EDARP
Project Review Comments
- Project Name
- FAWWA / Bar-X Regional Water Distribution System
- Description
- Construction of a new treatment plant designed to treat 2.0-million gallons per day (6,350 SFEs) with a second phase designed to treat an additional 2.0-million gallons per day (6,350 SFEs); 27 potential well sites (typically two wells per site), interconnecting pipelines, appurtenant facilities, and an approximate 17.6-mile-long 24-30” transmission line from Bar X Ranch, Winsome, and Shamrock West Ranch to treatment and storage facilities located in the northern portion of Sterling Ranch; project to be considered a matter of state interest
- Location
- Applicant
-
JDS-Hydro Consultants, Inc.
Gwen Dall ( GWENDOLYN.DALL@RESPEC.COM )
(719) 402-0014 Gwen Dall ( GWENDOLYN.DALL@RESPEC.COM )
(719) 402-0014 - File Number
- AASI214
- Project Manager
- Kari Parsons
- Status
- Closed
- Created
- 3/11/2021 8:30:03 AM
View: Project Documents
| Agency | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| View |
EPC Parks Department
5/13/2022 3:22:03 PM |
El Paso County Community Services / Parks Final Comments - Please See Attached Documents (Administrative Comments Only - No Park Advisory Board Endorsement Necessary) | 5/13/2022 3:22:03 PM |
|
EPC Stormwater Review
5/10/2022 5:55:53 PM |
EPC Stormwater has no comments at this time. All Stormwater documents will be reviewed with the ESQCP Application. Reviewed by: Christina Prete, P.E. Stormwater Engineer III christinaprete@elpasoco.com |
5/10/2022 5:55:53 PM | |
|
Woodmoor Water and Sanitation District
5/9/2022 6:29:52 PM |
No comments. | 5/9/2022 6:29:52 PM | |
|
Colorado Geological Survey
5/9/2022 2:09:07 PM |
1. The summary information on the project states that the application is for pipelines and wells and that “No pumps are required as all contemplated water supplies will gravity flow to the water treatment and storage facilities.”. This is very misleading since the proposed wells are in “nontributary” confined aquifers. Later in the application it is stated that the aquifers are not in artesian conditions and therefore wells will not flow. The only way to produce water from non-artesian flowing wells is using pumps. The proposed wellfields will require substantial capital investment and continuous operating expenses to produce the water necessary to supply the end-of-pipeline users. The necessity of wellfield investment and operation needs to be addressed. 2. The summary lists three properties that have adjudicated “nontributary” water rights for Denver Basin bedrock aquifers available as water source. Although Appendix K includes documentation of water rights determination and adjudication for three sets of water rights, accompanying maps seem to be inconsistent with the map of the service area (Appendix A). Only the Bar X/ McClune documentation seems to match. It is also not clear how the water rights have been conveyed to FAWWA. Better and more detailed information should be submitted on the nontributary water rights. 3. It is not clear how the entire project, water supply and end users, fit within boundaries of Designated Groundwater Basins. It appears that much of the area falls within the Upper Black Squirrel Basin, but that is not delineated in the maps reviewed. Are there any areas that fall outside that basin or within adjoining Designated Groundwater basins? This pertains to end user districts and proposed wellfields. Where are the other potential wellfields relative to the designated basins? This could have relevance to transporting water into and out of designated groundwater basins. Designated Groundwater Basin boundaries should be included in all maps and potential concerns of water transfers across those boundaries should be addressed. 4. The application lists available water from the three proposed wellfields with some certainty, yet the available water falls short of anticipated long-term needs. It does refer to other properties where water “may” be available to purchase to add to the available water. This seems too speculative for the anticipated growth needs. 5. The application proposes Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) and Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) as future programs to cover long-term water supplies for the users. While this sounds like a reasonable plan, no detail is provided on how this would be implemented, particularly with respect to source of recharge water. It does mention possible source from Colorado Springs, or the Arkansas River, but this appears speculative. There needs to be a detailed and concrete plan for MAR options to merit credibility. 6. The response to how the Project conforms to regional and state planning policies states that no agricultural land will be taken out of production as a result of this project. As stated in bullet 5 above, there is no clear plan to implement MAR, particularly in reference to source water. If any water is obtained from tributary sources, whether it be native Arkansas River Basin or imported west slope water, it most likely would have some ties to a loss of water for agriculture. This is a disconnect that requires clarification. 7. In the Groundwater Quality section (17) the response to groundwater flow directions states that because the aquifers in which the wells will be developed there is no groundwater flow. This is incorrect. There are gradients in the potentiometric surface for each of the confined aquifers and there is lateral flow. Pumping from those aquifers using the proposed wellfields will change the potentiometric surface and will change flow patterns and could impact adjacent landowners. 8. It appears that the project acknowledges and adheres to the El Paso County 300-year rule for water availability in determining water availability from the “nontributary” Denver Basin aquifers. This does stretch out the lifetime of water supply from these bedrock aquifers by estimating an annual pumping allotment from 100 years factor of total water in place as factored in the Denver Basin Rules to 300 years. What is not addressed directly is that, while the lifetime of the water supply may be “stretched out” from 100 to 300 years, water levels will decline from depletions. Declining water levels will result in lower pumping yields and higher pumping costs. This goes back to the first comment that the application says there will be no pumping. Wellfield capital investment and long-term pumping costs must be included in this project application. Submitted by Peter Barkmann, Senior Hydrogeologist (emeritus) Colorado Geological Survey email at barkmann@mines.edu |
5/9/2022 2:09:07 PM | |
|
County Attorney - Development Review
5/9/2022 11:45:27 AM |
No comments from County Attorney - Development Review at this time. | 5/9/2022 11:45:27 AM | |
|
Colorado Geological Survey
5/8/2022 1:05:48 PM |
The 1041 application includes section “(20) Soils, Geologic Conditions and Natural Hazards.” Part (a) states “Map and/or description of soils, geologic conditions, and natural hazards including but not limited to soil types, drainage areas, slopes, avalanche areas, debris fans, mud flows, rock slide areas, faults and fissures, seismic history, and wildfire hazard areas, all as relevant to the Project area. The applicant has provided good data on the soil types and references Appendix I for the geotechnical report. The 1041 application specifically states that the geologic conditions and natural hazards that are addressed include but are not limited to and then provides the list quoted above of some of the significant geologic conditions that should be addressed if identified at the site. As indicated in the 1041 application, this list should not be considered complete or specifically indicative of actual site geology. Geologic conditions with the potential to significantly impact the underground pipeline and associated infrastructure exist within the proposed waterline area may also include: • shallow very hard bedrock, • potentially unstable and steep slopes, • loose, easily erodible soils, • collapsible soils, • expansive soils, • shallow groundwater, • seasonally shallow and perched groundwater, and, • scour and erosion potential during flooding. The Subsurface Soil Investigation prepared by Entech Engineering, Inc. (March 30, 2022) is included in Appendix I as the Geotechnical Report for the project. The scope of the report by Entech does not appear to include addressing the Geologic Conditions or the Natural Hazards of the project. The El Paso County Engineering Criteria Manual (ECM) provides guidance for the type of Soils and Geology investigations and reports required for any public improvements within the county. County Code includes the other types of geologic conditions that can pose hazards and constraints to the pipeline project listed above. CGS recommends that Entech be provided the opportunity to expand their initial work to include site-specific geologic mapping and identification of geologic hazards and constraints as outlined both in the 1041 application and in County Code requirements for a Soils and Geology report. We recommend that: • Site-specific geologic mapping be conducted at an appropriate scale for the project (this can be 1:24 000 or larger {smaller map area} depending on the detail available for the mapping. • The report specifically lists the geologic hazards and constraints expected along the pipeline and its infrastructure, such as water treatment facilities, as indicated by site geology. The pipeline crosses the quadrangles of Black Forest, Estonville, and Falcon. All three quadrangles have recent geologic mapping at a scale of 1:24 000 and two (Eastonville and Falcon) have 1041 mapping with geology and geologic hazards also at a scale of 1:24 000. These can form the basis of a project geologic map that is used to determine the geologic conditions and associated potential hazards and constraints generally expected along the pipeline and at its infrastructure locations. Submitted 5/8/2022 by Jonathan R. Lovekin, Senior Engineering Geologist, Colorado Geological Survey, jlovekin@mines.edu |
5/8/2022 1:05:48 PM | |
|
Tri-Lakes-Monument Fire Protection District
5/6/2022 8:38:55 AM |
We have no comments on the project. We are curious if there is a possibility for hydrants to be located in this project for fire suppression? | 5/6/2022 8:38:55 AM | |
| View |
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
5/4/2022 1:51:34 PM |
Please find CDPHE's standard comments attached | 5/4/2022 1:51:34 PM |
|
Black Forest Fire Protection District
5/3/2022 10:39:29 AM |
Black Forest Fire Rescue. Are their plans to include fire hydrants along the pipeline at reasonable intervals for firefighting use? JMR |
5/3/2022 10:39:29 AM | |
|
Mountain View Electric Association, Inc.
5/2/2022 1:47:27 PM |
No comment at this time | 5/2/2022 1:47:27 PM | |
|
Colorado State Forest Service
5/2/2022 9:38:00 AM |
The CSFS has no comment on this project | 5/2/2022 9:38:00 AM | |
| View |
EPC Environmental Services
4/28/2022 10:30:13 AM |
4/28/2022 10:30:13 AM | |
|
PCD Engineering Division
4/27/2022 1:34:03 PM |
Engineering defers site-specific review and comments to the site development plan. Elizabeth Nijkamp 719-237-7206 |
4/27/2022 1:34:03 PM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
4/27/2022 12:21:19 PM |
Craig Dossey PCD Executive Director reviewed resubmittal and discussed comments directly with the applicants. | 4/27/2022 12:21:19 PM | |
|
Colorado Springs Public Works
4/25/2022 11:45:17 AM |
Engineering Development Review has no comments on this item. Joel Dagnillo, P.E. Engineering Development Review City of Colorado Springs (719)385-5412 Joel.dagnillo@coloradosprings.gov |
4/25/2022 11:45:17 AM | |
| View |
El Paso County Conservation Dist
4/18/2022 6:00:54 PM |
EPCCD grass seed native shotgun mix info | 4/18/2022 6:00:54 PM |
| View |
El Paso County Conservation Dist
4/18/2022 5:59:33 PM |
EPCCD brief comments attached as a .docx | 4/18/2022 5:59:33 PM |
|
Cherokee Metro Dist
4/15/2022 3:03:53 PM |
No Comments | 4/15/2022 3:03:53 PM | |
|
Black Forest Land Use Committee
4/13/2022 7:52:06 AM |
The Black Forest Land Use Committee feels that projects like this are unwise and short-sighted because they are extracting huge amounts of non-renewable water from the Denver Basin deeper aquifers with very limited knowledge of how it will affect the hundreds of private wells in the Dawson aquifer above it. The experience of water providers all across northern El Paso County has shown that while the state declared they had plenty of water, all of them are searching for new sources because their wells are producing less and less. Approval of this project will only repeat this negative outcome. The profusion of commercial wells in this area is especially troubling. Cherokee Metro is pumping water to its customers in Colorado Springs and has made an initial commitment to supply water to the proposed Flying Horse North with 1751 homes and a 225-rooom hotel. Now this proposal plans to take more water from High Forest Ranch and Bar-X ranch nearby, further stressing the aquifers. Cherokee Metro has drilled 4 wells so far and 3 of them have produced very poorly. There is evidence that water is contained in pockets in the Denver Basin and not in large pools so commercial extraction is risky. Even when good water production is found, those wells decline in volume over time as Falcon and Meridian Hills are experiencing right now. Municipalities such as Falcon and residential developments such as Sterling Ranch and Flying Horse North must be required to find renewable water sources for long-term supply and reliability. Approval of this proposal is unwise in the long term and should not be approved. |
4/13/2022 7:52:06 AM | |
|
Colorado Springs Utilities, Dev, Svc.(includes water resources)
4/12/2022 7:42:01 AM |
It looks like this project is outside of our service area. CS Utilities Development Services has no review comments. Corey Masoumi | Engineering Support Coordinator 719-668-1856 cmasoumi@csu.org |
4/12/2022 7:42:01 AM | |
|
Academy SD 20 Building Fund
4/12/2022 7:34:23 AM |
Academy District 20 is in receipt of File# AASI214 for approval of the FAWA/Bar-X Regional Water Distribution System. The District has no comment regarding this request. If you need additional information, please contact me. Don Smith Planning Consultant |
4/12/2022 7:34:23 AM | |
|
Colorado Springs Public Works
4/11/2022 9:11:40 AM |
Traffic Engineering has no comments on this item. Brian Shevock Public Works/Traffic Engineering Traffic Engineer City of Colorado Springs brian.shevock@coloradosprings.gov (719) 385-7620 |
4/11/2022 9:11:40 AM | |
|
RBD Floodplain
4/6/2022 1:50:19 PM |
Floodplain has no comment on subterranean pipe located in the floodplain. No clear plan provided showing whether or not "Appurtenances" are located in the floodplain (SFHA). Please indicate via comment response if None are located in the SFHA, if there are Appurtenances located in the SFHA provide additional detail. |
4/6/2022 1:50:19 PM | |
| View |
PCD Project Manager
11/19/2021 2:03:23 PM |
Written Pre App Comments all applicable 1041 Sections. | 11/19/2021 2:03:23 PM |
| View |
PCD Project Manager
11/18/2021 12:25:56 PM |
McCune Ranch Map Redline |
11/18/2021 12:25:56 PM |
| View |
PCD Project Manager
11/18/2021 12:25:26 PM |
Bar X Wellfield Map redline | 11/18/2021 12:25:26 PM |
| View |
PCD Project Manager
11/18/2021 12:44:54 PM |
Exhibit B Comments-. See redlines. | 11/18/2021 12:44:54 PM |
|
PCD Project Manager
11/18/2021 12:13:00 PM |
I don't see that appendix A Vicinity Map was uploaded. | 11/18/2021 12:13:00 PM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
11/18/2021 12:10:33 PM |
The document upload as a "zoning map" is not labeled as such. | 11/18/2021 12:10:33 PM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
11/18/2021 12:09:39 PM |
Provide the summary for the applicants mitigation of wetlands for the project. Are you proceeding with Army Corp of Eng 404 permit? When? If not, why please provide analysis of the data as it relates to your project. To answer the 1041 questions you need to provide the reports and analysis. | 11/18/2021 12:09:39 PM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
11/18/2021 12:06:57 PM |
Provide the geotechnical report with the 1041. To answer the 1041 questions you have to have reports completed. State Statue provides that CGS reviews the Soils and Geology report in conjunction with the 1041 application. | 11/18/2021 12:06:57 PM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
11/18/2021 11:57:18 AM |
Is this project souly to serve the Sterling Ranch development? Will it not serve Retreat at TimberRidge, The Jaynes property, Elkhorn, etc? The market study provided is only for Sterling Ranch. Perhaps you need a supplement document that identifies the quantities of water, population (existing and future) of those the line and wells will benefit. This is required to answer the 1041 section questions. | 11/18/2021 11:57:18 AM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
11/18/2021 11:52:55 AM |
Complete legal description is required. | 11/18/2021 11:52:55 AM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
11/18/2021 11:52:19 AM |
The item uploaded as "land use map" is labeled as row and easement map. Correct map title. | 11/18/2021 11:52:19 AM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
11/18/2021 11:49:00 AM |
A conceptual drainage report is required with a 1041. There is no way to answer the required questions without doing bsic reporting. A site specific report will be required with the site dev plan. | 11/18/2021 11:49:00 AM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
11/18/2021 11:47:48 AM |
Please provide proof that the design has been submitted to CDPHE. Has the applicant began the process with CDPHE? How do we site lines and wells if the concept of the design has not been acknowledged by the CDPHE? | 11/18/2021 11:47:48 AM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
11/18/2021 11:46:01 AM |
THE CNHP correspondence indicates that "sensitive habitat were found" That being said please identify (map) which lines or wells are probable to be within these sensitive areas. Provide a response on how the project will avoid or mitigate these sensitive areas. | 11/18/2021 11:46:01 AM |