 2012
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Permits COR-090000 and COR-080000
COLORADO DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
Water Quality Control Division
WQCD-P-B2
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530
This form is intended to be filled out electronically and then printed for the signature and submittal. One original
copy (no faxes or e-mails) of the completed Targeted Permit Questionnaire, including attachments as appropriate, must be
submitted to the Water Quality Control Division by October 15, 2012 .
This questionnaire targets specific program elements and is not a full audit. The questions are based on the common
findings that were identified during permit audits conducted by the Division in 2010 and 2011. The questions will help
the Permittee determine compliance with the current permit. Answering "yes" or "no" to a question does not
automatically make the Permittee in or out of compliance. The Permittee must carefully read the Required Action section
to determine if a notice of noncompliance must be submitted . The Permittee is also welcome to include any additional
information that the Division should consider when determining compliance with the permit. All sections of the form
must be filled out. Some sections have a Recommended Action sub-section following the Required Action sub-section, to
provide the Permittee with compliance assistance .
The Division will notify specific permittees in writing that they do not have to complete this questionnaire based on
the occurrence of a recent Division audit. The Division recommends that these previously audited permittees review the
information provided in this questionnaire.
The question format includes a Summary of the common finding, examples of compliant and non-compliant programs and
the Compliance Goal followed by Questions and the Required Actions. By answering the yes/no questions , the Permittee
determines compliance for the specific permit element. If the Permittee cannot certify compliance by the response date of
October 15, 2012, the Permittee must submit a Non-compliance notification with the Targeted Permit Questionnaire
response form .
In accordance with Part Il .A.8 of the Permit, all MS4 permittees covered under the above referenced MS4 permits must
comply with this requirement and, unless excluded in writing as addressed above, submit the completed self-audit report
by October 15, 2012. All answers must reflect conditions and compliance status on the date of submittal.
Some of the items in Part 3, Program Area Assessment, include the potential for identification and required
reporting of permit noncompliance. The Permittee is strongly encouraged to contact the Division prior to formal
submittal of this form if it is unclear to the Permittee why the associated conditions are resulting in a condition of
noncompliance or how corrections can be implemented to return to compliance.
PART 1: PERMITTEE INFORMATION
Permittee (Agency name): City of Englewood -Utilities Department
Mailing Address: 1000 Englewood Parkway
City and Zip Code: Englewood, co 80110
Permit Certification No: COR -
1 of20
PART 2: CERTIFICATION
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information
submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible
for gathering the information , the information submitted is , to the best of my know ledge and belief, true, accurate , and
complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of
fine and imprisonment for knowing violations ."
x
Signature of Permittee (legally responsible person) Date Signed
PART 3: PROGRAM AREA ASSESSMENT
A. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination:
NOTE: The term "Illicit Discharge" as used in the this section shall be defined in accordance with the
responders MS4 permit and shall NOT include those discharges not required to be prohibited by the MS4
Permittee in accordance with Part I.B.3(a)(5) and (6) of the Permit.
1. Regulatory Mechanism for Enforceability
a. Summary: Part I.B.3(a)(2) of the Permit, requires a regulatory mechanism to prohibit illicit discharges into
the storm sewer system and the authority to implement appropriate enforcement procedures and actions. The
Permittee may provide a timeframe to eliminate an illicit discharge (i.e., the illicit discharge is no longer
occurring and therefore has been effectively prohibited); however the timeframe to eliminate an illicit
discharge cannot be a "grace period" from potential enforcement for the period it takes to eliminate the
illicit discharge. For permit compliance purposes , a "timeframe to eliminate" an illicit discharge is the
timeframe that is provided in a regulatory mechanism or at the discretion of the Permittee; and "grace period"
is when an illicit discharge is identified and the regulatory mechanism lacks the authority for the Permittee
to conduct enforcement for the occurrence of the illicit discharge if it is eliminated within a "timeframe to
eliminate," thereby allowing a time of non-compliance -or a "grace period" from enforcement. The
Permittee 's procedures and rules must result in an illicit discharge being subject to enforcement procedures
for both the original finding of violation, as well as during any provided timeframe to eliminate the illicit
discharge .
Alternatively, the Permittee may require that an illicit discharge be eliminated "immediately" or "without
delay ," and the Permittee clearly informs the owner or operator responsible for the illicit discharge that the
illicit discharge is considered an enforceable violation from the moment it is identified to the moment it is
corrected . In such case, no timeframe to eliminate has been authorized and no grace period from potential
enforcement has occurred.
The Permittee 's procedures for enforcement, as required by Part I.B.3(a)(2) of the Permit, must fully address,
and be fully enforceable and defendable in court, for all illicit discharges, from the time the Permittee
identifies the illicit discharge regardless of if the violation is corrected within a prescribed timeframe.
Note that the Permit does not require that the Permittee actually pursue enforcement for all illicit discharges
that occur and are eliminated. The Permit requires that the regulatory mechanism provide the Permittee the
legal ability and authority to pursue enforcement for all illicit discharges that occur even if they are
eliminated; in addition to the legal ability and authority to escalate enforcement for illicit discharges that the
owner or operator does not eliminate upon initial notification by the Permittee. Also, note that the Permit does
not require, and it is not the Division 's intent to imply through this summary, that the enforcement mechanism
rely on a per-day-of-violation monetary penalty calculation methodology, as long as all illicit discharges
identified by the Permittee are subject to appropriate enforcement procedures and actions mechanisms ,
2 of20
regardless of when or if the illicit discharge is eliminated.
b. Examples of compliant regulatory mechanisms:
• An illicit discharge is documented as beginning on April 1st. The inspector provides a notice of
violation to the property owner for the illicit discharge and documents that the illicit discharge must
be eliminated by April 11 111
, which is the 10 days stated in the regulatory mechanism. The inspector
also documents that even if the illicit discharge is eliminated by April 11th, the property owner is
subject to enforcement for the illicit discharge and for the days that the illicit discharge occurred from
when it was identified to when the illicit discharge was eliminated. The inspector further clarifies that
if the illicit discharge is not corrected by April 11°1
, that the response to the violation may be escalated
and the original date of April 1st can be used as the reference date to mark the start of the violation .
The Permittee must have the authority to implement appropriate enforcement procedures and actions ,
even if the correction occurs within the time frame to eliminate the illicit discharge.
• An illicit discharge is documented as beginning on April 1st. The inspector provides a notice of
violation to the property owner for the illicit discharge and documents that the illicit discharge must
be corrected immediately because the illicit discharge condition is a violation that is enforceable from
the original date of violation (April 1st). The Permittee may have target timeframes for follow up
(e.g., 1 day, 10 days, 2 weeks) to confinn that the illicit discharge has been eliminated or to escalate
the enforcement process. The Permittee must have the authority to implement appropriate
enforcement procedures and actions, even if the correction occurs within the target time frames to
eliminate the illicit discharge
c. Example of a non-compliant regulatory mechanism:
• An illicit discharge is documented as beginning on April 1st. The permittee informs the owner or
operator that the illicit discharge must be eliminated by April 11th . The regulatory mechanism does
not allow the perrnittee to implement appropriate enforcement procedures and actions if the illicit
discharge is eliminated prior to April 11 111
• The regulatory mechanism therefore allows the owner/
operator to have an illicit discharge and to continue the illicit discharge until April 11th without
enforcement, and therefore permittee has not effectively prohibited that illicit discharge.
d. Information for Counties that rely on the capabilities of C.R.S. 30-28-124.5 to implement permit
requirements: C .R.S. 30-28-124.5 does not allow enforcement for findings corrected within 10 days of
discovery. This statute does not authorize county rules that would meet the terms of the permit, as discussed
above, if implemented as the only mechanism to effectively prohibit an illicit discharge. However, section 35-
15-401 (11 )(a)(I), C.R.S., provides counties with broad authority to adopt stormwater ordinances that
"develop, implement, and enforce the stormwater management program required by the permit." Under
section 35-15-404(11), C.R.S., counties have the authority to adopt ordinances that implement these
requirements as well as enforce against and penalize individuals that violate these requirements. To be
consistent with MS4 permit terms that are written pursuant to section 61.8(1 l)(a)(ii), county ordinances must
provide the authority to bring enforcement actions and issue penalties upon the discovery of a violation .
Therefore, a county relying on C.R.S. 30-28-124.5 must provide additional mechanisms to provide for the
authority to prohibit a violation upon discovery, which likely would require the county to adopt new
ordinances under C.R.S. 35-15-401 , or through an alternative legal mechanism if identified.
e. Compliance Goal: Confirm that the Perrnittee has a compliant regulatory mechanism that can effectively
prohibit all illicit discharges, including those eliminated within a set time period after identification . A
Permittee that lacks authority to enforce against identified illicit discharges upon discovery would not be
capable of implementing a preventative program to prohibit discharges, and would only have a responsive
program.
3 of20
f. Questions:
Answering 'yes' or 'no ' is not automatically associated with compliance or non-Mark the response
compliance. that matches the
Permittee's program
1. Does the Permittee's regulatory mechanism prohibit an illicit discharge, as defined in its X Yes No pernlit, into the Pernlittee's MS4 ? --
2. Does the Pernlittee 's regulatory mechanism used for illicit discharges allow for or Yes x No require a timeframe to eliminate an illicit discharge? (E.g ., the nuisan ce code is us ed as
th e regulatory mec hanis m and s tates that an illicit discharge or nuisance violation mus t
be corrected within 10 days, a s s oon as p ossible, or s imilar language.)
3. If question 2 was answered "Yes": Does the regulatory mecharusm allow enforcement Yes No for the occurrence of an illicit discharge, even if an illicit discharge is eliminated prior ----
to the end of the timeframe provided in the regulatory mechanism or by the Permittees'
program implementation? (I.e., can the enforce m ent process and potential p enalties
ref erence th e date that th e illicit discharge was identified?) If enforcement can only
begin if the illicit discharge is not eliminated within the timeframe to eliminate an illicit
discharge provided in the regulatory mechanism or by the Pernlittees' program
implementation , mark "no."
g. Required Submittal:
If question 1 was answered "yes", the Permittee must provide a citation and a link (if available online) to the
pertinent section of the Permittee's regulatory mechanism for prohibiting illicit discharges.
h. Required Action: Check the following that best represents your program status at the time of the
October 15, 2012 response date.
1. __ Questions 1, 2 , and 3 answered "yes." This represents a program that prohibits an illicit
discharge into the Pernlittee's MS4 and considers any illicit discharge an enforceable violation
from the date that the illicit discharge was identified. The illicit discharge is an enforceable
violation during the time it takes to correct the violation .
11. _X_Question 1 answered "yes " and Question 2 answered "no." This represents a program that
prohibits an illicit discharge into the Pernlittee's MS4 and considers any illicit discharge an
enforceable violation from the date that the illicit discharge was identified and does not provide a
timeframe to eliminate an illicit discharge. The regulatory mecharusm clearly states that an illicit
discharge must be eliminated immediately or without delay.
iii. __ Option i. or ii. cannot be accurately checked, but the Permittee has complied with the
pernlit through implementation of a program not addressed in this questionnaire. If this option is
checked, the Permittee must still answer the above questions for this Section, and must attach a
detailed explanation of how its program meets the pernlit requirements addressed in this Section,
including attaching: (1) All regulations that prohibit illicit discharges and authorize enforcement
with direct reference to those applicable sections; (2) All written procedures that address
implementation of enforcement relevant to illicit discharges with direct reference to those
applicable sections . A pernlittee checking this Option must contact the Division by phone or
email by July 15, 2012, prior to submitting this form to discuss this conclusion and ensure that
the proper information is provided to expedite this process and avoid unnecessary compliance
correspondence for both parties .
4 of20
If option i., ii. or iii cannot be accurately checked, then check iv, and follow the instructions.
iv. __ Submit a Non-compliance notification and a program modification according to Part
II.B.l(a)(l-3) and Part I.E.2(a) of the Permit detailing how the Permittee's program will be
modified to match one of the compliant options represented by i. or ii., above.
i. Recommended Action: Review the program documentation (e.g., illicit discharge manual, Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP), Program Description Document, inspection form) to determine if there are
inconsistencies. For example, the regulatory mechanism requires an illicit discharge to be eliminated in 7
days , but a procedure states that 10 days is the timeframe provided to eliminate an illicit discharge?
2. Regulatory Mechanism Process
a. Summary: Part I.B .3(a)(2) of the Permit, requires a regulatory mechanism to prohibit illicit discharges into
the storm sewer system and to implement appropriate enforcement procedures and actions. The Division
observed during program audits that some perrnittees have a regulatory mechanism (e.g., code or ordinance
language) regarding the enforcement process that does not match the enforcement process detailed in the
Permittee's program documents (e.g., Program description document, IDDE manual, SOPs, inspector training
documents). To be clear, the Permit does not require that the regulatory mechanism include the exact
enforcement steps. However, the Division noted during audits that some ordinances provided exact
enforcement steps that must be followed in a specific order (e.g., written notice to the owner/operator,
administrative citation, court summons) but the Perrnittee 's internal program documents and/or
implementation did not follow the process stated in the ordinance. Other programs listed enforcement tools
that may be used by the Perrnittee to gain compliance.
b. Examples of compliant regulatory mechanisms:
• The regulatory mechanism lists several enforcement tools that CAN BE used when responding to an
illicit discharge. The permittee's SOPs for responding to an illicit discharge include the option for
issuing a verbal warning if the illicit discharge does not pose any immediate harm to life or the
environment.
• The regulatory mechanism states that all responses to an illicit discharge MUST include a written
notice of violation to the owner/operator. The perrnittee 's SOPs for responding to an illicit discharge
are consistent with the regulatory mechanism and all illicit discharges are responded to with a written
notice of violation .
c. Examples of a non-compliant regu la tory mechanism:
• Permittee has procedures in both the regulatory mechanism AND in separate written
procedures (e.g., SOPs) that conflict: The regulatory mechanism states that all responses to an
illicit discharge MUST include a written notice of violation to the owner. The perrnittee 's procedure
for responding to an illicit discharge allows for issuing a verbal warning without a written notification
being issued, therefore the two procedures conflict.
• Permittee has procedures that are not being followed: The regulatory mechanism and/or written
procedures state that all responses to an illicit discharge MUST include a written notice of violation to
the owner. All illicit discharges meeting the conditions in the procedures are NOT responded to with
a written notice of violation.
d. Compliance Goal: Confirm that enforcement aspect of the regulatory mechanism, program documents,
written procedures and implementation do not conflict and are being implemented. Conflicts in procedures
could result in lack of enforceability, confusion , and failure to implement procedures .
5 of20
e. Questions:
Answering 'yes' or 'no' is not automatically associated with compliance or non-Mark the response
compliance. that matches the
1.
2.
3.
Permittee's program
Does the Pennittee's regulatory mechanism specify any exact enforcement process( es) X Yes No or step(s) that must be followed by the Pennittee for violations? E.g., code requires a --
written notice to the owner/operator, administrative citation, and/or court summons . If
yes, answer question 2. If no, skip to question 3
Do the Pennittee's program documents (e .g., Program description document, IDDE X Yes No manual, SOPs, inspector training documents) include the exact required enforcement --
process( es) or step(s) specified in the Pennittee's regulatory mechanism?
Are all enforcement process( es) or step(s) in the Pennittee's program documents Yes No authorized in the Pennittee's regulatory mechanism? (The Pennittee must have the --
authority to implement all of the enforcement procedures and tools.)
f. Required Action: Check the follow ing that best represents your program status at the time of the
October 15, 2012 response date:
1. _ X_ Questions 2 was answered yes, or skipped in accordance with the directions, AND
Question 3 was answered yes.
If option i. cannot be accurately checked, then check ii. and follow the instructions.
11. __ Submit a Non-compliance notification and a program modification according to Part
11.B.l(a)(l-3) and Part l .E.2(a) of the Permit detailing how the Perrnittee's program will be
modified to match one of the compliant options represented by i. or ii., above.
3. Categories of Non-stormwater discharges
a. Summary: In accordance with the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, consistent with the federal Clean
Water Act, requires that no person shall discharge any pollutant into any state water from a point source
without first having obtained a permit from the Division . However, the Division has developed the Low Risk
Policy, WQP-27, to address discharges with the lowest potential risk to water quality and additional pennit
language to provide a mechanism for the Pennittee to assess the potential for certain discharges to contain
pollutants. Discharges associated with Snow melting, swimming pools, potable water, uncontaminated
groundwater to land, and surface cosmetic power washing operations to land are currently addressed by
guidance under the Division's Low Risk Discharges.
http://www.cdphe.state.eo.us /wq /Permi tsU nit/guidanceandpolicynewpage.html
Part I.B .3(a)(5) of the Pennit provides the following categories of non-stormwater discharges that the
Pennittee must address only if the Pennittee identifies them as significant contributors of pollutants to the
Pennittee's MS4: landscape irrigation, lawn watering, diverted stream flows, irrigation return flow, rising
ground waters, uncontaminated ground water infiltration (as defined at 40 CFR 35.2005(20)), uncontaminated
pumped ground water, springs, flows from riparian habitats and wetlands, water line flushing, discharges
from potable water sources, foundat i on drains, air conditioning condensation, water from crawl space pumps,
footing drains, individual residential car washing, dechlorinated swimming pool discharges, and water
incidental to street sweeping (including associated sidewalks and medians) and that is not associated with
construction . Part I.B.3(a)(6) of the Pennit also excludes the Pennittee from having to address discharges
resulting from emergency fire fighting activities and discharges specifically authorized by a separate CDPS
pennit.
The Pennit allows the Pennittee to add other occasional, incidental non-stormwater discharges to this list if
the Pennittee has detennined that additional non-stormwater discharges are not reasonably expected (based on
information available to the pennittee) to be significant sources of pollutants to the MS4, because of either the
6 of20
nature of the discharges or conditions the Permittee has established for allowing tl-i'ese discharges to the MS4.
The Division has specifically authorized all MS4 permittees to include those discharges covered by guidance
under the Low Risk Discharge Policy, WQP-27.
b. Example of a non-compliant regulatory mechanism:
During permit audits, Division staff have noted that the wording and resulting definition of some categories
listed in Part I.B.3(a)(5) of the Permit have been altered and other categories of discharges have been added to
the permittee's regulatory mechanism. In many of these cases , the discharges addressed by these modified
and new allowances do not meet the standard of not being reasonably expected to be significant sources of
pollutants to the MS4 and the permittees have not documented local controls or conditions placed on the
discharges, as required by Part I.B.3(a)(5) of the Permit.
Examples of such discharges include:
• Discharges to protect life and property
• Any discharge allowed by the city manager (or designee)
• Discharges from activities conducted by fire department other than emergency fire fighting, or
discharges directly listed in I.B .3(a)(5) or covered by a Low Risk Policy guidance
c. Compliance Goal: To determine if the Permittee 's illicit discharges program consistently allows or prohibits
those discharges addressed by Part I.B .3(a)(5) of the Permit, Part I.B.3(a)(6) of the Permit, and the Division 's
Low Risk Discharges.
Note that the Permittee is not required to authorize all discharges allowed for by the permit and Low Risk
Policy guidance; however what is authorized in the Permittees ' regulatory mechanism must be consistent by
what is authorized by the Permittees ' procedures and implementation . For example, if the Permittee chooses
not to authorize certain discharges, then the Permittee must respond to the unauthorized discharges according
to the Permittee's IDDE program requirements.
d. Questions:
Answering 'yes' or 'no' is not automatically associated with compliance or non-Mark the response
compliance. that matches the
Permittee's program
1. Does the Permittee 's regulatory mechanism authorize discharges to the MS4 of all of the _X_Yes No "allowable non-stormwater discharges" that are directly listed in Parts I.B.3(a)(5) and (6) --
of the Permit? If the answer is yes, skip to question 3.
2 . If question 1 was answered "No": For any of the "allowable non-stormwater Yes No discharges" that are directly listed in Part I.B.3(a)(5) and (6) of the Permit that are not --
authorized to be discharged to the MS4 in the Permittee 's regulatory mechanism, does
the Permittee's program documentation and implementation effectively prohibit the
discharge(s)? E.g., if the Permittee's ordinance does not authorize "dechlorinated
swimming pool discharges", is the Permittee's program documentation and
implementation consistent in not allowing this discharge(s)?
3. Has the Permittee developed a list of occasional incidental non-stonnwater discharges, in x Yes addition to the list provided in Part I.B.3(a)(5) and (6) of the Permit, which are --
authorized to discharge to the MS4 and not addressed as an illicit discharge? If the No
answer is no, skip to question 5.
4 . Does the Permittee's regulatory mechanism authorize discharges to the MS4 of all the _X_Yes No discharges addressed in the Division 's Low Risk Policy guidance documents (e.g., Low --
Risk Discharges of Potable Water)? If the answer is yes, skip to Part e.
5 . If Question 3 was answered "No": For any of the discharges addressed in the Yes No Division's Low Risk Policy that are not authorized to be discharged to the MS4 in the ----
Pennittee's regulatory mechanism, does the Permittee's program documentation and
implementation effectively prohibit the discharge(s)? E .g., If the Permittee's ordinance
7 of20
does not exclude discharges of potable water that are in accordance with the Low Risk
Policy guidance from prohibitions on illicit discharges, is the Permittee's program
documentation and implementation consistent in not allowing the discharge(s)?
e. Required Submittals:
1. List as a separate attachment, all non-stormwater discharges for which the Permittee is not effectively prohibiting
through regulatory mechanism(s). Provide the exact language used to identify the discharge in the regulatory
mechanism(s).
2. Provide the following information as a separate attachment for any discharges that the Permittee's regulatory
mechanism does not address as illicit discharges (i.e., are authorized to discharge to the MS4) and that are not
specifically listed in Part I.B.3(a)(5) or (6).
a. Any information used by the Permittee to evaluate or document that the discharge is not a significant
source of pollutants to the MS4, because of either the nature of the discharges or conditions the
Permittee has established for allowing these discharges to the MS4 (e.g., a charity car wash with
appropriate controls on frequency, proximity to sensitive waterbodies, BMPs, etc.).
b. All documentation included in the Permittee's program documentation or regulatory mechanism that
identifies the local controls or conditions placed on the discharges.
Note that the goal of Part e.2, above, is to collect information on the Permittee's decision making process. The
Division is not necessarily collecting all information that may be needed to fully evaluate if any added discharges
meet the standard of not being reasonably expected to be significant sources of pollutants to the MS4. Following the
Division review of responses provided by Permittees, such evaluation and determination may occur in the future
consistent with the third paragraph of Part I.B.3(a)(5) of the Permit or through the public process during permit
renewal.
f. Required Actions: Check the following that best represents your program status at the time of the
October 15, 2012 response date.
1. _X_ Questions 2 and 5 were either answered "yes", or did not require a response (i.e., the
questions were skipped in accordance with the directions).
If option i. cannot be accurately checked, then check ii. and follow the instructions.
11. __ Submit a Non-compliance notification and a program modification according to Part
II.B.l(a)(l-3) and Part I.E.2(a) of the Permit detailing how the Permittee's program will be
modified to match the compliant option represented by i., above.
4. Emergency Fire fighting Discharges
a. Summary: Part I.B.3(a)(6)(i) of the Permit allows discharges from emergency fire fighting activities to be
excluded from the prohibitions against non-stormwater discharges. The Division has observed during
program audits that permittees may not have the word "emergency" included with firefighting discharges . If
not limited to "emergency firefighting" the definition of "firefighting" may include maintenance of fire
suppression systems, and training, which may be reasonably expected to be significant sources of pollutants
to the MS4.
b. Compliance Goal: Determine if only "emergency" fire fighting discharges are excluded from the
prohibitions against non-stormwater discharges and to collect information on any other fire fighting related
discharges for Division to fully evaluate if any added discharges meet the standard of not being reasonably
expected to be significant sources of pollutants to the MS4.
8 of20
c. Questions:
Mark the response
that matches the
Permittee's program
1. Does the Permittee's regulatory language authorize discharges to the MS4 from X Yes No firefighting activities that are not from "emergency firefighting?" Note that the exact --
language used to identify the discharge in the regulatory mechanism(s) must be provided
with the Required Submittal in A.3.e.1 , a nd if the authorization is not limited to
"emergency firefighting." If the answer is "N o," skip the Required Submittal section
below and proceed to Part B , Construction Sites Program .
d. Required Submittal:
If the answer to question 1, above, was yes, the following information must be provided as a separate attachment.
Note that this information is in addition to the information required in Part A.3.e.2 of this questionnaire. The
Permittee must provide documentation or further study of any category of fire-fighting related discharges that are not
directly associated with "emergency firefight ing" that provide a reasonable basis for allowing the non-stormwater
discharge. The Division will evaluate the information to determine if the discharge must be required to be prohibited ,
in accordance with the third paragraph of Part I.B.3(a)(5) of the Permit. Specifically, the Permittee must submit
information for the discharges that would meet the standard of not being reasonably expected to be significant sources
of pollutants to the MS4. ·
B. Construction Sites Program
1. Waivers, exemptions, exclusions from construction site program requirements
a. Summary: Part I.B.4(a)(l) of the Permit requires the Permittee to develop, implement and enforce a program
to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff to the MS4 from construction activities that disturb one or more
acres; or less than one acre if part of a larger common plan of development. The Division has observed
during program audits that specific construction activities are listed in the Permittee 's program documentation
(e.g ., codes, ordinance, program manuals) as exempt from the Permittee's construction site program. Specific
activities have been listed without considering or referencing the area of disturbance. Some activities have
been listed with the goal of allowing the applicant to avoid obtaining multiple permits , however the language
was not made clear that if a construction activity is exempted from local permit requirements, it is still
covered by the Permittee's construction sites program for any site plan, inspection and enforcement
requirements.
b. Projects on State land: In accordance with the MS4 regulations and permits , if an MS4 permittee does not
have the authority under State or local law to require a facility operating on State land to comply with the
conditions of its Construction Sites ordinances, then the MS4 permittee is not liable under the permit to do so.
c. Examples of a compliant program:
• The permittee's regulatory mechanism and program documentation includes all construction activities
that disturb one or more acres; or less than one acre if part of a larger common plan of development in
its Construction sites Program.
• The permittee's construction sites program requires a review of the construction site's stormwater
management plan for single family development and issuance of a local stormwater permit. For types
of projects that are not issued a local stormwater permit (e.g., utility work), the permittee implements
procedures for compliance assessment and compliance assurance so that all construction activities that
disturb one or more acres; or less than one acre if part of a larger common plan of development are in
the permittee's Construction Sites Program .
d. Example of a non-compliant program:
The permittee 's regulatory mechanism correctly states that all construction activities that disturb one or
9 of20
more acres; or less than one acre if part of a larger common plan of development are covered by its
Construction sites Program. However the program documentation (e.g., program manual) or separate
sections of the permittee's rules allows for waivers, exemptions, or exclusions from program
requirements for projects such as:
• Utility work
•Driveways
• Single family lots
• Activities exempted by the public works director based on site considerations
Note that no Program Descriptions submitted by permittees during the 2008 MS4 permit renewal process
acknowledged the existence of waivers, exemptions or exclusions that have been subsequently found during
program audits.
e. Compliance Goal: To have the Permittee confirm the presence or absence of waiver language. If waiver
language is included, then the Permittee must have documentation to explain and limit how the waiver can be
applied, as necessary to ensure that the waiver will not be applied in a manner that allows a construction site
that disturbs one or more acres or less than one acre when part of a larger common plan of development to not
be subject to the Permittee's construction sites program for the required site plan review, inspection and
enforcement. Note it is not a violation to have a waiver as long as it is clear that the construction site will
receive the required oversight.
f. Questions:
Answering 'yes' or 'no' is not automatically associated with compliance or non-Mark the response
compliance. that matches the
Permittee's pro2ram
1. Are there any waivers, exemptions, exclusions, or similar allowances in program
regulations, code, or policies regarding the following elements of the Permittee's
construction sites oversight program for any sites that disturb one or more acres or
less than one acre when part of a larger common plan of development (excluding
sites that qualify for a R-Factor waiver)?
Requirements to implement appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs Yes x No • --
Requirements to implement appropriate waste control BMPs Yes x No • --
--Yes x No • Compliance assessment procedures --
Yes x No
Enforcement procedures --•
2. If any subpart(s) of question 1 were answered "Yes": Is the program Yes No documentation clear or is there supplemental program documentation (e.g., SOP) to ----
define the Permittee 's program implementation for the activity and to clarify that the
waivers cannot be applied in a manner that would avoid all BMP requirements and
oversight (site inspection and/or enforcement) for any construction sites that disturb
one or more acres; or less than one acre if part of a larger common plan of
development (excluding sites that qualify for a R-Factor waiver)? E.g., there may be
a waiver from local fees and/or permitting, while clearly stating the mechanism and
procedures for the required construction site BMP requirements and oversight.
10 of20
g. Required Submittal:
1. If the an swer to any subpart(s) in Ques tion 1, above, was "yes," pro v ide as an attachment the specific wai ve r
language, including a reference to where the waiver is located (e.g ., cite the section of code or the document).
2. If the answer to Question 2 , abo v e, was "yes ," provide the program documentation language that clarifies the
waiver implementation, including a reference to where it is located (e.g., cite the section of code or the
document).
h. Required Actions: Check the following that best represents your program status at the time of the
October 15, 2012 response date.
1. _ X _All subparts of Question 1 were answered "No"
11. __ Any subpart(s) o f Question 1 was answered "Yes " and Question 2 was answered "yes"
If option i. or ii. cannot be accurately checked, then check iii. and follow the instructions.
111. __ Submit a Non-compliance notification and a program modification according to Part
11.B.l(a)(l-3) and Part I.E.2(a) of the Permit detailing how the Permittee's program will be
modified to match one of the compliant options represented by i. or ii., above.
i. Recommended Actions:
• The Division recommends that permittees conduct a word search in program documentation for
"waivers", "exemptions", and "exclusions" to determine if these potentially non-compliant elements
exist.
• Permittees pennitted under the COR-080000 general permit are encouraged to review the additional
requirements detailed in Part I.B.4(a)(3) of the Permit and compare the requirements to the Permittee 's
program documentation and implementation of the construction sites program for Cherry Creek Reservoir
Basin discharges.
2. Construction Stages Oversight
a. Summary: Part I.B.4(a)(2)(i)(A) of the Permit requires that the Pennittee have the regulatory mechanism to
ensure compliance, and follow an oversight process to manage construction site erosion and sediment control
for all stages of construction, including individual lot construction regardless of who owns the lot, to final
stabilization . The Division observed during program audits and construction site screenings that some
pennittees are not implementing the construction sites oversight program for all stages of construction . In
some jurisdictions, the regulatory mechanism did not clearly state that construction sites oversight is required
for sites that disturb one or more acres or less than one acre when part of a larger common plan of
development. In some jurisdictions , the regulatory mechanism limited construction sites oversight to the
overlot grading and public improvement stages and did not require oversight of individual lots in a
subdivision once the lots were sold to builders .
b. Examples of compliant regulatory mechanisms:
• The pennittee has one working group and set of rules that covers all construction activities that disturb
one or more acres or less than one acre when part of a larger common plan of development from the
time activities begin until the site is finally stabilized .
• The permittee has two different departments that manage construction sites-the engineering
department manages the public improvements , and the building department manages individual lot
construction. Both departments have developed , implemented, and documented procedures for
compliance assessment and assurance .
• The permittee 's construction sites program manages the public improvement and development stages of
construction; and the illicit discharge detection and elimination program would provide compliance
assessment and assurance for lot level construction.
11 of 20
c. Example of a non-compliant regulatory mechanism:
• The permittee has a program for site assessment and assurance for the public improvement and
development stage of construction, but has no oversight of the lot-level construction.
d. Compliance Goal: Confirm that the regulatory mechanism and the program documentation clearly require
the Permittee to implement an oversight process to manage construction site erosion and sediment control for
all stages of construction, including individual lot construction regardless of who owns the lot, to fmal
stabilization .
e. Questions:
Mark the response
that matches the
Permittee's program
I. Does the Permittee have the regulatory mechanism and program documentation to
implement the construction sites program for all stages of construction from the X Yes No time activities begin until final stabilization for projects that disturb one or more --
acres; or less than one acre if part of a larger common plan of development?
Oversight can be provided by either the construction sites program or the IDDE
program. However the IDDE program implementation must still meet the
compliance oversight and assurance requirements for construction activities in Parts
I.B.4(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) of the Permit.
2. Confirm that the following specific activities are covered by the requirements
addressed in Question 1:
a . Site grading a. x Yes No ----
b. Public improvements b. x Yes No ----
c. Individual lots (developer owned) c. x Yes No ----
d. Individual lots (builder owned) d. x Yes No ----
e. Individual lots (homeowner owned) e. X Yes No --
f. Bank/FDIC owned property f. X Yes No --
f. Required Action: Check the following that best represents your program status at the time of the
October 15, 2012 response date.
i . _X_ Questions 1 and all subparts of Question 2 were answered "yes."
If option i. cannot be accurately checked, then check ii. and follow the instructions.
11. __ Submit a Non-compliance notification and a program modification according to Part
II.B.l(a)(l-3) and Part I.E.2(a) of the Permit detailing how the Permittee's program will be
modified to match the compliant option represented by i. above.
3. Construction Site Erosion, Sediment and Waste Control requirements
a. Summary: Parts I.B.4(a)(2)(i)(B) and (C) of the Permit require the Permittee develop, implement and
document requirements for construction site operators to implement appropriate erosion, sediment and waste
control BMPs. The Division has observed during program audits that some permittees have lacked the
regulatory mechanism and/or or program documentation to indicate that waste control BMPs were required
on construction sites and compliance assurance elements to address pollutant discharges associated with
waste.
12 of20
b. Examples of a compliant program:
• The permittee 's regulatory mechanism states that erosion, sediment and waste control BMPs are
required to be documented o n site plans and implemented.
• The permittee's program documentation states that erosion, sediment and waste control BMPs are
required to be implemented and the inspection form includes categories of these required BMPs for
inspectors to document during compliance assessment activities .
c. Example of a non-compliant program:
• The permittee's program documentation (regulatory mechanism, program manual, inspection fonn,
approved site plans) provide no, or inadequate, record of waste control BMPs being required on
construction sites.
d. Compliance Goal: Confirm that the Pennittee has developed, implemented, and documented requirement s
and compliance assurance for erosion, sediment and waste control BMPs on construction sites.
e. Questions:
Mark the response
that matches the
Permittee's oro2ram
1. Does the Pennittee 's regulatory mechanism and program documentation clearly X Yes No require erosion and sediment control BMPs to be implemented on construction sites? --
2. Does the Permittee 's regulatory mechanism and program documentation clearly X Yes No require waste control BMPs to be imp lemented on construction sites? --
3 . Do the Permittee's compliance assessment procedures (site plan review and X Yes No inspection) include sediment and erosion control BMPs? --
4 . Do the Permittee's compliance assessment procedures (site plan review and x Yes No inspection) include waste control BMPs? ----
5 . Do the Perrnittee's compliance assurance procedures allow processes and sanctions X Yes No to address noncompliance with sediment and erosion control BMP requirements? --
6. Do the Permittee 's compliance assurance procedures allow processes and sanctions x Yes No to address noncompliance with waste control BMP requirements? ----
f. Required Action: Check the following that best represents your program status at the time of the
October 15, 2012 response date.
i . _X_ Questions 1through 6 were answered "Yes."
If option i. cannot be accurately checked, then check ii. and follow the instructions.
11. __ Submit a Non-compliance notification and a program modification according to Part
11.B.l(a)(l-3) and Part I.E.2(a) of the Permit detailing how the Permittee's program will be
modified to match one of the compliant options represented by i. above.
g. Recommended Actions: The Division recommends that the Pennittee review program documents (e.g.,
construction site manual, inspector manual, site plan checklist, inspection form) and training information to
confirm that information and procedures are consistent. The Division has often discovered during audits that
internal documentation and procedures are not consistent and this has resulted in audit findings. Examples
include:
• A construction site program m anual may provide a list of the elements or a checklist of items that are
required for a site plan submittal; and the permittee does not consistently confirm that the required
site plan elements are submitted and reviewed .
13 of20
• A site inspection frequenc y is referenced in a manual or SOP , and inspections records indicat e that
construction sites are not inspected according to the frequency documented in the Program
Description .
• Program documentation states that site plans will be reviewed and approved and any changes require
approval of the public works engineer. Yet in practice, the site inspector allows changes to the
approved plan . The Division recommends differentiating between how major and minor
modifications to the approved plan will be approved by the permittee and classify the types of
changes that are considered minor and major modifications , such as equivalent or improved BMP
changes versus changes in hydrology . The Division recommends that the permittee consider and
define the "Approved Site Plan" as the initial plan that is approved by the permittee including
changes to the approved plan that are made within the parameters of Minor Modifications . Minor
modifications can be defined as BMP substitutions that are equivalent in performance or more
suitable to the specific site conditions . Major modifications can consist of changes in hydrology to the
approved plan, which require reapproval. This process allows minor modifications to be made during
the operation of the site, and avoids an administrative burden for minor site plan modifications.
4. Regulatory Mechanism for Enforceability
a. Summary: Part I.B.4(a)(2) of the Permit requires the Permittee to develop and implement a program to
assure adequate design , implementation and maintenance of BMPs at construction sites. The Division
observed that construction site operators are often provided a time frame to maintain, repair or modify BMPs
(i.e, correct a "BMP violation"). The Permittee may provide a timeframe to correct a BMP violation; and
have procedures to further escalate enforcement when it is determined that corrections to noncompliance are
not made immediately . However, the timeframe to correct a BMP violation cannot be a "grace period"
from potential enforcement for the period it takes to correct the deficiency . For permit compliance
purposes , a "timeframe" to maintain, repair or modify a BMP is the timeframe that is provided in a regulatory
mechanism or at the discretion of the Permittee; and "grace period" is when a BMP violation is identified and
the regulatory mechanism lacks the authority for the Permittee to conduct enforcement for the occurrence of
the BMP violation if corrected within a "timeframe to correct" period, and thereby allowing a time of non-
compliance -or a "grace period" from enforcement. The Permittee's procedures and rules must result in a
BMP v iolation being subject to enforcement procedures for both the original finding of the violation, as well
as during any provided timeframe to correct the violation .
Alternatively, the Permittee may require that a BMP violation be corrected "immediately" or "without delay ,"
and clearly informs the owner or operator responsible for the BMP violation that the BMP violation is
considered an enforceable violation from the moment it is identified to the moment it is corrected. In such
case, no "timeframe to correct" has been authorized and no "grace period" from potential enforcement has
occurred.
Note that the Permit does not require that the Permittee actually pursue enforcement for all BMP violations
that occur and are corrected . The Permit requires that the regulatory mechanism provide the Permittee the
legal ability and authority to pursue enforcement for all BMP violations that occur even if they are
corrected; in addition to the legal abil ity and authority to escalate enforcement for BMP violations that the
owner or operator does not correct upon initial notification by the Permittee. Also , note that the Permit does
not require, and it is not the Division 's intent to imply through this summary, that the enforcement mechanism
rely on a per-day-of-violation monetary penalty calculation methodology, as long as all BMP violations
identified by the Permittee are subject to procedures for enforcement of control measures , regardless of when
or if the BMP violation is eliminated .
b. Examples of compliant regulatory mechanisms:
• A construction site BMP violation is documented as beginning on April 151
• The inspector notifies the
owner/operator and documents that the BMP violation must be corrected by April 11 1
\ which is the 10
days stated in the regulatory mechanism. The inspector also documents that even if the BMP violation
is corrected (e.g., BMP is fixed or installed) by April 11 111, the property owner is subject to enforcement
for the BMP violation and for the days that the BMP violation occurred from when it was identified to
14 of20
when the BMP violation was corrected . The inspector further clarifies that if the BMP is not maintained
by April 11th , that the response to the violation may be escalated and the original date of April 1st can be
used as the reference date to mark the start of the violation . The Permittee must have the authority to
implement appropriate enforcement procedures and actions , and can determine if such actions will be
pursued in accordance with the permittee 's procedures, even if the correction occurs within the time
frame to correct the BMP violation .
• A BMP violation is documented as beginning on April 1st. The inspector provides notification to the
owner/operator and documents that the BMP violation must be corrected immediately because the
BMP violation is enforceable from the original date of violation (April 1st). The Permittee may have
target timeframes for follow up (e.g., 1 day, 10 days, 2 weeks) to confirm that the BMP has been
maintained or to escalate the enforcement process. The Permittee must have the authority to implement
appropriate enforcement procedures and actions , and can determine if such actions will be pursued in
accordance with the permittee 's procedures , even if the correction occurs within the target time frames
to eliminate the BMP violation .
c. Example of a non-compliant regulatory mechanism:
• A BMP violation is documented as beginning on April 1st. The permittee informs the owner or operator
that the BMP must be maintained by April 11th . The regulatory mechanism does not allow the
permittee to implement procedures for enforcement of control measures if the BMP violation is
corrected prior to April 11t h. The regulatory mechanism therefore allows the owner/operator to have a
BMP violation and to continue the BMP violation until April 11 th without enforcement, and therefore
Permittee has not effectiv ely prohibited that BMP violation.
d. Information for Counties that rely on the capabilities of C.R.S. 30-28-124.5 to implement permit
requirements: C.R.S. 30-28-124.5 provides a prohibition from enforcement for findings corrected within 10
days, which does not authorize county rules that would meet the terms of the permit as discussed above if
implemented as the only mechanism to effectively prohibit a BMP violation . However, section 35-15-
401 (1 l)(a)(I), C .R.S., provides counties with broad authority to adopt stormwater ordinances that "develop,
implement, and enforce the stormwater management program required by th e p ermit." Under section 35-15-
404(11), C .R.S., counties have the authority to adopt ordinances that implement these requirements as well as
enforce against and penalize individuals that violate these requirements. To be consistent with MS4 permit
terms that are written pursuant to section 61 .8(11 )(a)(ii), county ordinances must provide the authority to
bring enforcement actions and issue penalties upon the discovery of a violation. Therefore, a county relying
on C .R.S . 30-28-124.5 must provide additional mechanisms to provide for the authority to prohibit a violation
upon discovery , which likely would r equire the county to adopt new ordinances under C.R.S . 35-15-401, or
through an alternative legal mechanism if identified.
g. Compliance Goal: Confirm that the Perrnittee has a compliant regulatory mechanism that can effectively
prohibit all BMP violations, including those corrected within a set time period after identification . A
Perrnittee that lacks authority to enforce against identified BMP violations upon discovery would not be
capable of implementing a preventative program to prohibit BMP violations, and would only have a
responsive program. Note that the Division is confirming the capabilities of the regulatory mechanism,
not the actual inspection and enforcement implementation.
h. Questions:
Answering 'yes' or 'no' is not automatically associated with compliance or non-Mark the response
compliance. that matches the
Permittee's program
1. Does the Perrnittee's regulatory mechanism clearly require that construction site BMPs X Yes No be implemented and maintained in operable condition ? --
2. Does the Perrnittee's regulatory mechanism used for BMP design, implementation, and x Yes No maintenance requirements allow for or require a timeframe to correct the failure to ----
15 of20
implement or maintain a BMP in operational condition? E.g., a permittee 's Stormwater
ordinance states that BMP violations are considered nuisances and will be enforced
through the Nuisance ordinance; and the Nuisance ordinance states that a nuisance must
be corrected within I 0 days, as soon as possible, or similar lanf!:Uage ?
3. If question 2 was answered "Yes": Does the Permittee's regulatory mechanism allow X Yes No enforcement to occur even if a failure to adequately design, implement, or maintain a --
BMP in operational condition is corrected prior to the end of the timeframe provided in
the regulatory mechanism or by the Permittee's program implementation? (I.e., can
enforcement/penalties begin on the date that the Permittee has evidence that the failure
to implement or maintain a BMP in operational condition began?) If enforcement can
only begin if the BMP violation is not corrected within the timeframe to correct a BMP
vio lation provided in the regulatory mechanism or by the Permittee's program
implementation, mark "no."
i. Required Submittal:
If question 1 was answered "yes", the Permittee must provide a citation and a link (if available online) to the pertinent
section of the Permittee's regulatory mechanism that requires construction site BMPs to be implemented and
maintained in operable condition.
j. Required Action: Check the following that best represents your program status at the time of the
October 15, 2012 response date.
1. Questions 1, 2 and 3 were answered "Yes."
11. __ Question 1 is answered "yes," question 2 is "No." This represents a program that prohibits
a BMP violation and considers any BMP violation an enforceable violation from the date that the
BMP violation began and does not provide a timeframe to eliminate a BMP violation. The
regulatory mechanism clearly states that BMP violation must be eliminated immediately or
without delay.
111. Option i. or ii. cannot be accurately checked, but the Permittee has complied with the Pennit
through implementation of a program not addressed in this questionnaire. If this option is
checked, the Permittee must still answer the above questions for this Section, and must attach a
detailed explanation of how its program meets the permit requirements addressed in this Section,
including attaching: (1) All regulations that prohibit BMP violation and authorize enforcement
with direct reference to those applicable sections; (2) All written procedures that address
implementation of enforcement relevant to BMP violations with direct reference to those
applicable sections. A perrnittee checking this Option must contact the Division by July 15,
2012 prior to submittal of this form to discuss this conclusion and ensure that the proper
information is provided to expedite this process and avoid unnecessary compliance
correspondence for both parties.
If option i., ii. or iii. cannot be accurately checked, then check iv. and follow the instructions.
1v. __ Submit a Non-compliance notification and a program modification according to Part
II.B.l(a){l-3) and Part I.E.2(a) of the Permit detailing how the Permittee's program will be
modified to match one of the compliant options represented by i., ii. or iii., above.
C. Post Construction
1. Regulatory Mechanism
a. Summary: Part I.B.5(a) of the Permit requires the Perrnittee to ensure that controls are in place to prevent or
minimize water quality impacts from stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment projects
that disturb greater than or equal to one acre, including projects less than one acre that are part of a larger
16 of20
1.
common plan of development or sale, that discharge into the MS4 . The Division has observed during pennit
audits that some pennittees do not have the required regulatory mechanism.
b. Example of compliant regulatory mechanisms:
• The pennittee's regulatory mechanism clearly states that new development and redevelopment projects
that disturb greater than or equal to one acre, including projects less than one acre that are part of a larger
common plan of development or sale are required to have permanent water quality BMPs.
• The pennittee's regulatory mechanism requires all new development and redevelopment projects to
comply with a design standards manual for stormwater drainage . The referenced design standards manual
requires new development and redevelopment projects that disturb greater than or equal to one acre ,
including projects less than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale, are
required to have permanent wa t er quality BMPs
c. Examples of non-compliant regulatory mechanisms:
• The pennittee requires that a permanent water quality BMP must be maintained by the property owner,
however there is no companion requirement to construct the permanent water quality BMP.
• The pennittee provides a flow chart based on types of development activities and provides an exclusion
from permanent water quality BMPs for redevelopment projects that decrease existing impervious area.
d. Compliance Goal: To confirm tha t Pennittee's have the required regulatory authority to implement the post
construction water quality BMP program .
e. Question:
Mark the response
that matches the
Permittee's program
Does the Pennittee's regulatory mechanism clearly convey that permanent water quality X Yes No BMPs are required for new or redevelopment projects (that disturb greater than or equal --
to one acre, including projects less than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of
development or sale?
Note that th e response to this ques tion do es not need to address roadway projects described
on th e Division memo dat ed I 120112.
f. Required Submittal
If the answer to Question 1 above was "yes," provide the regulatory language and reference section in applicable rule
addressed in Question 1. If the rule reference s other sections or manuals which contain the permanent water quality
BMP requirements, include the applicable language and references from those documents .
g. Required Action: Check the following that best represents your program status at the time of the
October 15, 2012 response date.
i . X Question 1 was answered "Yes."
If option i. cannot be accurately checked, then check ii. and follow the instructions.
ii. __ Submit a Non-compliance notification and a program modification according to Part
11.B.l(a)(l-3) and Part l.E.2(a) of the Permit detailing how the Permittee's program will be
modified to match one of the compliant options represented by i., above.
17of20
2. Water Quality Strategy
1.
a. Summary: Part l.B.5(a)(l) of the Permit requires a strategy for permanent water quality water quality BMPs.
A design standard (e.g., UDFCD Volume 3 -Water Quality Capture Volume) is an example of a water
quality strategy.
b. Example of a compliant program:
• The permittee's program manual states that water quality capture volume (WQCV) and structural
BMPs from UDFCD Technical Criteria manual have been adopted as a design standard for all
development projects.
• The permittee's program manual states that water quality capture volume and structural BMPs from
UDFCD Technical Criteria manual have been adopted as a design standard for new development
projects; and states that structural and non structural BMPs will be implemented for redevelopment
projects to achieve 80% TSS removal. The permittee's program documentation includes perfonnance
documentation of the nonstructural BMPs details how the permittee determines if the requirements for
permanent water quality BMPs have been met.
c. Example of a non-compliant program:
• The permittee's program manual states that water quality capture volume and structural BMPs from
UDFCD Technical Criteria manual have been adopted as a design standard. However redevelopment
projects are provided waivers from implementing water quality BMPs designed in accordance UDFCD
Volume 3.
• The permittee's program has not established a design standard or water quality strategy.
d. Compliance Goal: The Division would like to confirm the Permittee's strategy for permanent water quality
water quality BMPs.
e. Question:
Mark the response
that matches the
Permittee's program
Does the Pennittee's water quality strategy for permanent water quality BMPs submitted X Yes No --
in the Program Description Document include a design standard (e.g., Volume 3 WQCV)
for permanent water quality BMPs implemented for all required projects?
f. Required Submittal:
1. Provide the following information as a separate attachment
a. If the Answer to Question 1, above was "yes," provide a copy of the design standard addressed by
Question 1, or cite a third party design standard(s) (e.g., UDFCD Vol. 3 or CDOT).
b. If the Answer to Question 1, above was "no," provide:
1. A summary of the water quality strategy for permanent water quality BMPs
IL A discussion of the standard or process for how the Permittee determines if the requirements
for permanent water quality BMPs have been met. The discussion must address how this
determination is enforceable by the Permittee if it is determined the requirements were not
met.
g. Required Action: Check the following that best represents your program status at the time of the
October 15, 2012 response date.
1. -x _Question 1 was answered "yes ."
ii. __ Question 1 was answered "no," and the supporting documentation required by Required
Submittal l .b. identifies the strategy and how the strategy is enforceable, as required by Parts
18 of20
I.B.5(a)(l) and (5).
If option i. or ii. cannot be accurately checked, then check iii. and follow the instructions.
iii. __ Submit a Non-compliance notification and a program modification according to Part
II.B.l(a)(l-3) and Part I.E.2(a) of the Permit detailing how the Permittee's program will be
modified to match one of the compliant options represented by i. or ii., above.
3. Waivers, exemptions, exclusions from post-construction site program requirements
a. Summary: Part I.B.5(a) of the Perm.it requires the Perm.ittee to develop, implement and enforce a program to
address stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment projects that disturb one or more acres;
or less than one acre if part of a larger common plan of development. The Division has observed during
program audits that specific projects are listed in the Perm.ittee's program documentation (e.g., codes,
ordinance, program manuals) as exempt from the Permittee's post-construction site program.
b. Projects on State land: In accordance with the MS4 regulations and perm.its, if an MS4 pem1ittee does not
have the authority under State or local law to require a facility operating on State land to comply with the
conditions of its New-Development/Redevelopment ordinances, then the MS4 permittee is not liable under
the perm.it to do so
c. Example of a compliant program:
• The permittee's regulatory mechanism and program documentation states that permanent water quality
BMPs designed in accordance with UDFCD Volume 3, or other adopted specifications, are required for
projects that disturb one or more acres; or less than one acre if part of a larger common plan of
development.
d. Example of a non-compliant program:
• The permittee's program manual lists activities that are not required to implement permanent water
quality BMPs without considering or referencing the area of disturbance. Examples of waivers ,
exemptions, exclusions include:
o Single family lots
o Project exempted by the public works director
o Projects exempted based on geologic conditions
o Redevelopment projects that decrease impervious area
Note that no Program Descriptions submitted by permittees during the 2008 MS4 permit renewal process
acknowledged the existence of waivers, exemptions or exclusions that ha ve been subsequently found during
program audits .
e. Compliance Goal: To have the Perm.ittee confirm the presence or absence of waiver language. If waiver
language is included, then the Permittee must have additional documentation to explain how the waiver can
be applied and that the waiver will not be applied in a manner that allows a project that disturbs one or more
acres or less than one acre when part of a larger common plan of development to avoid implementing a
permanent water quality BMP and being part of the Permittee's post-construction sites program for the
required site plan review, inspection and enforcement. Note it is not a violation to have a waiver as long as it
is clear that the waiver will not be applied in a manner that will result in failure to implement BMPs, as
required by the Perm.it or meet other Permit conditions.
f. Questions:
Answering 'yes' or 'no' is not automatically associated with compliance or non-Mark the response
compliance. that matches the
Permittee's program
1. Are there any waivers, exemptions, exclusions, or similar allowances in program Yes x No regulations, code, or policies from requirements to implement permanent water ----
19of20
quality BMPs? (E.g., redevelopment projects that decrease impervious area are
exempt from water quality BMPs.) Note that the response to this question does not
need to address roadway projects described on the Division memo dated 1/20/12.
2 . If question 1 was answered "Yes": Is there program documentation (e.g., in the Yes No regulatory mechanism or in separate procedures) to clarify that the waivers cannot be ----
applied in a manner that would avoid implementing water quality BMPs for a new
development or redevelopment project that meets the Permittee 's stated water quality
standard for any site that disturbs one or more acres ; or less than one acre if part of a
larger common plan of development?
g. Required Submittal:
1. If the answer to Question 1, above, was "yes," provide as an attachment the specific waiver language,
including a reference to where the waiver is located (e.g., cite the section of code or the document).
2. If the answer to Question 2, above, was "yes," provide the program documentation language that clarifies the
waiver implementation, including a reference to where it is located (e.g., cite the section of code or the
document).
h. Required Action: Check the following that best represents your program status at the time of the
October 15, 2012 response date.
1. X Question I was answered "no."
1t. __ Question 1 was answered "yes," and Question 2 was answered "yes."
If option i. or ii. cannot be accurately checked, then check iii. and follow the instructions.
m . __ Submit a Non-compliance notification and a program modification according to Part
11.B.l(a)(l-3) and Part I.E.2(a) of the Permit detailing how the Permittee's program will be
modified to match one of the compliant options represented by i. or ii. above.
i. Recommended Action:
• The Division recommends that permittees conduct a word search in program documentation for
"waivers", "exemptions", and "exclusions" to determine if these potentially non-compliant elements
exist. Permittees permitted under the COR-080000 general permit are encouraged to review the additional
requirements detailed in part I.B.5.b and compare the requirements to the Permittee's program
documentation and implementation of the post-construction sites program for the part of the Permittee's
MS4 that drains into the Cherry Creek Reservoir Basin. The Permittee is encouraged to contact the
Division prior to submittal of this form, if there is uncertain compliance with this element.
20 of20