TAC Minutes - Chatfield Watershed Authority

1

Authority Board Chair: Lesley Dahlkemper Authority Board Vice-Chair: Lora Thomas

TAC Chair: Mary Kay Provaznik TAC Vice-Chair: David Van Dellen

TAC Minutes

Chatfield Watershed Authority Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting

J a n u a r y 5 , 2021

2:00 p. m. – 4:00 p. m.

GoToMeeting Online

Member Attendees:

David Van Dellen (Town of Castle Rock)

Jim Dederick (Douglas County)

Patrick O’Connell (Jefferson County)

Weston Martin (Plum Creek)

Barbara Biggs (Roxborough W&S) (CWA Board)

Mary Kay Provaznik (Dominion Water & Sanitation

District)

Bob Neal (Dominion Water & Sanitation District)

Alison Witheridge (Denver Water) (CWA Board)

Mark Marlowe (Town of Castle Rock)

Carolyn Roan (City of Littleton)

Alternate Members, Other Associate Agencies and

Attendees:

Jim Walker (Pine Canyon Representative)

Alan Leak (RESPEC)

Kurt Walker (Pine Canyon Representative)

Cathy Begej (JCD)

Bob Frachetti (Pine Canyon Representative)

Kris Wahlers (Chatfield State Park)

Joni Nuttle (CDPHE)

2:00 p.m. Authority TAC Call to Order

• Introductions

• TAC Member disclosures

Meeting was called to order by David Van Dellen Vice-Chair of TAC at 2:04 pm. There were no disclosures.

Action Items/Recommendation to Board Mary Kay Prova znik & David Van Dellen

A. Approval of Agenda It was moved by Pat O’Connell and seconded by Jim Dederick to approve the agenda; motion carried unanimously.

B. Approval of December 1, 2020 TAC Meeting Minutes

It was moved by Weston Martin and seconded by Jim Dederick to approve the December1, 2020 TAC meeting minutes with change to include distinction under members between TAC and Board; motion carried unanimously.

C. Review/Approval of Invoices for Payment - The table summarizes the invoices included in the TAC packet.

2

There was discussion on payment on invoices and unpaid Pine Canyon billing. It was approved to pay all invoices.

Invoices < $5,000 and within Budget and Scope (Manager’s Approval)

Lynker_11 30 20 Chatfield_Watershed_Invoice #S1006257 $750.00

Hughes and Stuart_Invoice_2020073-CWA WordPress Training $150.00

Inv_19822_from_TWS_FINANCIAL_INC._24904 November 2020 $1,000.00

Chartrand_20.12.15 Pine Canyon Application INVOICE November 2020 #PCA-0003 $1,600.00

Chartrand_20.12.15 CWA INVOICE November 2020 #CWA-0006 $1,950.00

RESPEC_3867-Chatfield-INV-30NOV20 $3,465.00

Invoices $5,000 - $15,000 and within Budget and Scope (TAC Approval*)

Invoices > $15,000 and/or any Amount not within Budget or Scope (Board Approval)

*Also requires post-payment Board ratification at next quarterly Board Meeting

D. TAC 2021 Chair and Vice-Chair Selection

Mary Kay Provaznik will be stepping down from the TAC Chair position. Ratify to move Vice-Chair into Chair position leaving the Vice-Chair position open. Motion made by Weston Martin to have David Van Dellen move into the TAC Chair position and seconded by Pat O’Connell; motion carried unanimously with one abstention by David Van Dellen. Motion by Jim Dederick to select Weston Martin for the Vice-Chair position and seconded by Bob Neal; motion carried unanimously with one abstention by Weston Martin.

E. Recommendation on Pine Canyon Water & Sanitation District / JRW Families NPS to Point

Source Trade Application Package The Site Application is contingent on the Trade Application. Recommendation can only be made on the Trade Application at this time. The Pine Canyon team led by Bob Frachetti presented a PowerPoint to review the issues. Pine Canyon is planning development on a 540-acre parcel. They are forming a Special District to operate a reclamation facility and asking for a recommendation today. Pine Canyon presented a site application summary and phosphorus management strategy. RESPEC followed this presentation with a memo restating information on the application package as a consolidated summary. A timeline of the application package was provided. Pine Canyon would like a referral letter from CWA by January of 2021. The applicant has not specifically requested CWA to restart the review process. Pine Canyon submitted a response to CDPHE’s RFI dated December 10th. CDPHE has not commented on Pine Canyon’s response to CDPHE’s RFI. RESPEC will need information from CDPHE, most specifically, CDPHE legal criteria to allow NPS trade in an MS4 area. Phosphorus reductions requested by MS4 criteria are fairly extensive. CDPHE needs to be clear on what would be available for trade after MS4 criteria is met. The applicant requested examples of phosphorus reduction projects. They were referred to the 2015 Chatfield Watershed Plan. The Cherry Creek Watershed Authority has also done studies on phosphorus reduction. The Ken Caryl Ranch and Massy Draw data sets could provide information. Based on RESPEC’s memo, RESPEC does not have enough information to make a recommendation today. Do the TAC members want to make a recommendation? TAC needs more information prior to making any type of recommendation. Regarding non-proliferation of waste treatment plants in the area, why is Pine Canyon not consolidating? Consolidation was considered for multiple years. They were unable to reach agreement on annexation through Castle Rock. Castle Rock believes consolidation is still an option. With the

3

nature of the trade there is a lot of uncertainty. This type of trade has not been made in the past. The concern is that the guarantee of the source of the trade is not clear. Quantifying what a true removal would be difficult.

Motion made by Weston Martin to not move forward with a recommendation at this time until there is more information to review and was seconded by Bob Neal; motion carried unanimously. Action: Include the RESPEC memo in this minutes package.

F. Approve to submit CDPHE Waste Consolidation Letter TAC members have been considering the issue of consolidation. The legal consultant was asked to develop a letter to address this topic with the intent to communicate TAC concerns to CDPHE. The letter was included in the meeting packet. Motion made by Pat O’Connell to authorize and send the letter to CDPHE and seconded by Weston Martin; motion carried unanimously.

Technical Updates

A. Technical Member Updates a) RESPEC (Alan Leak)

i) Triennial Review Subcommittee Update - The committee has not met. RESPEC intends to send out an invite to the committee and reach out to CDPHE to hold another meeting to inform continued preparations. Barb Biggs reached out to Perry Park / Louviers about possible adjustments to regulations. They are aware of the situation. If others have additional input, please contact Alan.

b) Other Member - None

B. Manager’s Update (Diane Kielty) a) Pine Canyon Invoice Payment Status

i) Charges Dispute The applicant was made aware in July that a new Cost of Review policy would go into effect during their application process. The applicant understanding is that they are grandfathered in on the 2017 Cost of Review policy and that the cost of review only covered the trade application. The 2017 policy includes site applications. Review costs are reduced for members, but even members would be required to cover costs above minimum review. CWA received Pine Canyon’s Trade and Site applications concurrently and our policy states the intent for the applicant to pay all costs of review on application packages received. Moving forward with any type of review without the outstanding balance of Pine Canyon dues being paid is a critical issue to continuing the review process. It would be helpful to know from the applicant if costs will be covered. The letter CWA received from Pine Canyon states they intend to pay for the phosphorus trade review only. The applicant asked for an estimate going forward. The letter of commitment from the applicant is based on their interpretation of CWA’s authority to review. The applicant views CWA, in its capacity as an agency, review rights for site applications as different than CWA’s review rights under Regulation 73. This is the distinction the applicant made on determining their payment for CWA’s review. TAC has limited authority on financial matters. There has been extensive communication back and forth and the application has not been complete. The review costs are increasing as questions continued to be answered by the applicant. It is TAC’s understanding that there would not be an impact to the CWA budget when applications are received and reviewed. This needs to be resolved before we move forward. RESPEC will need approval from TAC to continue the package review. This issue will need to go before the Board. Motion made to withhold any further action on the Pine Canyon application until the payment issue is resolved or TAC receives direction from the CWA Board by Weston Martin and seconded by Carolyn Roan; motion carried unanimously.

4

b) Legal Consultant Selection Committee Update Three applications were received. The review committee is entering into the review process.

c) Website Hosting & Maintenance Transition Update Concern for the integrity of the website which is nearing obsolete. Back-up plan to create a Chatfield webpag on the Assembly site as placeholder if necessary.

d) Board Election Update

Barb Biggs (WSD Members) and Alison Witheridge (Other Members) were both elected for second two-year terms through end of 2022.

e) TAC Representative Forms Request have been distributed. Program Manager made a request that

members please complete the form and return it to her.

C. Financial Recap a) November 2020 Financial Summary was presented to the committee.

Upcoming Meetings

A. Next Scheduled TAC Meetings:

a) Tuesday, February 2, 2021: 2:00 – 4:00 p.m., GoToMeeting Virtual

B. Next Scheduled Board Meeting: a) Monday, January 25, 2021: 3:00 – 5:00 pm, GoToMeeting

3:52 p.m. Adjournment of Meeting

respec.com

720 South Colorado Blvd.

Suite 410 S

Denver, CO 80246

303.757.3655

EXTERNAL MEMORANDUM

To: Chatfield Watershed Authority Technical Advisory Committee (“CWATAC”)

From: Alan J. Leak, P.E. Principal RESPEC 720 South Colorado Blvd., Suite 410 S Denver, CO 80246

Date: January 5, 2021

Subject: Pine Canyon Water and Sanitation District – Phosphorus Trade Application and Pine Canyon Water Reclamation Facility Site Application - Status Report

PROJECT SUMMARY Initial Site Application for a WWTF (0.405 mgd design capacity) and an initial Phosphorus Non-Point Source to Point Source Trade Application (1,528 lbs/yr from cattle grazing to 763 lbs/yr. WWTF discharging to East Plum Creek).

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS /DOCUMENTS / Regulation #73

/ Chatfield Watershed Authority (“CWA”) Water Quality Trading Guidelines (4/25/2007)

/ CWA Policy - Review Criteria for Site Location and Design Approvals (5/21/2018)

/ Colorado Pollutant Trading Policy (October 2004)

TIMELINE / June 20, 2020 - Draft Site Application submitted to CWA

/ June 20, 2020 – Phosphorus Trade Application Engineering Report submitted to the CWA

/ July 17, 2020 – Final Site Application Submitted to the CWA

/ July 22, 2020 - Initial review fee check received / Formal CWA review period started

/ July 29, 2020 - RESPEC Review Status Report to the CWATAC

/ August 18, 2020 – RESPEC initial review comments on the Site and Phosphorus Trade Application

/ September 18, 2020 – Applicant’s response to RESPEC’s August 18, 2020 initial review comments

Chatfield Watershed Authority TAC // 2 January 5, 2021

/ September 30, 2020 – RESPEC Status Report to the CWATAC

/ October 2, 2020 – Applicants Email to CWA requesting that the TAC not make a recommendation or determination on either the Site Application or Trade Request until applicant is able to provide a response and additional information for due consideration.

/ October 27, 2020 – CDPHE Request for Information to Applicant on the Site Application. CDPHE places the project on hold pending resolution of CDPHE’s issues.

/ December 10,2020 – Applicant provides a response letter to CDPHE’s RFI.

/ December 21, 2020 – Applicant Email to RESPEC requesting the Applicant be placed on the January 5, 2021, TAC meeting and provides additional input on the Applicants proposals.

/ December 23, 2020 – Applicant Email to RESPEC requesting the Applicant be placed on the January 5, 2021, TAC meeting and requesting the TAC:

o 1. Consider and issue their recommendation regarding PCWSD/JRW’s Site Application for the proposed Pine Canyon Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF), and,

o 2. Consider and issue their recommendation regarding PCWSD/JRW’s Non-point to Point Source Phosphorus Trade Application.

/ December 29, 2020 – Applicant Email to RESPEC providing the findings of a modeling study of the phosphorus generated from the Pine Canyon Ranch and requests a reduction in the proposed trade credit to 380.5 pounds per year.

As required by the CWA Trading Guidelines and Regulation 22, we have been in coordination with Joni Nuttle at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Water Quality Control Division (“Division”) throughout this process regarding the applications. The Division has taken no position to date on the applications and has not responded to the RFI response from the Applicant.

SITE APPLICATION The site application was initially reviewed based upon the CWA’s Review Criteria for Site Location and Design Approvals. The criteria for review is presented in the “Authority Review Criteria” section as follows:

1. Phosphorus Wasteload Allocation - Control Regulation 73 includes phosphorus wasteload allocations (in pounds per year) that are distributed among sources. Section 73.3.2(c) provides a list of sources including WWTFs and each source’s respective wasteload allocation. The Applicant will demonstrate the annual phosphorus wasteload allocation is not in exceedance and/or provides a plan of how the Applicant will remain within the designated annual phosphorus wasteload allocation.

2. Phosphorus Concentration Limit - Control Regulation 73 includes the design capacity discharge from a receiving WWTF will not exceed 1.0 mg/l total phosphorus as a 30-day average concentration.

3. Emergency Response Criteria - The CWA has previously adopted for its use the March 28, 2002, Cherry Creek Reservoir Watershed Site Application Review Process Emergency Response Plan Criteria (Cherry Creek ERP Criteria). The Applicant will demonstrate in the site


location approval application that all Cherry Creek ERP Criteria are addressed. For WWTFs each Applicant will include information regarding generator back-up systems, response plan to overflow, plans to avoid spills, and cover all Cherry Creek ERP Criteria.

Comments on the Site Application were provided to the Applicant on August 18, 2020, and on September 30, 2020. The Applicant’s responses to these comments were provided directly to the TAC on September 18, 2020, and indirectly to the CDPHE on December 10,2020.

PHOSPHORUS TRADE APPLICATION There are three possible options for obtaining a phosphorus wasteload allocation for new point source treatment facilities per Regulation #73 and the CWA Trading guidelines:

/ Transfer from an existing point source discharger’s allocation (73.3(2)(g))

/ Non-point to point source trade (73.3(2)(e))

/ Point source allocation from the Reserve/Emergency Allocation (73.3(2)(h))

The Applicant has applied for a non-point to point source trade (73.3(2)(e)) based upon removal of cattle and horses from the identified property.

This application was reviewed based upon “Section VI. Non-point Source to Point Sources Trade” of the CWA Trading guidelines. Section D of the guidelines establishes the criteria for evaluation of the trade as follows:

D. Criteria for Nonpoint Source to Point Source Trades. When considering whether to approve a Trade Project proposal, the Authority and the Division shall consider, inter alia:

1. Reliability and certainty of calculating nonpoint source phosphorus removals;

2. Removal technology and efficiency;

3. Technological specifications of project;

4. Reliability of project operations and maintenance;

5. Extent and sufficiency of stormwater best management practices required for any new development served by the project;

6. Extent and sufficiency of stormwater best management practices during construction of the project;

7. The net effect of the project on phosphorus loads and overall water quality in the watershed;

8. Reliability of project maintenance and operations;

9. Consistency with these Guidelines and the Control Regulation; and

10. Any other factors the Authority and the Division deem necessary to evaluate the proposal.

11. In reviewing an Application, the Authority and the Division shall use the criteria outlined in these Guidelines. To the extent that these Guidelines do not address an issue, the Colorado Pollutant Trading Policy, adopted by the Division, will govern.

Comments on the Phosphorus Trade Application were provided to the Applicant on August 18, 2020, and on September 30, 2020. The Applicant’s responses to these comments were provided directly to the TAC on September 18, 2020, and indirectly to the CDPHE on December 10,2020.


COMMENTS ON THE APPLICANT’S DECEMBER 10, 2020, SUBMITTAL TO THE CDPHE AND EMAIL CORRESPONDANCE TO RESPEC ON DECEMBER 21, 23, AND 29, 2020. The Applicant’s December 10, 2020, response to the CDPHE contains information that may address RESPEC’s comments from our September 30, 2020, status report. However, the Applicant has not specifically requested the CWA to restart the review of their applications. The CDPHE has not yet commented on the Applicant’s December 10, 2020, response to the CDPHE RFI. The Applicant has disputed charges related to review of the Site Application. The modeling study provided on December 29, 2020, provides insufficient time for review for the January 5, 2021 TAC meeting. As such, RESPEC has not completed a review of the Applicant’s December 10, 2020, response to CDPHE as related to RESPEC’s remaining comments on the Phosphorus Trade Application, nor the comments provided in the December 21, 23, and 29, 2020, emails. However, since the Applicant has requested the TAC consider and make a recommendation on their Site Application and Phosphorus Trade Application at the January 5, 2020, TAC meeting, the following is an initial summary of the applicant’s comments and requests from these letters and emails pertinent to RESPEC’s review comments.

Site Application:

In summary, the Applicant made the following statements in the subject letters and correspondence:

1. December 10, 2020

PCWSD submitted the Site Application to referral agencies including the Town of Castle Rock (TCR), Tri-County Health, Douglas County, and the Chatfield Watershed Authority (CWA) in July 2021. AQUA also sent WQCD a preliminary submittal of the Site Application and supporting documents for concurrent review. We acknowledge the official Site Application to CDPHE-WQCD will be submitted after the referral agencies have provided comments or the statutory timeline allowed for the referral process has expired. CWA is still reviewing the Site Application along with PCWSD’s request for a Phosphorus Allocation. PCWSD will request that CWA make a recommendation and issue their referral letter by January 2021.

The 5-mile radius map was included as an attachment.

Phosphorus Trade Application In summary, the Applicant made the following statements in the subject letters and correspondence:


• PCWSD is working with CWA and their technical consultant Alan Leak, PE, of RESPEC on the request for a phosphorus allocation per Regulation 73 for a Non-Point Source to Point Source Trade. Upon receipt of the CWA’s recommendation to the Division, PCWSD will submit the final Phosphorus Allocation request to the Division for a decision.

• In summary, the District requests the CWA and WQCD consider two options for PCWSD to obtain a phosphorus allocation for effluent discharge to E. Plum Creek:

Option 1 - Request WQCD and/or WQCC review Regulation 73 and re-allocate the current point source phosphorus allocations, or

Option 2 - Non-point Source to Point Source Trade(s)


PCWSD is agreeable to receiving an allocation by either option or a combination of the two options. PCWSD acknowledge the Division’s comment that the District address Douglas County’s MS4 requirements.

• Option 1: If the CWA recommends that the WQCD deny PCWSD’s non-point source to point source trade requests (Option 2), PCWSD will request that the WQCD and if needed the WQCC review Regulation 73 and the current point source allocations; and reallocate point source phosphorus allocations equitably to existing dischargers and new dischargers including PCWSD. PCWSD suggests that the reallocation consider each discharging facility’s service area and their current and future discharge permit limits.

The District would ask the Division to specifically consider re-allocation of a portion of Plum Creek Wastewater Reclamation Authority’s (PCWRA) allocation to the Pine Canyon Water and Sanitation District. PCWSD’s inability to annex to the Town of Castle Rock along with numerous other reasons make consolidation with Castle Rock not possible or feasible. Therefore, the PCWRA will not be required to treat the wastewater flows from the Pine Canyon Water Reclamation Facility’s service area, and PCWSD suggests that the phosphorus allocation that is currently assigned to the PCWRA for service to this area be re-assigned to the PCWSD.

• Option 2- PCWSD proposes in their currently active trade request to work with the service area property owner, JRW Family Limited Partnership, LLLP (JRW), to permanently eliminate 1,836.4 pounds per year (PPY) of ongoing phosphorus pollution into the watershed originating from livestock grazing and manure deposition in the service area in exchange for a point source discharge allocation of 918.2 PPY of total phosphorus. This is an updated allocation value from the original trade request. The updated request addressed CWA consultant RESPEC’s review comments. It is clarified that PCWSD is submitting the trade request on behalf of JRW, and that JRW will assign any point source phosphorus allocation to PCWSD and the Pine Canyon Water Reclamation Facility.

• MS4 Requirements and Possible Associated Additional (2nd) Phosphorus Trade Request: The Site Application applicant, Pine Canyon Water and Sanitation District, is not the responsible legal entity regarding compliance with Douglas County’s MS4 Ordinance (Ordinance No. 019-001) for construction activities and new developments. Thus, we do not believe that MS4 compliance is required for Site Approval of the proposed Pine Canyon Water Reclamation Facility under Regulation 22. However, as an interested special district and as stewards of water quality, PCWSD recognizes that the proposed re-zoning and development of the property, along with implementation of stormwater best management practices (BMPs), will reduce non-point source phosphorus loading from accumulated phosphorus in the District’s service area. PCWSD will work with JRW and, as appropriate, with Pine Canyon Metropolitan Districts to facilitate compliance with Douglas County’s MS4 Regulations. Site water and soil sampling and associated preliminary calculations and modeling suggests that the improved management of stormwater due to rezoning /development and implementation of BMPs could reduce legacy phosphorus contributions into E. Plum Creek. In response, CWA notified PCWSD that mitigation of existing phosphorus pollution from stormwater runoff is a separate trade request from the elimination of future animal units trade request (Underline added by RESPEC). In recognition of the additional water quality benefits due to MS4 compliance, PCWSD and JRW are


considering submitting a second non-point source to point source phosphorus trade request to CWA/CDPHE.

• JRW is also evaluating additional measures to reduce phosphorus impacts from the property to E. Plum Creek and the Chatfield Reservoir. JRW is open to discussing these additional measures as part of their Trade Request.


• JWP/PCWSD are beginning to conduct soil and runoff sampling and modeling to further support their Trade Request. That said, in consideration of the time and expense and sampling associated with modeling, JRW is open to lowering their requested allocation amount and also to committing to meet lower stipulated effluent phosphorus limits from the Pine Canyon Water Reclamation Facility PCWRF) than required by the issued PEL’s (0.7 mg/L) or Regulation 73 (1 mg/L).


• AQUA understands that PCWSD/JRW has provide all required responses and information to RESPEC and CWA. We specifically note that we provided a copy of our response to CDPHE- WQCD’s RFI to you on December 11. This RFI response addressed questions and issues pertaining to both the Site Application and the District’s approach to obtaining a Phosphorus Allocation for the Pine Canyon Water Reclamation Facility.

With regard to the requested phosphorus allocation, we ask that if the TAC decides to not recommend to CDPHE that JRW/ PCWSD be granted the full requested allocation amount of 918 lbs; that the TAC consider recommending an alternate allocation amount.

Likewise, PCWSD /JRW may provide additional information such as preliminary modeling results for your consideration as this information becomes available.


• RESPEC has previously suggested that JRW Family Limited Partnership provide modeling data to support their Trade Request. The suggested modeling effort was just completed today. Considering the deadline for submittal of materials for the Jan 5 TAC meeting; see attached a letter report from Phil Brink of Brink, Inc. summarizing the results/ findings.

Mr. Brink used the well-established and widely-used USDA – Agricultural Research Service’s (ARS) Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE2) modeling tool. The RUSLE2 model predicts the total phosphorus lost from the site under the current animal grazing practices is 761 pounds per year. The model only considered the manure / phosphorus impact from cow/calves grazed on the site.

• Considering the model results and the required 2:1 trade ratio, JRW Family Limited Partnership thus revises (reduces) their non-point source to point-source trade request for an annual phosphorus allocation to be 380.5 pounds per year. This is a reduction from the previously requested 918.2 pounds per year.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the above information and considering both the inadequate time for a review of the various recent information and requests of the Applicant and that CDPHE has not yet provided a review and response to the applicants submittal of December 10, 2020, RESPEC’s cannot at this time provide a recommendation for approval of a specific non-point to point source phosphorus trade quantity. Since


a quantified phosphorus allocation is a necessary component of the Site Application, a recommendation on the Site Application also cannot be made at this time.

InvoiceDate

1/21/2021

Invoice #

19883

Bill To

Chatfield Watershed Authority4255 N. US Highway 85Castle Rock, Co 80108

TWS FINANCIAL INC.

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS7345 S. PIERCE ST. #205LITTLETON CO. 80128(303) 933-4207

P.O. No. Terms Project

Thank you for your business.Total

DescriptionQuantity Rate Amount

December 31, 2020 Financial Statement Prep. 1,000.00 1,000.00

$1,000.00

Invoice to: Chatfield Watershed Authority

P.O. Box 460736

Denver, CO 80246

Grantee: Colorado Watershed Assembly CWA Chatfield 2020 036

Address: P.O. Box 460736

Denver, CO 80246

Phone No.: (303)345-1675

Contract or Purchase

Order No.:

Contract Amount: $36,600

Date of Invoice: December 31, 2020

Task Description

Total

Budget/Grant

Funds

Previously

Invoiced

Current

Invoice

Remaining

Total

Percent

Complete

1 Coordination & Administration $9,354 $7,625 $1,729 $0 100.0%

2 Financial Management $3,419 $2,750 $669 $0 100.0%

3 Other Management Services $22,226 $18,095 $4,131 $0 100.0%

Legal RFQ $1,600 $1,600 $0 100.0%

Chatfield Website Transition $448

TOTALS $36,600 $28,470 $8,577 $0

Submitted by: Casey Davenhill

Title: Executive Director, Colorado Watershed Assembly

Project Name

Signature: January 20, 2021

Chatfield TAC Meeting - February 2d - Pine Canyon Trade Application Inbox

Walker, James R.

Jan 27, 2021, 4:41 PM

Hi Diane, Pine Canyon requests TAC’s determination of our Trade Application at TAC’s February 2, 2021 meeting. We believe the cost of review dispute was resolved by the Board’s vote at the meeting earlier this week. During that meeting, you also indicated that you had another invoice for our reimbursement. I recall that you indicated that invoice is #109. Please forward that invoice to me for processing. Thank you, Diane. Sent from my iPad

4300 Cherry Creek Drive S, Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-3500 www.colorado.gov/cdphe Jared Polis, Governor | Jill Hunsaker Ryan, MPH, Executive Director

January 26, 2021 Jim Walker Pine Canyon Water and Sanitation District 5975 E. Jamison Place Centennial, CO 80122 Subject: Phosphorus trade Dear Mr. Walker:

I am writing to update you on the division’s position regarding your proposed phosphorus trade in the Chatfield

watershed.

As you know, initially the division thought a nonpoint source to point source trade was an option for you to

access a phosphorus allocation under the Chatfield Reservoir Control Regulation No. 73. However, because the

applicant’s property is subject to Douglas County MS4 permit, the discharge is a point source, not a nonpoint

source. Furthermore, discussions with our MS4 workgroup have clarified that trading under an MS4 permit also

is not a feasible option at this time. Therefore, we wanted to let you know this before you continue further

down this path.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Joni Nuttle Senior TMDL Specialist Watershed Section Water Quality Control Division Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Cc: Kurt Walker, Pine Canyon

Bob Frachetti, AQUA Engineering Diane Kielty, Chatfield Watershed Authority, Manager Alan Leak, RESPEC, Chatfield Watershed Authority Consultant Nicole Rowan, Clean Water Program Manager Aimee Konowal, WQCD Watershed Section Manager Meg Parish, WQCD Permits Section Manager Bret Icenogle, WQCD Engineering Section Manager Amy Zimmerman, WQCD Engineering Section, Unit Manager MaryAnn Nason, WQCD Administration Section, Unit Manager Erin Garcia, WQCD

CWATAC Triennial Review Committee Meeting Summary

1/26/2021

Discussion Topics Summary for CWA Triennial Review Reg. 73 – March 2021

1. Overall application of the regulation: 2. Administrative clean-up: 3. Jellystone Phosphorus Allocation: 4. Pine Canyon Potential Allocation Request: 5. Progress towards revision / reallocation of phosphorus allocations: 6. Constraints towards revision / reallocation of phosphorus allocations: 7. Elimination/revision of Land Disposal allowances/monitoring (Division’s proposed

request): Other items to address outside of Regulation 73:

1. 208 Planning: 2. Applications process: 3. Guidance for use of Pool/Emergency Credits: 4. Update trading guidelines and bylaws 5. 303(d) list

Documents

TAC Minutes - Chatfield Watershed Authority