The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About920346.tiff RESOLUTION RE: ACTION OF THE BOARD CONCERNING SITE APPLICATION OF CITY OF FORT LUPTON AND AUTHORIZE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board has received a Site Application from the City of Fort Lupton concerning improvement of an existing sewage treatment facility located on the following described parcel of land, to-wit: Part of the SE! SW* of Section 31, Township 2 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS, the Regulations for Site Applications for wastewater treatment facilities require review of the Site Application by the Board of County Commissioners, and further that various local and State agencies be given the opportunity to review and comment on said site application, and WHEREAS, the Site Application from the City of Fort Lupton was submitted to the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County for review and comments, a copy of said application being attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and WHEREAS, after study and review, the Board finds that said site application is compatible with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, and that it is in the best interest of Weld County to recommend approval of said application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the Site Application submitted by the City of Fort Lupton be, and hereby is, recommended favorably to the Colorado Department of Health as being compatible with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Chairman be, and hereby is, authorized to sign said site application. PL0079 920346 /L0G79 G am : y° C I , hLt p i t-N RE: SITE APPLICATION - CITY OF FORT LUPTON PAGE 2 The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 22nd day of April, A.D. , 1992. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: ,J / /01L14WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Weld County Clerk to the Board /a o//////��/ ge K nedy, Chairman BY/�f /�f d' 4� Deputy 1 rk to the Board Constance L. Harbert, Pro-Tem APPROVED AS TO ORM: C. W. Kirby County Attorney Gord acy W. H. Webs er 920346 . COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Water Quality Control Division • 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION OF: A) DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS (INCLUDING TREATMENT PLANTS, OUTFALL SEWERS, AND LIFT STATIONS) OVER 2,000 GPD CAPACITY. • B) INTERCEPTORS (IF REQUIRED BY C.R.S. 25-8-702 (3)) APPLICANT: CITY OF FORT LUPTON FORT LUPTON t' ADDRESS: 130 SOUTH MCKINLEY AVENUE, P. 0. BOX 148, COLORADO A062I PHONE: (303) 857-6694 Consulting Engineer's Name and Address: BLACK & VEATCH, 1400 SOUTH POTOMAC STREET,' SUITE'2O0, AURORA z COLORADO 80012 PHONE: (303) 671-4200 } A. Summary of information regarding new sewage treatment plant: 1. Proposed Location: (Legal Description) SE 1/4, SW 1/4, Section 31; TOWNSHIP 2N, RANGE 66W, AND NE 1/4,. NW 1/4, SECTION 6, Township IN , Range _ 66W , WELD County. 2. Type and capacity of treatment facility proposed: Processes Used MUNICIPALTIY; DOMESTIC WASTEWATER; OXIDATION DITCH WITH FINAL CLARIFIER Hydraulic 1,63OxOOO Organic 1,730 gal/day lbs. BOD5/day Present PE 6, 120 Design PE 8, 160 Z Domestic 99.64 % Industrial 0.36 and 3. Location of facility: Commercial Attach a map of the area which includes the following: (a) 5—mile radius: all sewage treatment plants,' lift stations, and domestic water supply intakes. (1) (b) 1—mile radius: habitable buildings, location of potable water wells, and an approximate indication of the topography. (1) 4. Effluent disposal: Surface discharge to watercourse SOUTH PLATTE RIll R Subsurface disposal Land Evaporation Other quality RCPAEA ION CLASESASS 2 State water ualiC classification of receiving watercourses) A AAU��TI LIIFCE C Proposed Effluent Limitations developed in conjunction with Planning and 5tanclards Section, WQCD: BODS_ 30 mg/1 SS 75 mg/1 Fecal Coliform 6,000 /100 ml Total Residual Chlorine 0.12 mg/l . Ammonia NA mg/1 OtherNOyD GREASE 5. Will a State or Federal grant be sought to finance any portion of this. project?NO 6. Present zoning of site area? LIGHT INDUSTRIAL Zoning with a 1—mile radius of site? LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, RESIDENTIAL, COMMuRJCIAy, PARKS �D 0 EN SPACE 7. What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest domestic water supply intake? NO KNOWN DOMESTIC WATEJ SUPPLY INTAKES WITHIN 50 MILES DOWNSTREAM (Name of upply) FROM DISCHARGE (Address of Supply) What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest other point of diversion? 1/2 MILE (APPROX. ) - PLATTE VALLEY IRRIGATION COMPANY, 8855 WELD Name of Used - COUNTY ROAD 19, FORT LUPTON, COLORADO 80621 (Address of User) (1) REFER TO FIGURES CONTAINED IN ATTACHED 201 FACILITIES PLAN. -1- WQCD-3 '(Revised 8-83) 8. Who has the responsibility for operating the proposed facility? • CITY OF FORT LUPTON 9. Who owns the land upon which the facility will be constructed? CITY OF FORT LUPTON (Please attach copies of the document creating authority in the applicant to construct the proposed facility at this site. ) 10. Estimated project cost: $2,650,000 Who is financially responsible for the construction and operation of the facility? CITY OF FORT LUPTON 11. Names and addresses of all water and/or sanitation districts within 5 miles downstream of proposed wastewater treatment facility site. NO WATER OR SANITATION DISTRICTS FXTST WITHIN 5 MTLFS DOWNSTREAM (Attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. ) 12. Is the facility in a 100 year flood plain or other natural hazard area? YES If so, what precautions are being taken? NEW FACILITY WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ON EXISTING WWTP SITE WHICH IS BEAMED TO PROTECT IT AGAINST A 100 YEAR FLOOD Has the' flood plain been designated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Department of Natural Resources or other Agency? NO (Agency Name) If so, what is that designation? 13. Please include all additional factors that might help the Water Quality Control Division make an informed decision on your application for site approval. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH HAS APPROVED THE 201 FACILITY PLAN AND HAS ISSUED A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR THE FACILITY. B. Information regarding lift stations: 1. The proposed lift station when fully developed will generate the following additional load: Peak Hydraulic (MGD) P.E. to be served 2. Is the site located in a 100 year flood plain? If yes, on a separate sheet of paper describe the protective measures to be taken. 3. Describe emergency system in case of station and/or power failure. 4. Name and address of facility providing treatment: 5. 'The proposed lift station when fully developed will increase the loading of the treatment plant to % of hydraulic and % of organic capacity and agrees to treat this wastewater? Yes No (Treatment Agency) Date Signature and Title • ,NO NEW LIFT STATIONS BEING PROPOSED. FACILITY WILL BE SERVED BY 2 EXISTING 'LIFT STATIONS. REFER TO 201 FACILITIES PLAN ATTACHED TO THIS SITE APPLICATION. —2— c al 3'11 WQCD-3 (Revised 8-83) C. If the facility will be 1.,..ated on or adjacent to a site , .at is owned or managed by a Federal or State agency, send the agency a copy of this application. D. Recommendation of governmental authorities: Please address the following issues in your recommendation decision. Are the proposed facilities consistent with the comprehensive plan and any other plans for the area, including the 201 Facility Plan or 208 Water Quality Management Plan, as they affect water quality? If you have any further comments or questions, please call 320-8333, Extension 5272. Recommend Recommend No Date Approval Disapproval Comment Signature of Representative 1. 4frrn≥i* powns ement A 2. ,Cr/c5A2- x g � (If site is inside boundary or within three miles) and Sanitation Districts. 3. 5�e -9Z X and of Duns' Co stoners 4. ef/F75� ,./4 Jiea t ut ty 5. 0 005A7-- � or" i C my nn ng Aut or ty 6. /f0d/92. /� �i� qu/ ou ci o overnments eg ona ann ng 7. 3/:2 w//e2p_ / rate Geologist (For lift stations, the signature of the State Geologist is not required. Applications for treatment plants require all signatures. ) I certify that I am familiar with the requirements of the "Regulations for Site Applications For Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works," and have posted the site in accordance with the regulations. An engineering report, as described by the regulations, has been prepared and is enclosed. DATE Signature of Applicant TYPED NAME -3- WQCD-3 (Revised 8-83) ::, . -�:.r 1 ATTACHMENT TO SITE APPLICATION In accordance with C.R.S. 1981, 25-8-702 (2)(a), (b) , and (c) , and the "Regulations for Site Applications for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works", the Water Quality Control Division must determine 'that each site location is consistent with the longrange, comprehensive planning for the area in which it is to be located, that the plant on the proposed site will be managed to minimize t4ie potential adverse impacts on water quality, and must encourage the consolidation of wastewater treatment works whenever feasible. In making this determination, the Division requires each applicant for a site approval for a domestic wastewater treatment works to supply an engineering report describing the project and showing th$ applicant's capabilities to manage and operate the faility over the life of the project to determine the potential adverse impacts on:water quality. The report shall be considered the culmination of the planning process and as .a minimum shall address the following:. Service area definition including existing population and population projections, flow/loading projections, and relationship to other water and wastewater treatment plants in the area. Proposed effluent limitations as developed in coordination with the Planning and Standards Section of the Division. (Allow minimum four weeks processing time. ) Analysis of existing facilities including performance of those facilities. Analysis of treatment alternatives considered. Flood plain and natural hazard analysis. Detailed description of selected alternatives including legal description of the site, treatment system description, design capacities, and operational staffing needs . Legal arrangements showing control of site for the project life. Institutional arrangements such as contract and/or covenant terms for all users which will be finalized to accomplished acceptable waste treatment. Management capabilities for controlling the wastewater throughout and treatment within the capacity limitations of the proposed treatment works, i.e. , user contracts, operating agreements, pretreatment requirements. Financial system which has been developed to provide for necessary capital and continued operation, maintenance, and replacement through the life of the project. This would include, for example, anticipated fee structure. Implementation plan and schedule including estimated construction time and estimated start-,up date. Depending! on the proposed project, some of the above items may not be applicable to address. In such c4ses, simply indicate on the application form the non applicability of those. 1. f -4- CI C/744'. WQCD-3 (Revised 8-83) ATTACHMENT TO SITE APPLICATION Attached to this Site Application for the City of Fort Lupton's (City' s) wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is the accompanying 201 Facilities Plan for the WWTP (refer to Attachment A) . The plan has been approved by the Colorado Department of Health, which has also issued a "Finding of No Significant Impact" for the plan. The Facilities Plan addresses the engineering report requirements of the Site Application. Listed below is the reference to the page numbers that address the points listed on the attachment portion of the Site Application form. I . SERVICE AREA DEFINITION INCLUDING EXISTING POPULATION AND POPULATION FLOW PROJECTIONS, FLOW/LOADING PROJECTIONS, AND RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER WATER AND WASTEWATER PLANTS: A. Service Area Definition: Refer to pages 1-1 through 1-2 and pages 3-1 through 3-4. B. Existing Population and Population Flow Projections: Refer to pages 2-1 through 2-4. C. Flow/Loading Projections: Refer to pages 2-4 through 2-9. Refer also to Appendix C. In addition, please note that since the completion of the 201 Facilities Plan, a potentially large industrial customer has approached the City with respect to discharging an average of 0.43 million gallons per day (mgd) to the sanitary sewer beginning in the spring of 1994. The discharge will be from a power generating facility to be owned, designed, constructed, and operated by Thermo-Carbonics, Inc. and will consist primarily of cooling water and waste streams from the power plant reverse osmosis system. Therefore, the City is now planning to increase the hydraulic capacity of the plant from the 1.2 mgd currently shown in the Facilities Plan to 1.63 mgd to accommodate the power facility's additional hydraulic load. The organic load of the WWTP is not being increased, since the power plant discharge will have an insignificant biological oxygen demand. To ensure the power generating facility does not contribute a significant organic load or any additional hydraulic load above 0.43 mgd, the City has placed strict discharge limits on Thermo-Carbonics in an Annexation Agreement that has been negotiated and signed by Thermo-Carbonics and the City. The Annexation Agreement stipulates Thermo-Carbonics' discharge cannot contain more than 100 pounds per day of biological oxygen demand or 100 pounds per day of total suspended solids. Also, as a part of the Annexation Agreement, Thermo-Carbonics will be constructing an equalization basin on its site so that discharges can be controlled and coordinated with the City WWTP operations. Sanitary wastes from the power plant will not be o: r r r. significant and will not be stored in the equalization basin, but discharged to the City' s sanitary sewer by way of a separate line. A copy of the Annexation Agreement is included in Attachment B of this Site Application. D. Relationships to Other Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants: No other water or wastewater plants are located within the Fort Lupton 201 and 208 planning areas. II . PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS: As listed in the City's discharge permit. Refer to page 1-4. III . ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FACILITIES, INCLUDING PERFORMANCE OF THOSE FACILITIES: Refer to pages 5-1 through 5-15. IV. ANALYSIS OF TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: Refer to pages 6-1 through 6-20. V. FLOOD PLAIN AND NATURAL HAZARDS ANALYSIS: Refer to pages 8-1 through 8-2 and Appendix C. VI . DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE, TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION, DESIGN CAPACITIES, AND OPERATIONAL STAFFING NEEDS: A. Detailed Description of Selected Alternative: Refer to pages 6-7 through 6-8 and pages 7-1 through 7-2. Additional operational detail will be included in the Operational Plan which will be prepared concurrently with the design of the WWTP. B. Legal Description: Refer to page 8-1 of the Facilities Plan and page 1, item A.1 of this Site Application. C. Treatment System Description and Design Capacities: Refer to pages 6-7 through 6-8 and pages 7-1 through 7-2. Additional operational detail will be included in the Operational Plan which will be prepared concurrently with the design of the WWTP. D. Operational Staffing Needs: Refer to page 7-2. VII . LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS SHOWING CONTROL OF SITE FOR THE PROJECT LIFE: The City of Fort Lupton owns the WWTP site and will be operating the facility. C20 7.1.e; VIII . INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS SUCH AS CONTRACT AND/OR COVENANT FOR ALL USERS WHICH WILL BE FINALIZED TO ACCOMPLISH ACCEPTABLE WASTE TREATMENT: The Annexation Agreement between the City of Fort Lupton and Thermo-Carbonics limits the flow and organic loading the power generating facility can discharge to the City sewer. In addition, the Annexation Agreement requires Thermo-Carbonics to pay for enlarging the final clarifier. Also, if Thermo-Carbonics' discharge results in the City being unable to comply with the requirements of its discharge permit because of dilutional effects, the Annexation Agreement requires Thermo-Carbonics to pay for the design and construction of filters. IX. MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES FOR CONTROLLING THE WASTEWATER THROUGHOUT TREATMENT WITHIN THE CAPACITY LIMITATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED TREATMENT WORKS, i.e. , USER CONTRACTS, OPERATING AGREEMENTS, PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS: The City will own and operate the WWTP, and at the present time there are no user contracts or operating agreements, with the exception of the Thermo-Carbonics Annexation Agreement. The City currently has no pretreatment requirements for industries which discharge to the sanitary sewer system, but the City is developing an sewer ordinance which limits the strength and types of wastes that can be discharged to the City's sewers. If a user cannot comply with the ordinance requirements, the ordinance specifies options that can be pursued, including pretreatment. The ordinance will be in place before the new WWTP is complete. Refer to Attachment C of this Site Application for a draft of the City's new sewer use ordinance. As explained in Section VIII above, the Annexation Agreement with Thermo-Carbonics limits the volume and strength of wastewater the proposed power generating facility can discharge to the sewer. X. FINANCIAL SYSTEM WHICH HAS BEEN DEVELOPED TO PROVIDE FOR NECESSARY AND CONTINUED OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT THROUGH THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT. THIS WOULD INCLUDE, FOR EXAMPLE, ANTICIPATED FEE STRUCTURE: A financial plan is currently being developed. Refer to page 7-2 through 7-6 of the Facilities Plan. Refer also to Black & Veatch letter dated June 13, 1991 that is included in Appendix C of the Facilities Plan. XI . IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE INCLUDING ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION TIME AND ESTIMATED START-UP DATE: Refer to pages 7-1 through 7-8 of the Facilities Plan. Because of the nature, scope, and duration of the negotiations between the City of Fort Lupton and Thermo-Carbonics, 100 percent design will occur approximately two months later than shown in the Facilities Plan. • 2:7 i DATE: April 22, 1992 CASE NUMBER: N/A NAME: City of Fort Lupton ADDRESS: 130 South McKinley Avenue Fort Lupton, Co 80621 REQUEST: Approval of a site application for wastewater treatment facilities. LOCATION: Part of the SE4 SW4 of Section 31, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: North of Highway 52, and west of Highway 85, within the City of Fort Lupton. THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The treatment facility will not adversely affect the local water quality. The design of the system will be of sufficient capacity to serve the approved service area. 2. The Weld County Health Department has reviewed this proposal and has set forth no objections. 3. The proposal is in compliance with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan in that it is an improvement of an existing sewage treatment facility which services an established incorporated municipality. The proposed development to be served is located in the City of Fort Lupton. 920!46 71)t_.0 077 '`4 ' mEmORAnDUm ' Keith Schuett C Weld County Planning Department Date April 9, 1992 To COLORADO John S. Pickle, Director, Environmental Protection Service From ; Subject: City of Fnrt Lvptnn Wactpwatar Trpata 'nt Plant With regard to the above referenced expansion, Environmental Protection Services, Weld County Health Department, has no objections. JSP/lf-e678 APR y 199 11 Weld County planning re '3 BLACK & VEATCH 1400 South Potomac Street, Suite 200,Aurora, Colorado 80012,(303) 671-420044:43071-4285 C� Fort Lupton, Colorado B&V Project 18565.300 Wastewater Treatment Plant B&V File A February 20, 1992 Mr. George Kennedy Chairman Weld County Board of County Commissioners 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Subject: Request for Site Application Review and Signature Dear Mr. Kennedy: Transmitted herewith for your review is one copy of the Site Application for the City of Fort Lupton's (City) new wastewater treatment facilities. On behalf of the City, Black & Veatch, as the City's consultant, is requesting you complete your review by April 30, 1992. Please note that the hydraulic capacity listed in the Site Application is 0.43 million gallons per day greater than that listed in the 201 Facilities Plan. The reason for this change is that the City has recently completed important negotiations with Thermo-Carbonics, Inc. , a privately owned power generator that is locating a cogeneration facility in Fort Lupton. The City has agreed to allow Thermo-Carbonics to discharge its cooling water to the City sewer. This discharge will have an insignificant organic load so the organic load listed in the 201 Facilities Plan is not being increased. To ensure the cogeneration plant does not contribute an organic load, the City has placed strict limits on the Thermo-Carbonics' discharge, as outlined in the Annexation Agreement signed by the City and Thermo-Carbonics. A copy of the Agreement is attached to the enclosed Site Application for your information. The State of Colorado will accept only one copy of the Site Application with all the required signatures which appear on page 3. Therefore, after you have completed your review and are ready to sign the Site DIUCrI/V A, f ifi A}G M Ma Arr TO pc, BLACK & VEATC C Page 2 Mr. George Kennedy B&V Project 18565.300 February 20, 1992 Application in the space reserved for the "Board of County Commissioners", I am requesting that you call Mr. Lee Robbins at Black & Veatch at the telephone number listed above. Mr. Robbins will coordinate getting all the signatures on one copy of the application. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions concerning the Site Application or any of the supplementary information that has been included, please call me at (303) 671-4200. Very truly yours, BLACK & VEATCH James I. Michael LAR:smo Enclosure cc: Mr. David Yamada :2,2,014'; ATTACHMENT B City of Fort Lupton, Colorado Thermo-Carbonics Annexation Agreement ANNEXATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this 6th day of December, 1991, by and between Thermo Carbonic, Inc. ( "Thermo") , and Rennoc Corporation ( "Rennoc") , hereinafter collectively referred to as "Annexors" , and The City of Fort Lupton, Colorado, a Colorado municipal corporation located in Weld County, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as "City" , all of which entities are sometimes referred to herein as the "parties" . WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Annexors are the owners of the real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the "Property" ) , and have filed or will soon file a petition or petitions to annex the Property to the City; and WHEREAS, the City believes it is in the best interests of the City that the whole parcel representing the Property be annexed into the City; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to set forth their agreement with respect to the terms and conditions upon which the Property will be annexed to the City; and WHEREAS, the annexation of the Property into the City will benefit the City as a result of the economic activity to be generated by development of the Property; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants, promises and agreements of each of the parties hereto, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: A. ANNEXATION 1. The City agrees to the annexation of the whole parcel representing the Property, recognizing that in the long term, said annexation shall be in the best interests of the City. 2 . The parties recognize and acknowledge that, because of the present statutory requirements relating to annexation and the size of the Property to be annexed, this annexation shall be accomplished serially in two parcels. aeowuaoe.I B. WATER SUPPLY 1 . Annexors will connect the Property to the City' s municipal water system, including the extension of water service lines, and facilities, provided, however, that the Annexors' total share of such cost for connection, extension, and for connection, expansion and extension of sewer service lines as described at Paragraph C.1 below, shall be limited to those costs attributable to provision of such water and sewer service to Thermo, Thermo' s affiliates, (defined as any company owned by, a subsidiary of, or under the legal control of Thermo) , and the initial thermal host, which is presently anticipated to be a greenhouse, all collectively referred to herein as "the Project" . It is the intention of the parties that service linesand facilities fully dedicated to the service of the Project shall be constructed by Annexors or their agents or contractors in a manner acceptable to the City. Except as otherwise provided herein, Annexors have the exclusive right, but not the obligation, to extend, re-route, expand or oversize such service lines or facilities for the purpose of accommo- dating users other than those associated with the Project. To the degree Annexors exercise this right, all such costs shall be borne by Annexors and Annexors are to be reimbursed in the customary manner from other users when . other users benefit from said lines, including receipt of tap fees from such users. The City under- stands that the Annexors have a right to obtain reim- bursement from subsequent developers of the Property on a pro-rata basis based on use and the City will use its best efforts to cooperate with annexors to achieve said reimbursement. However, in the event that reimbursement is not accomplished, the City shall not be held responsi- ble or be obligated to see to the reimbursement. The parties have agreed on the following sequence for developing the necessary quantities of water required for the Project, including the timing and sequence of the following activities: a. The City shall supply to the Project an annual average water demand of 1280 gallons per minute (gpm) . The City shall also supply up to 3300 gpm during peak demand periods; however, the peak water usage rate shall not exceed 3300 gpm for more than six hours in any 24 hour period nor shall the total volume of water provided by the City in any 24 hour period exceed 2 . 66 million gallons. Any water demands or volumes exceeding these requirements are not required to be provided by the City. The City shall have no oeowaaswoe.I -2- 02,0'34'; obligation to provide potable water for use by the Project. b. Annexors shall design, construct, and start up a new water pumping station, meter vault, and pipe line that will connect to the City' s water distribution system in the vicinity of 9th Street and College Avenue and shall extend to the Project site. The new water pumping station and meter vault shall be constructed to all City, state, and federal regulations for potable water systems. Annex- ors shall be responsible for receiving all permits, rights-of-way, land acquisition, and approvals necessary to construct the new pumping station and transmission line. The transmission line shall have a minimum diame- ter of 14 inches. At the City' s discretion, the pump station will be located either in the vicinity of 9th Street and College Avenue or 14th Street and College Avenue. If the 14th Street and College Avenue site is selected by the City, then the portion of transmission line between 9th Street and College Avenue and the pump station will be dedicated to the City • immediately upon construction. The pump .station, meter vault, and remaining portions of transmission line will be dedicated to the City upon construction, but for the life of the Project, all operating, maintenance, and other costs and expenses for the new pumping station, meter vault, and remaining portions of transmission line shall be paid by the Annexors. For the life of the Project, Annexors will be directly responsible for the oversight, management, and operation of the new pump station, meter vault, and transmis- sion line. Upon termination of the Project, the City will assume all responsibilities for operating and maintaining the new pumping station, meter vault, and remaining portions of transmission line. At a minimum, the pump station and meter vault shall have a double check valve backflow preventer, a radio con- trolled valve and piping to allow well water during average demands and supplemental tank water during peak demands (or an alternative design acceptable to the City) , and shall have radio controlled telemetry compatible with the City' s computer system so that instantaneous, daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly flow rates and volumes can be automatically dispatched to aeowa$4O6.I -3- O,C(012 the City' s computer network. In addition, the meter vault shall have a manually recording flow meter to provide a backup source of flow records. The Annexors shall submit design drawings and specifications for the new pump station, meter vault, and transmission line to the City for review and approval prior to any construction activities. The City shall inspect all construction materials prior to construction. Additionally, the City shall perform a pre-final and final inspection prior to accepting the project related water system improvements. c. The schedule for developing the necessary quantities of water required for the Project shall be as follows: (1) City performs engineering study and develops recommended plan for additional water supplies. December 1, 1991 through April 1, 1992 (2) City prepares design drawings and specifications. April 1, 1992 through October 1, 1992 (3) City begins sequentially phased construction of the recommended plan until it can be verified that the improvements can indeed deliver the addi- tional water supply demand of at a mini- mum 1280 gpm. October 1, 1992 through October 1, 1993 (4) Not earlier than March 1, 1992, and until the water supply improvements described in (3) above have been constructed by the City, the City shall supply water to the Project for construction purposes, as requested but only as available. No later than October 1, 1993 , the City shall provide full operational water supply as provided herein. d. Upon termination of the Project, the commitment on the part of the City to supply water shall cease and any continued use shall 0eu1uan4m.1 -4- .. comply with Federal, State and City ordinances and regulations and the costs for water relat- ed to said use shall be charged at the then current rate charged by the City to its water users. 2 . In consideration of the mutual promises and benefits of this Agreement, and Annexors' agreement to pay for the pump station, meter vault and transmission line, Annexors shall not be obligated to pay to the City any water tap fees associated with the connection of the Property to the City's municipal water system. 3 . In fulfillment of the requirements of Fort Lupton Ordinance No. 591, and more particularly, in satisfaction of the "in lieu" provisions set forth therein, Annexors will purchase and dedicate to the City five (5) CBT units or other equivalent amount of accept- able water rights. In addition, Annexors shall reimburse the City for the City' s cost to acquire additional protection from the approved augmentation program of the Groundwater Appropriators of the South Platte (GASP) in an amount necessary to enable the City to provide Annexors with water service from the City' s alluvial wells. The current cost of such protection is not • expected to exceed $2, 000 per year. Annexors shall not be required to purchase any additional water supplies as a condition of annexation or of obtaining water service from the City' s municipal water system. It is the intention of the parties that this limitation apply to any and all present or future requirements for the purchase or dedication of additional water supplies, including Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) or other water supplies, it being the understanding of the parties hereto that Annexors shall have no obligation to purchase or dedicate additional water supplies to the City beyond those described in this Paragraph 3 . Provided, however, that the water dedication requirement of Ordinance No. 591 shall continue to apply to that portion of the Property not devoted to the Project, in the event and only to the extent that future development of said portion of the Property requires water other than that available from the City' s alluvial wells, and the required water dedication shall not exceed the projected amount of such non-alluvial water to be used by such future development. Annexors shall place an appropriate restrictive covenant of record to ensure this condition. 4 . Upon connection of the Project to the City' s municipal water system such that water is physically capable of being furnished to the Project, Annexors will 0111:0438311406.1 -5- ors ry<. reimburse, on a monthly basis, the City for the water supplied to the Project as follows: a. Annexors shall pay a monthly fee based on the volume of water used during that month. Annexors shall pay $0.25 per thousand gallons for all water used up to a maximum 24 hour volume of 2 .66 million gallons. For any water use exceeding this volume limit in a 24 hour period, Annexors shall pay the then current rate charged by the City to its resi- dential water users. The metered rate charged for each 1, 000 gallons of water shall be adjusted on the first day of each calendar year, beginning in 1993, by the percentage change occurring during the previous calendar year in the Producer Price Index of Industrial Commodities (1982 - 100) published by the United Stated Department of Labor. The ad- justed rate shall be determined by multiplying the then in effect unit price by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be said index for the year just ended and the denominator of which shall be said index for the year • immediately prior thereto. 5. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the City may restrict the service of municipal water to the Project to that available from the City' s alluvial wells. One or more of said wells may be wholly dedicat- ed to the service of the Project, as the parties may agree. The City may require Annexors to curtail or temporarily halt water use at times of insufficiency in supply due to an emergency, including, but not limited to, increased demand by the City resulting from extreme weather conditions, fire, water line blockage or break- age, and so forth. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, Annexors shall not be entitled to obtain CBT water from the City but must use City well water. All new wells and infrastructures remain the property of the City. 6 . To the degree any portion of the Property is developed for use by others for any development other than the Project, the City may require or impose any tax, fee, connection or facility charge, or service fee or fees whatever, free from any limitation contained herein. 7 . Notwithstanding anything herein to the con- trary, the provision for water service to the Annexors' property as provided herein shall be solely for the purpose of providing water for the Project and no other 0EDM3a$M06.t -6- user in the annexed area shall take advantage of the provisions of this Agreement and if any other user in Annexors' property requires water service that user shall be required to obtain service from the City in accordance with City ordinances, rules and regulations. C. SEWAGE TREATMENT 1. Annexors will connect the Property to the City' s municipal sewage treatment system, including the extension of sewer service lines. Annexors' cost for and right in such connection and extension shall be as described at Paragraph B.1, above. 2 . In consideration of the mutual promises and benefits of this Agreement, and the agreement of Annexors to pay for extension, connection, and other facilities, Annexors shall not be obligated to pay to the City any sewage tap fee associated with connection of the Property to the City' s municipal sewage system. 3 . Upon connection of the property to the City' s municipal sewage system such that sewer service is physically capable of being furnished to the Property, Annexors will reimburse, on a monthly basis, the City for the Sewer service supplied to the Project as follows: a. Annexors shall pay a monthly fee based on the volume of wastewater treated during that month. Annexors shall pay $0 .20 per thousand gallons for all wastewater treat- ed up to a maximum 24 hour volume of 0.43 million gallons. For any wastewater treatment exceeding this volume limit in a 24 hour period, Annexors shall pay the then current rate charted by the City to its industrial wastewater users. The rate charged for each 1, 000 gallons of wastewater shall be adjusted on the first day of each calendar year, begin- ning in 1993, by the percentage change occur- ring during the previous calendar year in the Producer Price Index of Industrial Commodities (1982 . 100) published by the United States Department of Labor. The adjusted rate shall be determined by multiplying the then in effect unit price by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be said index for the year just ended and the denominator of which shall be said index for the year immediately prior thereto. oeou3atwoe.1 -7- se:, 4 . Annexors shall limit their wastewater charac- teristics and flow rate discharges as follows: a. The five day biological oxygen demand and the total suspended solids in the Annexors' wastewater discharges shall not exceed 100 pounds per day, for each parameter respectively. b. The total phosphorus in the An- nexors' wastewater discharges shall not exceed 100 pounds per day. c. The ammonia in the Annexors' waste- water discharges shall not exceed 50 pounds per day. d. The total dissolved solids in the Annexors' wastewater discharges shall not exceed a maximum concentration of 7, 000 milli- grams per liter. e. The City shall be responsible for treating a maximum wastewater flow rate of 300 gpm. The City shall not be responsible for any flows in excess of this rate or a maximum daily volume of 0.43 million gallons. f. Annexors shall construct wastewater flow equalization and flow recording facili- ties at their Project so that wastewater flows can be equalized, flow controlled, and me- tered. Sanitary sewer flows shall be separat- ed from nonsanitary flows and shall directly flow to the sanitary sewer without flow equal- ization. Nonsanitary sewer flows shall be collected and flow equalized such that they can be either discharged at a continuous minimum rate during a 24 hour period or dis- charged as a surge during a six hour period between midnight and 6:00 a.m. The method of operation will be coordinated with the City and adjusted to meet emergency conditions as may be necessary by either party. g. Annexors' wastewater discharges shall comply with all state and federal pre- treatment regulations. If necessary, Annexors shall be required to limit excess concentra- tions of metals, organics, oils, or other contaminants that either interfere with or aeuwniwoa.1 -8- o ,or adversely impact the City' s wastewater treat- ment system. h. Upon termination of the Project, the commitment on the part of the City to supply sewer service shall cease and any continued use shall comply with Federal, State and City ordinances and regulations and the costs for sewer service related to said use shall be charged at the then current rate charged by the City to its sewer service users. 5 . Notwithstanding anything herein to the con- trary, the provision for sewer service to the Annexors' property as provided herein shall be solely for the purpose of providing sewerage service for the Project and no other user in the annexed area shall take advantage of the provisions of this Agreement and if any other user in Annexors' property requires sewer service that user shall be required to obtain service from the City in accordance with City ordinances, rules and regulations. 6. To the degree any portion of the Property is developed for use by others for any development other than the Project, the City may require or impose any tax, fee, connection or facility charge, or service fee or fees .whatever, free from any limitation contained herein. 7. Annexors shall pay the following additional costs in association with the extension of sewage treatment service to Property: a. Annexors will reimburse the City for the cost of oversizing the final clarifier at the City' s new wastewater treatment plant for expansion due to Annexors' needs. This cost is $38, 000. b. Annexors will reimburse the City for the cost of designing and construction new filters at the new wastewater treatment plant provided, however, that the following condi- tions are first met: (1) The City will make its best attempts to optimize the performance of the new treatment plant to meet all dis- charge requirements. The City will also coordinate its efforts with the Annexors to attempt to find an operating strategy or discharge sequence that maximizes treatment performance. However, if, a6DM3i31N06.l -9- f': f7,. ' after the City' s and the Annexors' best attempts, the treatment system cannot meet the mandated requirement to remove 85 percent of the incoming biological oxygen demand and suspended solids loads, then filtration of all wastewater flows will be required. All best efforts to optimize the treatment performance of the existing system will be completed no later than April 1, 1995. (2) Annexors will be required to reimburse the City for the cost of the filters if it .can be demonstrated that the new wastewater treatment plant cannot meet its discharge permit either for two consecutive months or for two months out of any year due to the excess flows and dilution problems directly attributable to the Annexors' discharges. Annexors will be required to reimburse the City for all engineering, construction, and startup costs associated with the imple- mentation of the filters if they are needed. In no event shall the total cost to Annexors exceed $750,000 as adjusted • as provided herein, based on an BNR construction cost index of 4892,October 1991. However, the $750, 000 upper limit cost shall be adjusted at the time of bid opening for the filter, project to reflect the inflationary difference between the October, 1991 cost estimate of $750, 000 and the BNR Construction Cost Index for the actual month of Bid Opening. Therefore, the maximum total cost shall be adjusted at the time of Bid Openings and shall be determined by multiplying $750, 000 by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the ENR Construction Cost Index for the month of the Bid Opening and the denominator of which shall be 4892. If the total cost exceeds this amount, the City shall bear such excess. (3) Filters will be constructed by the City based on a maximum loading rate of 4.0 gpm per square foot using con- struction materials and standards meeting all City, state and federal requirements. 0euwnn40s.1 -10- 8. Annexors shall monitor and sample all waste- water flows for two weeks after substantial completion of the initial phase of the Project. Samples shall be collected daily and flow weighted/composited into a single sample. The samples shall be analyzed for the parameters requested by the City. Provided all samples are within the parameter limits set in Paragraph C.4, then subsequent testing shall occur on only one day, only once per quarter. D. DRAINAGE FEES 1. Annexors shall be exempt from all applicable municipal drainage fees, provided, however, that Annexors will prepare and implement a drainage plan acceptable to the City prior to the substantial construction of the Project. The Project shall comply with all local, state and federal drainage rules and regulations in effect currently and which may become applicable in the future. E. BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPECTION 1. As a building permit fee and in full satisfac- tion of any and all building permit fees associated with construction of the Project, Annexors will reimburse the City for the City' s cost to maintain a building inspector as an employee or subcontractor of the City for the duration of project construction on the Property, or three years, whichever is shorter, commencing upon the date Annexors secure construction financing. Annexors shall provide up to $5, 000 per month, based upon the City's estimated costs (for the first year) , and the City' s actual costs (for the second and third year) of the inspector's salary and benefit package, if any, or subcontractor contract price, payable annually in advance with the first year commencing after Annexors secure construction financing, and the first annual payment made on or before five business days after such financing is secured. The building inspector shall not, for any purpose, be an employee of Annexors, but instead shall be an employee or subcontractor of the City. Annexors shall have no role whatsoever in the selection, hiring, supervision or discharge of said inspector; Annexors' sole obligation being the reimbursement of the costs described in this Paragraph. 2 . The parties agree that the City shall grant, upon annexation, a building permit for all facilities of the Project which are complete or substantially complete by January 1, 1995, subject to Annexors' agreement to fully and continuously comply with all the provisions of the ordinances of the City in force and effect on the GEDWusuos.1 -11- • date of execution of this Agreement, as well as the Uniform Building Code, including providing the City with all information necessary to enable the City to determine compliance with the Uniform Building Code. Any development subsequent to January 1, 1995 by other parties for any development other than the Thermo cogeneration plant site on other portions of the property shall be subject to full building permit review and payment of fees. 3 . Other than as described at Paragraph) of this Section E, no other fee, cost or charge will be assessed to Annexors for issuance of the building permit. 4 . The parties understand and agree that the building inspector hired by the City as contemplated by this Section E shall have full authority on behalf of the City to inspect the Project and its ongoing construction, and to implement and enforce the terms of the building permit contemplated by this Section as well as applicable Uniform Codes. 5 . The City agrees to take all steps necessary to reassume the building inspection program from Weld County, such reassumption to be effective on or before • the date of annexation of the Property. F. ZONING The City recognizes that it is the intent of Annexors to develop the Property for industrial purposes, and to that end, the rezoning by the City shall be as follows: 1. 80 acres (shown as Parcel 1 on Exhibit "B") shall be zoned "I-2, Heavy Industrial" , with such uses by right allowed by the zoning ordinance in effect at the date of execution of this Agreement. The parties recognize that Thermo is a manufacturer of tangible personal property, including electricity, thermal energy and related energy by- products; 2. 87.043 acres (as shown as Parcel 2 on Exhib- it "B") shall be zoned "I-2, Heavy Industrial" , with such uses as provided under the zoning ordinance of the City as it may be amended from time to time; and 3 . 169 .1010 remaining acres (shown as Parcel 3 on Exhibit "B") shall be zoned agricultural, subject to all ordinances, rules and regulations of the City regarding use of said property. GEEMW$4ae.1 -12- 4 G. NATURAL GAS SERVICE Annexors shall, at their sole cost and expense, provide for the service of the Property with natural gas. The parties acknowledge and agree that the Property shall not be subject to existing or future retail natural gas franchise distribution agreements. H. ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICE Annexors shall purchase their retail electric utility service (if any such service shall be required) from the United Power Company or successor in interest to that Company. I. OTHER FEES RELATED TO ANNEXATION Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, Annexors shall pay all ordinary and customary charges of the City related to annexation and development of the Property. J. LAND DEDICATION AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 1. Annexors shall provide a site, not to exceed two (2) acres, within the confines of the Property for a future fire station, the location of such site to be mutually agreed upon by the City and Annexors. In addition, Annexors shall convey, by warranty deed, the following real property to the City: a. A roadway easement along the entire eastern boundary of the Property, not to exceed 40 (forty) feet in width. b. A roadway easement along the half- section line as it runs within the Property, not to exceed 80 (eighty) feet in width. c. The roads referenced in subpara- graphs a and b above shall be improved by Annexors, at their sole cost and expense, according to City standards under the City' s subdivision regulations, and upon approval by the City, within 180 days of the annexation and platting of the adjacent property to the east. Annexor shall grant, by recorded instrument, an option in the City to acquire at no cost a site, not more than 35 (thirty-five) acres within the Property, for economic development purposes for thermal users acceptable to OEM43333wo3.1 -13- r," Thermo only, in a suitable location and adequate size as may be agreed between Annexors and the City and at the time requested by the City. Only in the event the roadways for which easements are granted as described at Paragraphs l.a and l.b hereof are needed to serve the Project, Annexors shall construct said roads, including placement, design and location of curb cuts, all to the satisfaction of the City. Placement and construction of interior roads within the Project site shall be wholly within the control of Annexors. Other than as described in this Section J, no other land dedications or conveyances are required or contemplated by the parties. 2 . In the event Annexors choose to lease, trans- fer, assign or convey, at any time in the future, any portion of the Property not used for the Project, to any person or entity other than Thermo or a Thermo affiliate, Annexors shall subdivide the appropriate portion of the Property prior to the issuance of building permits. Said subdivision shall be according to City subdivision regulations and shall allow for street dedications, street improvements, public open spaces, and suitable street alignments. The subdivision plan shall be • approved by the City in accordance with City subdivision regulations. K. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. In the event only a portion of the Property is annexed, this Agreement shall, at the sole and exclusive option of Annexors, be valid only as to that portion of the Property so annexed, or only with respect to water and sewage treatment service, as described at Sections B and C hereof . This Agreement is contingent upon financ- ing, as described at Paragraph K.8 below. 2 . This Agreement shall be recorded with the Clerk and Recorder for Weld County, Colorado, shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. Annexors shall notify the City of assignments and the names of assignees. 3 . If the annexation of the Property or any portion thereof is voided by initiative or referendum, the City agrees to cooperate with Annexors to continue providing water and sewer service to the Property so disconnected, as provided in this Paragraph. The City and Annexors agree to pursue all reasonable methods to continue such service, including but not limited to oenusasuoe.1 -14- CV: extra-territorial water and sewer contracts. The parties hereby agree that those provisions of this Agreement pertaining to water and sewer service shall remain binding in the event of initiative or referendum, and shall become part of such extraterritorial water and sewer contracts, provided however, that Annexors make payments to the City of a fee, in the same amounts and at the same times, as the City had received property tax revenues attributable to the Project while the Project was legally within the City; it being the intention of the parties that the revenue received by the City as a result of the assessed valuation attributable to the Project not be interrupted due to disconnection or deannexation. 4 . In the event that the annexation of the Property or any portion thereof is voided by final action of any court (such action not being associated with a referendum or initiative action) , the City and Annexors shall cooperate to cure the legal defect which resulted in disconnection of the Property, and upon such cure this Agreement shall be deemed to be an agreement to annex the Property to the City pursuant to section 31-12-121, C.R.S. Annexors shall reapply for annexation as and when the Property becomes eligible for annexation as deter • - mined by the City. The parties hereby agree that should the Property, or any portion thereof, be disconnected as described in this Paragraph 4, those provisions of this Agreement pertaining to water and sewer service shall remain binding and shall govern the continued service of water and sewer service to the Property on the terms provided in Sections B and C herein, provided however, that Annexors make payments to the City of a fee, in the same amounts and at the same times, as the City had received property tax revenues attributable to the Project while the Project was legally within the City; it being the intention of the parties that the revenue received by the City as a result of the assessed valua- tion attributable to the Project not be interrupted due to disconnection or deannexation. 5. It is understood and agreed by the parties that if any part, term, or provision of this Agreement is held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law of the state of Colorado, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as of the Agreement did not contain the particular part, term, or provision held to be invalid. OBIA013I1406.1 -15- 6. This instrument embodies the whole agreement of the parties. There are no promises, terms, conditions, or obligations other than those contained herein; and this Agreement shall supersede all previous communica- tions, representations, or agreements, either verbal or written, between the parties. There shall be no modifi- cation of this Agreement except in writing, executed with the same formalities as this instrument. Subject to the conditions precedent herein, this Agreement may be enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction. 7. Upon annexation of the Property, so long as the Property is located within the municipal boundaries of the City, it shall continue to be subject to the ordi- nances, rules and regulations of the City. 8 . The provisions of this Agreement which require any payment or payments by Annexors are specifically conditioned upon Annexors' obtaining construction financing for Project. In the event no such construction financing is obtained by May 1, 1994, all provisions of this Agreement shall be null and void, and the Agreement shall be terminated. This Agreement shall not terminate upon annexation of the Property, and shall obligate the successors and assigns of the parties. The obligations • and benefits of Annexors, as described herein, are joint and several, and may be performed and enjoyed by either or both of them, or their successors ox assigns, on behalf of the other, or its successors or assigns. 9 . Upon obtaining construction financing, Annexors shall provide the City with letters of credit, bonds, cash or similar guarantees so that the City can be secure that all the improvements required herein relating to sewer will in fact be constructed and installed in a manner acceptable to the City. 10. This Agreement shall be renegotiated by the parties thirty-five (35) years after substantial completion of the Project. In the event the parties fail at that time to agree to a renegotiated Agreement, the Agreement shall be deemed terminated, and the mutual obligations of the parties, including service of and payment for water and sewerage, shall terminate. aenuaun4os.1 -16- 52; v, r. I r,. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused their duly authorized officials to place their hands and seals upon this agreement the day and year first above written. THERM0 ONIC, INC. By: 414:40064 /"C _ STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF U CJ Q lini tLThe foregoP1 g instrument was acknowledged be ore me this day of e p e m d 2h , 1991, by yo FC mn1) , as -I-3j%. .sic (lam)- of The Carbon- ic, Inc. Annexor. Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission Expirerr: _ • ob t alliThic N ary Public RENN0C CORPORATION By: &ASA C PJ, P, GEDWUaae.I -17- 27;',0341-; STATE OF COLORADO ) as. COUNTY OF a ca 1 s ) 1 �.e foreg ing instrument was acknowle ed befor me this La -.Eiay of 1Y 1 o L .,ti, h t& , 1991, by n U;n n(T/ as A .: ;Qc O 4 of Rennoc Corporation Annexor. Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission ExpirMW5 19 n & & � � r� Notary Public CITY OF FORT LUPTON, COLORADO a Colorado municipal corporation By: 1.14taittastert4 Mayor • ATTEST: deletAttiai City Clerk oecwotuoeA -18- 1,12:07,1r; EXHIBIT A ions DESCRIPTION OP PARCEL "10": A part of the Northeast one-quarter of Section 33, Township 2 North, Range 66 West of the 6th principal :Meridian, Weld County, Colorado, more particularly described as: BEGINNING at the one-quarter corner common to Sections 33 and 34; thence 589°59'12"w on n assumed bearing along the East-West centerline of said Section 33 a distance of 402.20 feet o the East R.O.W. line of Weld County Road 31; thence Northerly along said East R.O.W. line - the following courses: N11°08'11"W a distance of 610.13 test to the beginning of a curve to the left; thence along said curve, having a radius of 5759.53 feet, a delta angle of 6°22'00", a chord that bears `114°19'13"w - 639.61 feet, an arc length of 640.00 feet; thence N17°30'11"W a distance of 327.18 feet to the beginning of a curve to the right; thence along said curve, • having a radius of 2261.83 feet a delta angle of 17°26'00", a chord that bears UO3°47'11"W - 685.55 feet, an arc length of 688.20 feet; thence N00°04'11"W a distance of 406.67 feet -to a point 30.00 feet South of the North line of the Northeast one-quarter of Section 33; thence N89°36'49"E parallel with said North line a distance of 213.72 feet to the West line of the North 3/4 of the East one-half Northeast one-quarter Northeast one-quarter of Section 33, thence 500°10'06"E along said West line a distance of 962.31 feet; thence N89°45'13"E along the South line of said North three-quarters of the East one-half Northeast one-quarter Northeast one-quarter of Section 33 a distance of 660.45 feet to the East line of said Northeast one-quarter of Section 33; Thence S00°10'58"E along said Last line a distance of 1656.54 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. _ Contains: 26.593 acres tore or less. LEGAL SESCRIPTION OP PARCEL 11: A part of the Soutneast one-quarter of Section 33, Township 2 North. Range 66 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado, being more particularly described as: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Section 33; thence NOO°08'24"W on an assumed bear- ing.along the East line of said Southeast one-quarter a distance of 211.61 feet to the TRUE POINT OP BEGINNING; thence along a curve to the left, having a radius of 3849.72 feet a delta angle of 10°59'47", a chord that bears '105°38'18"W - 737.72 feet, an arc length of 738.85 feet; thence ;ill°08'11"'/ a distance of 1707.44 feet; thence N89 59'12"E parallel with and 30.00 feet South of the East-West centerline of Section 33 a distance of 396.36 feet to the East line of the SE% of said Section 33; thence S00 08'24"E along said East line a distance of 2409.53 feet. to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains: 9.377 acres more or less: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OP PARCEL 12: A part of the horhtwest one-quarter of Section 34, Township 2 North, Range 66 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado, more particularly described is: Beginning at the one-quarter corner common to Sections 33 and 34; thence MOO-10'58"W along the West line of the-Northwest one-quarter of said Section 34 a distance of 1656.54 feet; thence :189°41'29"E along the South line of the North three-quarters of the West one-half West one-half Northwest one-quarter Northwest one-quarter of Section 34 a distance of 331.83 feet; thence NOO°09'47"W along the Last line of said North three-quarters of the West one-half West one-half Northwest one-quarter Northwest one-quarter a distance of 734.60 feet to a point 260.00 'feet South of.the North line of the Northwest one-quarter of Section 34; thence N89°34'30"1 parallel with said North line a distance of 2324.53 feet to.the North South centerline of Sec- tion 34; thence 300°01'29"E along said North-South centerline a distance of 2404.90 feet to the center of said Section 34; thence S39°53'11"W along the East-West centerline of said Section 34 a distance of 2649.96 feet to the POINT OF EEO:NNING. Contains: 140.447 acres more or less. • I • L • LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL 13: • A part of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 34, Township 2 North, Range 66 West of the 6th Prl-:i;.a1 Rertt:an, Well County, Colorado, being more particularly described as: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Section 34; thence N00°08'24'W on an assumed bearing along the West line of said Southwest one-quarter a distance of 30.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF B_GI:IyI:1G• thence continuing :IOO°08'24"W along said West line a distance of • 2621.14 feet to the West one-quarter corner of said Section 34; thence :169°53'11": along the East-West centerline of said Section 34 a distance of 2649.96 feet to the center of said Section 34; thence S00°01'29"E along the :forth-Louth centerline of said Section 34 a distance of 2635.20,feet to a point 30.00 feet North of the Louth one-quarter corner of said Section 34; thence 869°48'33"W parallel with and 30.00 feet North of the South line of said South- west one-quarter of Section 34 a distance of 2644,7;, feet to the TRUE POINT OF Bea:NUIN0. Contains: 159.724 acres more or less. 10 I f .f : hp u. • Ma ow II. .rI-• I I J 2n (.rpt(1 —r in."rau..nrlr iL._. _ .' -+'T, 1 Ass -Ilt.17! Aunt, P r J. r) lin 1� 3 / j�y rli'�4(8!34.( IM' Iwll•1--,A .r..•Irw'"'""o 1.r� yi 1 t 1 VBLIC tg934. .• $ t 671+..'i.'t.n.'pfi•.r +os+•+.•..s.r'.•..1..+Gr321i I •• PMN WII lR.Ila.s , i $ . :{ r Ia01{M.r 1 I I I 0. • I SERVICE) . I . A. r ? • •"fi II•n).� IJJ�ip.�C1 Ili 1' I ...Rh" I • • '.1'p I N I44 «.. 'onVat i r ('+may....'•En \\ki 4.1` : aJ ,� PAR— ge ' �� y.. x¢•j�' So Acres • 8'!'.04 3 Acres•.., : i ,�.III - - IN I I{1.902. kl.. • i . .Ll. ,,',PARCEL Hilt �• • PARCEL I2 i(rt;. Conic 1i1 UW.417 AtlasI \.�s t 22.51 l was or Ins. 24.593 Lan' ' ,;p 111614 OS has )1 • IIX 1.1 ,. 3A A I k: ... �•�iin ! •n11• -V-1!,4.41 ' • ...34.,1 Q .«.1. ' .a a 6.1.14 . 3 lIP I i it 101334, It'll • '? . .poi Aues s 1 ' - h L �. I I i Acne L ,r • -ARCEL II • . Irsa • I I C.aIWs, •s �� 9.377 Ann • C r..+..Ir r. =I �' PAay R• CEL 13 11 f. NI C.Ploins1159.724 AntI . men w loss '1.-.....06411.1141• r:I • I a Y 111.10i MI .. S I i N Mr 9 . .eV a...r.a,.r rr..� .I , o .4irl1. 1 u 3 . •341. ^ L441.w I • 4S %S.6 Lrl rs i I • 1 talons sot.,r•. 3 4 .wu.�n I •w .r .... .r «, Per 03 . w 16,1644 Illb • A ai.. . w ;GA' �} 3434.•.. r • • ...� r. .3. 3434 3434 3434 3434 '34.. ATTACHMENT C City of Fort Lupton, Colorado Draft Sewer Use Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. INTRODUCED BY AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 530 and SECTION 12-530-24 OF THE CITY CODE BY REPEALING SECTION 12-530-24 AND INSERTING IN LIEU THEREOF A NEW SECTION PROVIDING FOR LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES NECESSARY TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO SEWAGE LINES, PUMPING STATIONS, AND TREATMENT FACILITIES; TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH TREATMENT STANDARDS; AND TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF WORKERS AT THE TREATMENT PLANT. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT LUPTON, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance No. 530 and Section 12-530-24, USE OF THE PUBLIC SEWERS, of the City Code is hereby amended by repealing Section 12- 530-24 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: USE OF THE PUBLIC SEWERS 12-530-24 1) No person(s) shall discharge or cause to be discharged any unpolluted waters such as stormwater, surface water, ground- water, roof runoff, or subsurface drainage to any sewer, except by written permission of the Director of Public Works/City Administrator. 2) Stormwater other than that exempted under Number 1 of this ordinance and all other unpolluted drainage shall be discharged to such sewers as are specifically designated as storm sewers, or to a natural outlet approved by the Director of Public Works/City Administrator and other regulatory agencies. Unpolluted industrial cooling water or process water or air conditioning wastewater may be discharged, on approval of the Director of Public Works/City Administrator to a storm sewer, sanitary sewer, or natural outlet. 3) No person(s) shall discharge or cause to be discharged to any public sewer any of the following described domestic, commercial , or industrial water or wastes not meeting the following limitations: a. Must have an instantaneous pH value in the range of five and one-half (5.5) to nine (9.0) standard units. Must not contain pollutants which will cause corrosive effects, damage, or hazards to structures, equipment, or personnel of the treatment works. b. Must not contain solid, viscous or liquid wastes which allow or may cause obstruction to the flow in a collection line or otherwise interfere with the proper operation of -1- QZ,U S the treatment works. Prohibited materials include all solid objects, material , refuse, and debris not normally contained in sewage, such as, but not limited to, ashes, cinders, sand, mud, straw, shavings, metal , glass, rags, feathers, tar, plastics, wood, unground garbage, whole blood, paunch manure, hair and fleshings, entrails and paper dishes, cups, milk containers, etc. , either whole or ground by garbage grinders. c. Must not contain improperly shredded garbage that has not been ground or comminuted to such a degree that all particles will be carried freely in suspension under flow conditions normally prevailing in the wastewater system to which the user is connected. At all times, no particle shall be greater than one-half (1/2) inch in any direction. d. Must not contain explosive mixtures consisting of liquids, solids, or gases which by reason of their nature or quantity are, or may be, sufficient either alone or by interaction with other substances to cause fire or explosion or be injurious in any other way to the operation of sewers or the treatment works. At no time shall two (2) successive readings on an explosion hazard meter at the point of discharge into the wastewater system be more than five percent (5%) , nor may any single reading be over ten percent (10%) of the lower explosive limit (L.E.L. ) of the meter. Prohibited materials include, but are not limited to: gasoline, kerosene, fuel oil , naphtha, benzene, toluene, xylene, ethers, alcohols, ketones, aldehydes, peroxides, chlorates, perchlorates, bromates, carbides, hydrides, sulfides. e. Must not contain pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in the treatment works, including, but not limited to waste streams with a closed cup flashpoint of less than eighty-six (86) degrees Centigrade (187 degrees Fahrenheit) using the test methods specified in 40 CFR 261.21. Pollutants must not contain any flammable substance with a flashpoint lower than 187 degrees Fahrenheit. f. Must not contain heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity in the treatment works resulting in interference but in no case heat in such quantities that the temperature at the treatment works exceeds forty (40) degrees Centigrade (104 degrees Fahrenheit). At no time shall the temperature of the water or wastes at the point of discharge into the public sewer be less than thirty-two (32) degrees Fahrenheit or more than one hundred fifty (150) degrees Fahrenheit. -2- or oini.„ g. Must not contain grease or oil or other substances that will solidify or become viscous between thirty-two (32) degrees Fahrenheit and one hundred fifty (150) degrees Fahrenheit. h. Must not contain insoluble substances in excess of 10,000 parts per million. i . Must not contain solids in excess of 20,000 parts per million. j. Must not contain insoluble substances having a specific gravity greater than 2.65. k. Must not contain gases or vapors either free or occluded in concentrations toxic or dangerous to humans or animals. 1 . Must not contain toxic, poisonous, irritating, noxious, or malodorous solids, liquids, or gases in sufficient quantity, either singly or by interaction with other wastes, which could contaminate the sludge of any municipal system, injure or interfere with any sewage treatment process, constitute a hazard to humans or animals, create a public nuisance, create a hazard to treatment plant employees, or create any hazard in or have an adverse effect on the waters receiving any discharge from the treatment works. m. Must not have a chlorine demand greater than fifteen (15) parts per million. n. Must not contain any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants (BOD, etc.) released at a rate and/or concentration which has a reasonable potential , in the opinion of the Director of Public Works/City Administrator, to adversely affect the treatment plant (inhibition, pass- through of pollutants, sludge contamination, or endangerment of treatment plant workers). o. Must not have a BOD in excess of 325 milligrams per liter. p. Must not contain in excess of 10 parts per million of any floatable oil , fat, grease, or any substance from animal or vegetable origin, or both; or any grease, oil , nonbio- degradable cutting oil , or any oily substance from petroleum or mineral origin, or both, including, but not limited to: cooling or quenching oils, lubrication oils, cutting oils, and non-saponifiable oils. -3- {fir C9 � _. q. Must not contain organic toxic pollutants, introduced by the intentional or accidental dumping of solvents, used in operations involving degreasing, surface preparation, tank washing, paint thinning, paint equipment cleaning, or any other process. r. Shall not be any trucked or hauled pollutant, except as approved by the Director of Public Works/City Administrator and discharged at a point designated by the Director of Public Works/City Administrator. s. Must not contain storm water, surface water, groundwater, roof run off, or subsurface drainage without first obtaining a permit from the control authority for such a discharge. t. Must not contain the following pollutants in excess of the following limits as measured at the point of discharge into the wastewater system: 1) Total Iron - 1.0 milligrams per liter 2) Total Cadmium - 0.05 milligrams per liter 3) Total Chromium - 4.5 milligrams per liter 4) Total Copper - 0.5 milligrams per liter 5) Total Lead - 2.0 milligrams per liter 6) Total Mercury - 0.007 milligrams per liter 7) Total Nickel - 10.0 milligrams per liter 8) Total Zinc - 4.0 milligrams per liter 9) Total Arsenic - 0.1 milligrams per liter 10) Total Cyanide - 1.0 milligrams per liter 11) Total Phenols - 10.0 milligrams per liter 12) Total Silver - 0.5 milligrams per liter 13) Total Selenium - 12.0 milligrams per liter u. Must not contain any radioactive wastes or isotopes. 4) The following described substances, materials, waters, or wastes shall be limited in discharges to municipal systems, to concentrations or quantities which will not harm either the sewers, wastewater treatment processes or equipment, will not have an adverse effect on the receiving stream, or will not otherwise endanger lives, limb, public property, or constitute a nuisance. The Director of Public Works/City Administrator may set limitations lower than the limitations established in the regulations below if in his opinion such more severe limitations are necessary to meet the above objectives. In forming his opinion as to the acceptability of such limitations, the Director of Public Works/City Administrator will give consideration to such factors as the quantity of subject waste in relation to flows and velocities in the sewers, materials of construction of the sewers, the wastewater treatment processes employed, capacity of the wastewater treatment plant, degree of -4- treatability of the waste in the wastewater treatment plant, the effluent and sludge regulations with which the wastewater treatment plant must comply, and other pertinent factors. The limitations or restrictions on materials or characteristics of wastes or wastewaters discharged to the sanitary sewer which shall not be violated without approval of the Director of Public Works/City Administrator are as follows: a. Any garbage that has not been properly shredded (See Section 3, item c). Garbage grinders may be connected to sanitary sewers from homes, hotels, institutions, restaurants, hospitals, catering establishments, or similar places where garbage originates from the preparation of food in kitchens for the purpose of consumption on the premises or when served caterers. b. Any water or wastes containing iron, chromium, copper, lead, zinc, and similar objectionable or toxic substances (See Section 3, item t) to such degree that any such material received in the composite wastewater at the wastewater treatment works exceeds the limits established by the Director of Public Works/City Administrator for such materials. c. Any waters or wastes containing grease, oil , nonbiodegradable cutting oil or any oily substance from petroleum or mineral origin, or both (See Section 3, item p) to such a degree that any such material received in the composite wastewater at the wastewater treatment plant exceeds the limits established by the Director of Public Works/City Administrator for such materials. d. Any water or wastes containing floatable oil , fat, grease, or any oily substance of vegetable or animal origin, or both (See Section 3, item p) to such a degree that any such material received in the composite wastewater at the wastewater treatment plant exceeds the limits established by the Director of Public Works/City Administrator for such materials. e. Any water or wastes containing suspended solids of such character and quantity that unusual attention or expense is required to handle such materials at the treatment plant. f. Any waters or wastes containing noxious or odor-producing substances exceeding limits which may be established by the Director of Public Works/City Administrator. g. Quantities of flow, concentrations, or both which constitutes a "slug" as defined in City Ordinance 530, Section 2, subsection 12-530-4, item 19. -5- 0`x13 ' ` , h. Waters or wastes containing substances which are not amenable to treatment or reduction by the wastewater treatment processes employed, or are amenable to treatment only to such a degree that the wastewater treatment plant effluent cannot meet the requirements of other agencies having jurisdiction over discharge to the receiving waters. i . Any water or wastes which, by interaction with other water or wastes in the public sewer system, release obnoxious gases, form suspended solids which interfere with the collection system, or create a condition deleterious to structures and treatment processes. 5) If any waters or wastes are discharged, or are proposed to be discharged, to the public sewers that contain the substances or possess the characteristics enumerated in Number 4 of this Section, and which in the judgement of the Director of Public Works/City Administrator, may have a deleterious effect upon the wastewater facilities, processes, equipment, or receiving waters, or which otherwise create a hazard to life or safety or constitute a public nuisance, the Director of Public Works/City Administrator may: a. Reject the wastes, b. Require pretreatment to an acceptable condition for discharge to the public sewers, c. Require control over the quantities and rates of discharge, and/or d. Require payment to cover the added cost of handling and treating the wastes not covered by existing taxes or sewer charges under the provisions of Number 10 of this article. When considering the above alternative the Director of Public Works/City Administrator shall give consideration to the economic impact of each alternative on the discharger. If the Director of Public Works/City Administrator permits the pretreatment or equalization of waste flows, the design and installation of the plants and equipment shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works/City Administrator. 6) Grease, oil , and sand interceptors or traps shall be provided when, in the opinion of the Director of Public Works/City Administrator, they are necessary for the proper handling of liquid wastes containing floatable grease in excessive amounts as specified in Number 3p, or any flammable wastes, sands, or other harmful ingredients; except that such interceptors shall not be -required for private living quarters or dwelling units. -6- e 9 All interceptors or traps shall be of a type and capacity approved by the Director of Public Works/City Administrator, and shall be located as to be readily and easily accessible for cleaning and inspections. In the maintaining of these interceptors the owner(s) shall be responsible for the proper removal and disposal by appropriate means of the captured material and shall maintain records of the dates and means of disposal which are subject to review by the Director of Public Works/City Administrator. Any removal and hauling of the collected materials not performed by owner(s) personnel must be performed by currently licensed waste disposal firms. 7) Where pretreatment of flow-equalizing facilities are provided or required for any waters or wastes, they shall be maintained continuously in satisfactory and effective operation by owner(s) and at owner(s) expense. 8) When required by the Director of Public Works/City Administrator, the owner(s) of any property serviced by a building sewer carrying industrial wastes shall install a suitable structure together with such necessary meters and other appurtenances in the building sewer to facilitate observation, sampling, and measurement of the wastes. Such structures, when required, shall be accessibly and safely located, and shall be constructed in accordance with plans approved by the Director of Public Works/City Administrator. The structure shall be installed by the owner at his expense, and shall be maintained by him so as to be safe and accessible at all times. 9) The Director of Public Works/City Administrator may require a user of sewer services to provide information needed to determine compliance with this ordinance. These requirements may include: a. Peak wastewaters discharge rates and volumes over a specified time period. b. Chemical analyses of wastewaters. c. Information on raw materials, processes, and products affecting wastewater volume and quantity. d. Quantity and disposition of specific liquid, sludge, oil , solvent, or other materials important to sewer use control . e. A plot plan of sewers of the user's property showing sewer and pretreatment facility location. f. Details of wastewater pretreatment facilities. g. Details of systems to prevent and control the losses of materials through spills to the municipal sewer. h. Additional information as may be required by the Director of Public Works/City Administrator to determine compliance with this ordinance. 10) All measurements, tests, and analyses of the characteristics of water and wastes to which reference is made in this ordinance shall be determined in accordance with the latest addition of "Standard Methods of the Examination Of Water and Wastewater, " published by the American Public Health Association. Sampling methods, location, times, durations, and frequencies are to be determined on an individual basis subject to approval by the Director of Public Works/City Administrator. 11) No statement contained in this article shall be construed as preventing any special agreement or arrangement between the City and any industrial concern whereby an industrial waste of unusual strength or characteristic may be accepted by the City for treatment. 12) All regulations contained in this ordinance shall be considered a part of the contract of every person receiving sewer service from the Sewer Department of the City and no person, firm, or corporation may be served from the sewer utility unless he agrees to and abides by all rules and regulations of the City pertaining to the use of said sewer system. 13) Previous ordinance section 12-530-24 and all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed. All other sections of Ordinance 530 remain in effect. • -8- ea,^,^,�, ATTACHMENT A City of Fort Lupton, Colorado 201 Facilities Plan CITY OF FORT LUPTON, COLORADO 201 FACILITIES PLAN BLACK & VEATCH Kansas City, Kansas - Aurora, Colorado B&V Project 16995. 100 May 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE 1-1 B. PREVIOUS PLANNING STUDIES 1-1 C. PLANNING AREA AND PLANNING PERIOD 1-1 D. NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE CURRENT PLANNING REPORT 1-2 E. CURRENT TREATMENT SITUATION 1-3 CHAPTER 2 - PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS A. POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2-1 B. EXISTING WASTEWATER FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS 2-4 C. PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS 2-4 D. INFILTRATION AND INFLOW 2-10 CHAPTER 3 - EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM A. GENERAL 3-1 B. INFILTRATION 3-3 C. MAINTENANCE 3-3 D. LIFT STATIONS 3-3 E. SEWER SLOPES 3-3 F. CONDITION OF EXISTING FACILITIES 3-4 CHAPTER 4 - FUTURE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS A. INTRODUCTION 4-1 B. SEWER MASTER PLAN 4-2 C. FUTURE. GRAVITY SEWERS 4-2 D. FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS 4-12 TC-1 " y .4, 9 Page CHAPTER 5 - EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES A. BACKGROUND 5-1 B. INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT 5-2 C. LIFT STATIONS 5-2 D. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 5-6 1. AERATED LAGOON 5-6 2. POLISHING PONDS 5-8 3. CHLORINATION FACILITIES, EFFLUENT FLOW MEASUREMENT, AND HOLDING POND 5-9 4. ABANDONED FACILITIES 5-12 E. EVALUATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5-12 CHAPTER 6 - EVALUATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES A. INTRODUCTION 6-1 B. SITE LOCATION 6-1 C. SCREENING OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT OPTIONS 6-2 1. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 6-2 2. OPTIMUM OPERATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES 6-3 3. CONVENTIONAL BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PROCESS 6-3 4. OTHER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES 6-4 5. PHYSICAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES 6-5 6. REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT 6-6 D. OXIDATION DITCH ALTERNATIVE 6-7 E. TRICKLING FILTER ALTERNATIVE 6-7 F. AERATED LAGOON ALTERNATIVE 6-8 G. WETLAND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE 6-9 TC-2 P P Page CHAPTER 6 - EVALUATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES (Continued) H. ECONOMIC EVALUATION 6-10 I. NONECONOMIC EVALUATION 6-11 J. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 6-15 K. RECOMMENDATION 6-19 CHAPTER 7 - RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS A. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 7-1 B. FUNDING AND SCHEDULE 7-2 CHAPTER 8 - ENVIRONMENTAL, PUBLIC AGENCY, AND PUBLIC REVIEW ISSUES A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 8-1 _ 1. PHYSIOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS 8-1 2. SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY 8-2 3. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC PLANTS, ANIMALS, AND NATURAL HABITATS 8-3 4. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 8-5 5. ENERGY PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION 8-5 6. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 8-5 7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE 8-5 B. PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW 8-7 C. CITY OF FORT LUPTON AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 8-7 TC-3 C.2 4 APPENDICES APPENDIX A ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS APPENDIX B LETTER FROM THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPENDIX C LETTERS RECEIVED FROM GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC AGENCIES APPENDIX D ADVERTISEMENT AND ATTENDANCE LIST FOR PUBLIC MEETING LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1-1 COLORADO WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 1-4 TABLE 2-1 HISTORICAL POPULATION 2-2 TABLE 2-2 FUTURE POPULATION PROJECTION 2-3 TABLE 2-3 BOD5 AND TSS INFLUENT WASTEWATER CONCENTRATIONS 2-5 TABLE 2-4 WASTEWATER TEMPERATURES 2-6 TABLE 2-5 WASTEWATER FLOWS FOR 1989 2-7 TABLE 2-6 PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS 2-9 TABLE 2-7 INFILTRATION AND INFLOW ANALYSIS 2-11 TABLE 2-8 COSTS TO REMOVE OR TREAT INFILTRATION AND INFLOW 2-14 TABLE 3-1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING GRAVITY SEWERS 3-2 TC-4 2`'°0'" `; LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Page TABLE 4-1 CORRELATION OF BLACK & VEATCH AND LAND USE ELEMENT LAND USE CATEGORIES 4-4 TABLE 4-2 ACREAGE OF TRIBUTARY AREAS 4-5 TABLE 4-3 2010 AND ULTIMATE SEWAGE FLOW CONTRIBUTION 4-6 TABLE 4-4 SIZE OF REQUIRED SEWER PIPE 4-8 TABLE 4-5 CAPACITY OF EXISTING FACILITIES 4-9 TABLE 4-6 FUTURE ADDITIONAL SEWAGE COLLECTION FACILITIES 4-10 TABLE 4-7 SUMMARY OF PIPE SIZES 4-11 TABLE 4-8 EXISTING INTERCEPTOR SEWER CAPACITY 4-13 TABLE 4-9 INTERCEPTOR SEWER PIPE SIZE REQUIREMENTS 4-14 TABLE 4-10 PARALLEL INTERCEPTOR SEWERS 4-15 TABLE 4-11 SUMMARY OF INTERCEPTOR SEWER PIPE SIZES 4-16 TABLE 5-1 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES - WASTEWATER LIFT STATIONS 5-4 TABLE 5-2 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES - AERATED LAGOON AND POLISHING PONDS 5-7 TABLE 5-3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES - CHLORINATION FACILITIES AND HOLDING POND 5-10 TABLE 5-4 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES - ABANDONED FACILITIES 5-13 TC-5 ` ® LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Page TABLE 6-1 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS OF TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 6-12 TABLE 6-2 NONECONOMIC COMPARISON OF TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 6-13 TABLE 6-3 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISON OF TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 6-16 TABLE 6-4 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 6-20 TABLE 7-1 PRELIMINARY PROCESS PARAMETERS FOR OXIDATION DITCH ALTERNATIVE 7-3 TABLE 7-2 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST 7-4 TABLE 7-3 OPINION OF PROBABLE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 7-5 TABLE 7-4 PRELIMINARY FINANCING PLAN 7-7 TABLE 7-5 TENTATIVE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 7-8 TC-6 LIST OF FIGURES Following Page FIGURE 1-1 GENERAL LOCATION MAP 1-1 FIGURE 1-2 PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY 1-2 FIGURE 2-1 PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY 2-1 FIGURE 2-2 PAST AND PROJECTED POPULATIONS 2-3 FIGURE 3-1 SEWER LINES REQUIRING QUARTERLY MAINTENANCE 3-3 FIGURE 4-1 PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY 4-2 FIGURE 4-2 CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FOR SEWER MASTER PLAN 4-2 FIGURE 4-3 PLATTE RIVER INTERCEPTOR 4-11 FIGURE 5-1 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY AND LIFT STATIONS 5-1 FIGURE 6-1 OXIDATION DITCH ALTERNATIVE 6-7 FIGURE 6-2 TRICKLING FILTER ALTERNATIVE 6-8 FIGURE 6-3 COMPLETELY MIXED AERATED LAGOON ALTERNATIVE 6-9 FIGURE 6-4 WETLAND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE 6-9 FIGURE 7-1 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 7-1 FIGURE 8-1 LOCATION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 8-1 TC-7 ;:k1 ci °i CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE The actions required to comply with the Colorado Wastewater Discharge Permit issued to the City of Fort Lupton, Colorado, are evaluated in this wastewater facilities plan. The existing wastewater treatment facility and a completely new wastewater treatment facility were evaluated to determine the best and most reliable method of wastewater treatment. This wastewater facilities plan also includes an evaluation of the wastewater collection system and a recommended course of action to accommodate future growth. This wastewater facilities plan was prepared in accordance with the regula- tions of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Construction Grants Program, pursuant to Section 201 of Public Law 92-500. The Construction Grants Program regulations were followed to allow the recommended facilities to be eligible for the federally backed state-loan program administered by the Colorado Department of Health. B. PREVIOUS PLANNING STUDIES The General Plan, Town of Fort Lupton, Colorado was written in 1968 and updated in 1973. (1) Since 1973, Fort Lupton has grown and changed its designation to become the City of Fort Lupton. In 1987, the City Council of the City of Fort Lupton adopted the energy impact studies performed by RBD, Inc. The energy impact studies updated the 1973 plan and provided new planning directives. The energy impact studies included the Land Use Element, Water Service Plan, Wastewater Service Plan, and Fiscal Analysis. C. PLANNING AREA AND PLANNING PERIOD The City of Fort Lupton is above the flood plain on the east bank of the South Platte River. It is on U.S. Highway 85 north of Denver and south of Greeley (Figure 1-1) . Construction of the new airport and E-470 will 1-1 St:" C LOVELAND GREELEY Ns US 34 03 0 3 6 LONGMONT i° N N.. OD CV ^(0 D w / FT. LUPTON N p BOULDER .... 7 BRIGH�TON BROOMFIELD PROPOSED E-470 _ NORTHGLEN r--i� L_, WESTMINSTER ) I --1 THORNTO I I DENVER ) I I AIRPORT �-a+rr SITE i J I WHEAT RIDGE ARVADA COMMERCLi E;CITY \' I __' 1 GOLDEN (\ j I-70 LAKEWOOD DENVER n, N N I AURORA ENGLEWOOD LITTLETON CITY OF iitf Figure FORT GENERAL LOCATION MAP LUPTON 1-1 S ` L have a significant impact on both the area northeast of Denver and the City of Fort Lupton. The location of the City of Fort Lupton's wastewater treatment facility and the two lift stations that pump wastewater to the wastewater treatment facility are shown on Figure 1-2. Wastewater flows by gravity to the two lift stations, is pumped to and treated at the waste- water treatment facility, and is discharged to the South Platte River. The boundaries of the planning area are shown on Figure 1-2 and are larger than what is shown in the Land Use Element portion of the energy impact studies. The boundaries of the planning area include the maximum area the City of Fort Lupton anticipates serving in the foreseeable future and were determined by the City of Fort Lupton. The boundaries of the 208 Areawide Water Quality Plan, 1988, Update are also shown on the figure. The City of Fort Lupton does not anticipate serving the area northeast of the city called Aristocrat Ranchettes. If the City of Fort Lupton were required to annex an area such as Aristocrat Ranchettes or Peaceful Acres, the impact on the wastewater treatment facilities would not be significant. The impact of an annexation _ would not significantly affect the wastewater treatment facilities providing excess capacity is available or the area does not include a significant number people. The cost of providing sewer service for a large area that is annexed and is presently served by individual septic tanks is substantial. An estimate of the cost to install sewer lines in the Aristocrat Ranchettes area is approximately $1,800,000. In addition to sewer line installation, it would cost approximately $2,100 per house to take the septic tank out of service and install and connect a sewer service line. As stipulated by the Construction Grants Program, the planning period for this wastewater facilities plan is 20 years. The current planning period covers the period from 1990 to 2010. D. NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE CURRENT PLANNING EFFORT This study addresses the treatment capacity and the degree of treatment that will be required at the City of Fort Lupton's wastewater treatment facility during the planning period. In addition, this waste- 1-2 e'r ? j tt r i e , i 3 / p f....': Q . W - J Ti co 1 1 : C 1 4 Iiz -- . z � . , —.-4 . , a 0 to J. O CO z tl e s . r 1 1- m 1 99 L.1 a ¢n Z 8a ' . r-� CC O. - i r z z I- ,+, s .. I F Q 0 0. j -4 a,' , F. 1 Z tu Q1 : . W I Ir uF * x W Po` - 1 � O 0 1 t / y water facilities plan includes a five-year update of the sanitary sewer portion of the Wastewater Service Plan. Information from other studies has been used in preparing this wastewater facilities plan. Where appropriate, this information is referenced rather than included in this study to avoid duplication. E. CURRENT TREATMENT SITUATION The most recent Colorado Wastewater Discharge Permit for the City of Fort Lupton's wastewater treatment facility was issued in 1988 and expires in 1993. The effluent limitations contained in this discharge permit are summarized in Table 1-1. In 1989, there were 15 violations of the five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) effluent limitation of the Colorado Wastewater Discharge Permit. Of these 15 violations, the 30-day average was violated four times, the seven-day average was violated four times, and the 30-day removal limitation was violated seven times. These violations have continued despite several recent modifications to the wastewater treatment facilities. 1-3 TABLE 1-1 COLORADO WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS Parameter Limit Comment Flow, mgd 1.5 30-day average BOD5, mg/1 30/45 30-day average/seven-day average* TSS, mg/1 75/110 30-day average/seven-day average Fecal conform, number/100 ml 6,000/12,000 30-day geometric mean/ seven-day geometric mean Total residual chlorine, mg/1 0.12 Daily maximum pH 6.5 to 9.0 Daily minimum and maximum oil and grease, mg/1 10 Daily maximum *An additional HOD limitation is that the 30-day average of the effluent concentration must be less than 515 percent of the 30-day average of the influent concentration. This is equivalent to an B5-percent removal of BOD5. • 1-4 O CHAPTER 2 PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS A. POPULATION PROJECTIONS Population projections were developed for the City of Fort Lupton urban growth area. Growth area boundaries were described by Cityscape Urban Design in the General Plan Update, 1986, Land Use Element (Land Use Element). The growth area boundaries of that report have been revised by City staff resulting in the planning area boundary shown on Figure 2-1. Also shown on the figure is the planning area boundary developed in the _ 208 Areawide Water Quality Plan, 1988, Update. Historical population growth information is contained in the Nelson, Haley, Patterson, and Quirk, Inc. , Preliminary Engineering Report Wastewater Treatment Improvements, City of Fort Lupton, Colorado, July 1974 and the RBD, Inc. , City of Fort Lupton, General Plan Update, 1986, Wastewater Service Plan. This information is summarized in Table 2-1. An analysis of population growth rates is contained in the Land Use Element. Population estimates for 1990 to 2010 are shown in Table 2-2. For the first column, the 1989 population was assumed to be 5,384, based on the "Conservation Trust Fund Preliminary Population Estimates, " dated July 1, 1989. A population growth rate of 3.25 percent was used to calculate future populations. The population growth rate of 3.25 percent was determined in the Land Use Element and is expected to be representative of population growth rates in the future. The projected population for the year 2010 is 10,550. Based on the population growth rate from the Land Use Element, Fort Lupton's population will almost double in 20 years. A more- conservative population estimate for the years 1990 to 2010 based on the 208 Areawide Water Quality Plan, 1988, Update is also shown in Table 2-2. The information contained in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 are plotted on Figure 2-2. The population projections described in this section are used for the evaluation of the treatment process. Sewage flows used to size future collection facilities are based on future land use and tributary acreage, not population. 2-1 • . . x A t6) 'r 1 ../..\^-1 v. i ._ _ 4 • r s �F Vg• i. .../ Z G J ' 1 Z 0 i , t l " r a a , N * -� r- } I 1 , > . N J r `i — *� r '—1 ; CC cc z vi O M N-• ! „,4 a ' $ `J cI _. z 1- '1 -__. ._ -vim _ Q Z 4—r _. "� Z 1 4 LL i, , Z i: . I m I W ..,,,fi'-w-. _ » 0 ' z> , 0 tr s ' G d r . O i # I— �� 0UJ TABLE 2-1 HISTORICAL POPULATION Year Population 1900 214 1910 614 1920 1,014 1930 1,578 1940 1,907 1950 1,907 1960 2,194 1970 2,489 1980 4,251 1985 4,890 2-2 TABLE 2-2 FUTURE POPULATION PROJECTION Population Projections Land Use Year Element* 208 Plan** 1990 5,550 5,200 1991 5,750 - _ 1992 5,950 _ 1993 6,100 - 1994 6,300 1995 6,500 5,790 1996 6,750 - 1997 6,950 - 1998 7,200 1999 7,400 _ 2000 7,650 6,700 2001 7,900 - 2002 8,150 - 2003 8,450 2004 8,700 - 2005 9,000 7,400 2006 9,250 - 2007 9,600 - _ 2008 9,900 - 2009 10,200 - 2010 10,550 8,130 *A population growth rate of 3.25 percent was assumed. The growth rate of 3.25 percent was determined in the Land Use Element. **Population projections from the 208 Areawide Water Quality Plan, 1988, Update. The population in 2010 was estimated based on the average projected growth for 1990 to 2005. 2-3 0 N O N cu a N W 2 o o. a \ ' — I A i 1 III I CIPI o \ O i N \ O cn Z 0 I II co a I , co 2 Z J o O m it t a 0 (0 O — a Ier 0 4 W W F- o !. V m W I • - I a. O 0 m I F. I di O ` m a. I i - N O 0 , O I I r-0.,0 0_ O o O O O O O O O O 0 Z O o 8 m o 0 0 0 OO R o o rI- a) o in 8 re) NOI1VlfldOd V �J nom`" 7, ri B. EXISTING WASTEWATER FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS Data indicating wastewater flows and characteristics provided by the City of Fort Lupton were examined. Some of the data was not used because of unreliable flowmeters, unreliable records, or data that appeared to be inconsistent. The remainder of the data was summarized and used to project future wastewater flows and characteristics. The annual averages and highest monthly values for BOD5 and total suspended solids (TSS) are presented in Table 2-3. For the years shown, -- the annual averages do not vary greatly. Presented in Table 2-4 are wastewater temperatures for 1987 through 1989. The average temperature during the coldest winter months was 4 C and during the warmest summer months was 23 C. The flows for 1989 are shown in Table 2-5. Possible difficulties with the flowmeter may mean that some of these flows are not accurate. Out of all of the flow data that was examined, the flow data from 1989 was determined to be the most reliable and consistent and will be used to project future wastewater flows. C. PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS Projected wastewater characteristics are assumed to be the same as the averages in Table 2-3. It will be assumed that future influent BOD5 concentrations will be 163 milligrams per liter (mg/1) and future influent TSS concentrations will be 183 mg/l. BOD5 and TSS concentrations have been fairly constant over the last three years, and it is assumed that the averages for those years will be representative of future concentrations. Projected wastewater flows for the planning period were calculated using the projected populations from the 208 Areawide Water Quality Plan, 1988, Update in Table 2-2. It was assumed that the present population would continue to contribute 173 gallons per capita per day. This assump- tion results in a base flow of 0.90 million gallons per day (mgd) for the year 1989. It was then assumed that after 1989 each new individual would contribute a wastewater flow of 100 gallons per day. The value of 100 gallons per capita per day represents approximately 65 to 85 gallons per capita per day of domestic and commercial flow. The remaining flow 2-4 FCC!7 r TABLE 2-3 BOD5 AND TSS INFLUENT WASTEWATER CONCENTRATIONS Annual Average Highest Monthly Value Year BOD5 TSS GODS T55 (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/11 1987 161 173 230 260 1988 159 178 188 254 1989 169 198 218 330 Average 163 183 The annual average was calculated using the 12 monthly values for each year. SOURCE: Letter dated June 30, 1987, from RBD, Inc. , Engineering Consultants to Mr. Robert Crumb, Director of Public Works, City of Fort Lupton, and data provided by the City of Fort Lupton. 2-5 TABLE 2-4 WASTEWATER TEMPERATURES Year Month Temperature _- (°C) 1987 May 17 June 20 July 23 August 21 September 19 October 13 November 9 December 6 1988 January 2 February 5 March 7 April 13 May 18 June 24 July 28 August 21 September 20 October 14 November 7 December 4 1989 January 3 February 4 March 8 April 22 SOURCE: Data provided by the City of Fort Lupton. 2-6 TABLE 2-5 WASTEWATER FLOWS FOR 1989 Month Average Flow (mgd) January 0.80 February 1.01 March 0.96 April 1.04 May 0.94 June 1.05 July 1.19 August 1.19 September 1.05 October 0.42 November 0.56 December 0.54 Average 0.90 SOURCE: Data provided by the City of Fort Lupton. 2-7 is nonexcessive infiltration and inflow. Sewers built after 1990 will use current construction methods and materials, substantially reducing infil- tration and inflow and resulting in flows less than the current 173 gallons per capita per day. Flow projections through the year 2010 are presented in Table 2-6. Flows are projected to average 1. 19 mgd in the year 2010. In Table 2-5, the ratio of the highest flow, 1.19 mgd, in July and August to the average flow, 0.90 mgd, for 1989 is 1.32. Multiplying 1.32 times the projected average flow of 1.19 mgd in 2010, equals 1.57 mgd. Because 1.57 mgd is approximately equal to the 30-day average flow limitation of 1.5 mgd in the current discharge permit, no modification of the permitted flow limitation is anticipated. Projected flows and concentrations do not allow for any abnormally large or concentrated wastewater flows that might be generated by indus- tries that might move into Fort Lupton. Two projects that are in the planning stages could ultimately discharge as much as 130,000 and 77,000 gallons per day. Should these or other industries discharge signif- icant quantities of wastewater into the sewer system, it could affect both the collection system and the wastewater treatment plant. New industries that discharge highly concentrated wastewater to the sewer system could also affect the collection system and the wastewater treatment plant, even though the flow may not be significant. The City of Fort Lupton should carefully evaluate the effects of each new industry on sewer line capacity, lift station capacity, and wastewater treatment plant capacity and loading. New sewer lines or modifications to the lift stations or the wastewater treatment plant may be required to accommodate any new industries. Reducing infiltration and inflow may allow the City of Fort Lupton to add new industries or large commercial or residential developments without building facilities to increase capacity. Reducing infiltration and inflow to provide additional capacity may become important as the wastewater treatment plant or a lift station approaches capacity. Infiltration and inflow will be discussed more thoroughly in the following section. 2-8 YY TABLE 2-6 PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS Projected Population Projected Additional Exceeding 1989 Flow Exceeding 1989 Projected Average Year Population Flow Total Flow (mgd) (mgd) 1989 - - 0.90 1990 0 0.0 0.90 1995 590 0.06 0.96 2000 1,500 0.15 1.05 2005 2,200 0.22 1.12 2010 2,930 0.29 1.19 2-9 LL D. INFILTRATION AND INFLOW The EPA's Construction Grants Program requires that a sewer system analysis within the planning area be performed to determine if infiltration and inflow is potentially excessive. Infiltration is groundwater that enters a sewer system through defective pipes, pipe joints, connections, manhole walls, or other means. Inflow is water that enters a sewer system from sources such as foundation drains, roof drains, basement sumps, and surface water runoff. There is no need to treat infiltration and inflow in a wastewater treatment plant because this water has relatively little oxygen demand, solids, or other contaminants. It is desirable to minimize infiltration and inflow in a sewer system to reduce hydraulic overloading of sewer pipes, of lift stations, and at the wastewater treatment plant. The EPA has determined that infiltration and inflow is not excessive when: • Infiltration. ". . .domestic wastewater plus nonexcessive infil- tration does not exceed 120 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) during periods of high groundwater. . . "(2) • Inflow. ". . . the total daily flow during a storm does not exceed 275 gpcd and there are no operational problems, such as surcharges, bypasses or poor treatment performance, resulting from hydraulic overloading of the treatment works during storm events."(2) Wastewater flow records for 1989 and the estimated 1989 population were used to estimate the flow per person, and the results are shown in Table 2-7. Because of possible inaccuracies of flow measurement and population estimates the numbers shown in Table 2-7 should be considered estimates of the actual values. Meteorological records(3) were examined for Brighton, Colorado, which is approximately seven miles south of the City of Fort Lupton. Brighton received 1.12 inches of precipitation in July 1989 and 1.41 inches of precipitation in August 1989. The average flows of 229 gpcd in July and August 1989 exceeded the recommended standard of 120 gpcd. No groundwater measurements were examined, but the high wastewater flows and significant amounts of precipitation in July and 2-10 TABLE 2-7 INFILTRATION AND INFLOW ANALYSIS Per Capita EPA Standard for Determining Wastewater Estimated Wastewater Potentially Excessive Period in 1989 Flow Population Flow Infiltration or Inflow (mgd) (gpcd) (gpcd) July 1-31 1.19 5,200 229 120 August 1-31 1.19 5,200 229 120 August 1 1.45 5,200 279 275 November 1-30 0.56 5,200 108 - December 1-30 0.54 5,200 104 - January 1 to December 31 0.90 5,200 173 - 2-11 August 1989 indicate that increased flows were probably related to groundwater. Infiltration in the City of Fort Lupton sewer system appears to be significant. Like many front range communities, Fort Lupton can experience local thunderstorms during the summer. On July 30, 1989, 0.93 inches of pre- cipitation were recorded at Brighton. This storm or another storm could have caused the inflow that resulted in the high flow recorded at the wastewater treatment plant on August 1, 1989. The average flow of 279 gpcd on August 1, 1989 is slightly above the recommended standard of 275 gpcd. Given the possible inaccuracies of flow measurement and the population estimates, the calculated values are close enough to the recommended maximum to indicate that inflow is also significant. In addition to peak and wet weather periods, average and dry weather flows per person are shown in Table 2-7 for purposes of comparison. Recorded inches of precipitation at Brighton, Colorado, were 0.30 in — November 1989 and 0.37 in December 1989. Average flows were 108 gpcd in November, 104 gpcd in December, and 173 gpcd for all of 1989. Calculations and flow records indicate that infiltration is poten- tially excessive and inflow is significant, although possibly not excessive. Examination of all of the sewer videotapes from the City of Fort Lupton is beyond the scope of this work; however, a portion of one of the videotapes was examined. Roots growing into the sewer line at the joints and clear water flowing in the sewer were observed during this brief examination. The clear water is indicative of infiltration or inflow. The roots protruding into the sewer indicate that groundwater could flow into the sewer line at the joints should the groundwater level reach the sewer. It is in the best interest of the City of Fort Lupton to reduce infiltration and inflow. As population in the City of Fort Lupton increases, some of the sewer lines or the lift stations could reach or exceed capacity. Reduction of excessive infiltration and inflow would eliminate extraneous flows and could extend the life of the sewer lines and lift stations. Also, as flows at the wastewater treatment plant reach capacity, reducing infiltration and inflow will extend the life of the wastewater treatment plant. 2-12 O62 The City of Fort Lupton's wastewater treatment plant has at times failed to reduce the influent BOD5 concentration by at least 85 percent, thus violating the discharge permit. Infiltration and inflow dilute the influent BOD5 concentration and reduce the hydraulic detention time of the wastewater at the wastewater treatment plant. Reducing infiltration and inflow could improve the wastewater treatment plant performance by improving BOD5 removal percentage and increasing hydraulic detention time. When excessive infiltration and inflow is present, the EPA's Construction Grants Program requires an evaluation to compare the cost of removing the infiltration and inflow to treating it. There are several difficulties in performing an infiltration and inflow evaluation of this nature. Determining the cost of removing the infiltration and inflow and the effectiveness of the removal program without performing a pilot study is very difficult. (4) The cause of infiltration and inflow can be leaks in manholes, sewer lines, service lines, and other connections, and the cost and correction measures differ for each. Also, it is very difficult to quantify in advance how much infiltration and inflow will be eliminated by these correction measures. Sewer repairs to eliminate infiltration and inflow must take place throughout the whole sewer system. Otherwise, water prevented from entering the sewer system at one location might migrate and enter the sewer system somewhere else. The 1989 cost of treating infiltration and inflow that could be eliminated by a sewer system rehabilitation program is shown in Table 2-8. It was estimated that approximately 40 percent of the infiltration and inflow could be eliminated. Final costs are expressed as present worth values and were calculated using the interest rate of 8-3/4 percent mandated by the EPA. The evaluation period used was the life of the planning period, 20 years. Infiltration and inflow contain negligible amounts of oxygen demand and solids; therefore, treatment costs (estimated at 50 percent) associated with oxygen demand and solids were omitted. Also presented in Table 2-8 is the estimated cost to remove infiltra- tion and inflow. The first step would be to perform a sewer system evaluation. This evaluation determines where most of the infiltration and 2-13 TABLE 2-8 COSTS TO REMOVE OR TREAT INFILTRATION AND INFLOW Cost $) Treatment of Infiltration and Inflow* Overall cost of collecting, conveying, and treating removable infiltration and inflow over a 20-year period, expressed as present worth 238,000 Correction of Causes of Infiltration and Inflow** Sewer system evaluation and summary report 7,000 Manhole repair 55,000 Sewer line repair 52,000 Engineering 11,000 Subtotal 125,000 Cost of annual sewer infiltration and inflow correction program, expressed as a present worth 58,000 TOTAL 183,000 Calculated as follows: a. Present worth over 20 years at 8-3/4 percent of 1989 operating costs ($229,657) and working capital ($101,132) from City of Fort Lupton's Sewer Fund equals $3,074,197. b. Divided by 1989 average flow of 0.90 mgd equals $3.416/gallon per day (gpd) . c. For 1989, based on population of 5,200, flow was 173 gpcd. d. Based on 1986 report,(5) flow excluding infiltration and inflow was 106 gpcd. e. Assume infiltration and inflow is 67 gpcd (173 gpcd - 106 gpcd) and that 40 percent, or 26.8 gpcd, of this can be removed. f. Total amount of infiltration and inflow that can be removed is: (26.8 gpcd) x (5,200 people) = 139,360 gpd. g. Assume half of total treatment costs are associated with treating infiltration and inflow. Cost of treating infiltration and inflow is: (139,360 gpd) x ($3.416/gpd) x 0.5 = $238,027. «a Based on cost estimates from sewer line maintenance contractors. Present worth calculated using 20 years and 8-3/4 percent. 2-14 inflow is coming from and how it might be eliminated. It is recommended that this evaluation also include the determination and recording of all sewer invert elevations for which the City of Fort Lupton does not presently have records. The sewer invert elevations would allow accurate calculations of sewer line capacities to be made. The information col- lected in the sewer system evaluation is used to determine which manholes and sewer lines need to be repaired. Then the manholes and sewer lines are repaired. Finally, funds were included for an annual infiltration and inflow correction program. Some of the measures taken to correct infiltration and inflow are not permanent, and new sources of infiltration and inflow occur; therefore, an annual maintenance and inspection program is recommended. All costs presented assume all work will be completed by private contractors. Some measures to significantly reduce infiltration and inflow can be undertaken without the aid of private contractors. During the season of high groundwater, manholes should be inspected. Manholes that are leaking or in need of repair will be discovered during the inspection, and these manholes can be repaired. Experience has shown that repairing leaking manholes will eliminate significant amounts of infiltration and inflow. During the season of high groundwater, flows in manholes during early morning hours can be observed. Sanitary flows in the early morning should be negligible, and significant quantities of clear, flowing water are an indication of infiltration and inflow. By tracing the flow of clear water back up the sewer line, the source of the infiltration and inflow can be isolated. It may be necessary to use television equipment to pinpoint the cause of the leak, if it is in a sewer line. Once the leak is found, it can then be repaired. Without actually performing a study, locating the sources of infiltration and inflow is difficult. The Platte River interceptor sewer line that parallels U.S. Highway 85 is in a low area that seems to be subject to high groundwater. The Platte River interceptor sewer line is a likely source of infiltration and inflow. 2-15 2'2,0m The cost to reduce infiltration and inflow is significantly less than the cost to treat it over the 20-year period. Because it appears to be cost-effective, it is recommended that the City of Fort Lupton begin a program to reduce infiltration and inflow. The City of Fort Lupton has taken some preliminary steps to reduce infiltration and inflow by discon- necting sewer line flush tanks and inspecting some sewer lines using a television camera. It is recommended that the City of Fort Lupton follow through on these preliminary steps and implement an infiltration and inflow reduction program. It is difficult to estimate the amount of infiltration and inflow that can be eliminated by a sewer system rehabilitation program. For this reason, the estimation presented was based on conservative assumptions. The previous analysis indicated that infiltration is the major difficulty, with inflow being less significant. Infiltration is more difficult and expensive to correct than inflow. The evaluation indicates that, even with the conservative assumptions, savings from a sewer system rehabilitation program would be significant. Other benefits discussed earlier include increased influent BOD5 concentration and capacity benefits. 2-16 or';n. CHAPTER 3 EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM A. GENERAL Fort Lupton's wastewater collection system consists of gravity sewers, pumping stations, and force mains. The collection system is separated into two distinct drainage areas. Flow generated on the north side of town and at Aims Community College drains into two sewer mains located in _ 14th Street. The sewers are 12-inch and 18-inch diameter. These pipes converge near Denver Avenue and are carried in a 21-inch pipeline to Lift Station No. 2; the north lift station. Flow generated on the south side of town is collected in sewer mains located in First, Fifth, Ninth, and 11th streets. The sewer main in First Street is 10-inch diameter, and the other three mains are 12-inch diameter. The 11th Street and Ninth Street sewer mains join together in a 12-inch interceptor, and the resulting flow enters Lift Station No. 1; the south lift station. The First Street and Fifth Street mains along with flows from the south are carried to Lift Station No. 1 in the Platte River Interceptor. This interceptor consists of 12-inch and 15-inch-diameter pipes. Numerous branch sewers and laterals collect sewage from throughout the City and discharge into the sewer mains and interceptors. The two lift stations pump into force mains that convey the sewage under the Platte River to the wastewater treatment facility located on the west bank of the _ Platte River. Lift Station No. 2 has a 12-inch-diameter force main, and Lift Station No. 1 has a 10-inch-diameter force main. According to a Nelson, Haley, Patterson, and Quirk, Inc. , report, the original collection system dates back to 1911, was expanded in 1927, and has been growing ever since to meet the needs of residents. The current system contains 2,800 feet of force main and 106,800 feet of gravity sewers. Table 3-1 presents a breakdown of pipe length by pipe diameter for gravity sewers. The 10-inch and 12-inch force mains are 1,000 feet and 1,800 feet in length, respectively. Both are made of cast iron pipe. 3-1 TABLE 3-1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING GRAVITY SEWERS Materials of Diameter Length Construction (in. ) (ft) 6 24,900 VCP 8 38,500 VCP, PVC 10 16,000 VCP, PVC 12 17,400 VCP, PVC 15 5,300 VCP, PVC 18 3,100 PVC 21 1,600 PVC 3-2 R2-, B. INFILTRATION Infiltration and inflow was reported as 88 gpcd in 1986. An interesting feature of Fort Lupton's collection system was automatic flush tanks. These tanks are located at the end of sewer lines with flat slopes and low sewage flows. A potable water connection continuously ran water into the flush tank, and an automatic siphon would periodically drain the tank and flush the sewer pipeline. Due to the potential cross-connection hazard, the water supplies to the flush tanks have all been disconnected. C. MAINTENANCE Removing the flush tanks from active service has resulted in increased maintenance to prevent the buildup of solids in certain sewer lines. The areas requiring quarterly preventive maintenance are shown on Figure 3-1. Preventive maintenance consists of inspecting the pipelines and flushing the pipelines with a sewer jet truck. The jet truck applies a stream of high-pressure water through a hose and nozzle that is inserted into the sewer lines. D. LIFT STATIONS Lift Station No. 2 contains three pumps that are reported to have a rated capacity of 900 gallons per minute (gpm) , each. Lift Station No. 1 has three pumps that each have a reported capacity of 500 gpm. Firm capacity of a lift station is defined as the capacity with the largest pump out of service. Therefore, Lift Station No. 2 has a firm capacity of 1,800 gpm, and Lift Station No. 1 has a firm capacity of 1,000 gpm. E. SEWER SLOPES Many sewer lines in Fort Lupton have been constructed at the minimum- allowable grade or slope. The minimum-allowable slopes are calculated to ensure a self-cleaning velocity of 2 feet per second (fps) when the pipe is flowing half full. The formula used to calculate minimum slopes is 3-3 . . m— I ' ,x� • i• 7 It i i />4 ' ingiV+Iti?.,m4ax. Te•m.a�.smwxt'axg^- Orr _m i , I I _ �'> ' t ! I I t I! Ft I ' `\I i _ t ' 0 h ri t ? I 1 d i I 1 b g r Di i i i .. t ' I It tII 0 ,I /1 / 9 t! ,ii s — of _ I _ i $ I I ! I I I I i! ,, 1 , d I, I 01 I'Ina'28 I II I i t II I I 11 I. i'.I III n'`at -.®..®. a 1 8 SIP g It _;and' 4 1 4, t .xi_ � L _ _ d 1 __7 I+ „, __t gak+� —>4 ,gg i i I ' w@ xrt ^t' w — t ` --0 I -,,a- 4i , t, 7 t 9 I > 6 I ii1 I r - _y I s t a t I 1..._ m. I I I I I ; I•' 1 1 d I ra g II Ii I t xt ! �t 4, ` i —`I --� t'ii r __ ..- _- --_ _mm,, ,nti$x. r x 4 m S lA ® I I 8 I asr a- ps a I I I1 ,� I / I C x a W AI I III I I I I I I !x° d ',I I m� a I I 1'r _._ I _._._ _ _' _ s ® i i { I 1 I 'S. I t I _.i 8 _ 1 i v I I ,s .....T.***.S , I ! 9 i els.®.1-p..4 .a44, jt 1 ' rr .aJ r=mtman.... i I _'. ! +r ! i d .ra �!! ' I dIt I d 1 I I I iI , I _t r I di 4 ' It it i _. + i_ t '_a 't ...4 I I I J.a >. t '.r y,-at 4 S I I I S M, 1,1N ....N 6I I I 1 $ »,8 ILI + I i U 9 .d' r i 8 .1 _.9 _. _ �. r 1 �_ , _� amp +*_' -� ^'# I - �tr r. a x.__ ___ w -- , -- I 8 I i I I t I , t• . amaxaa8iaxarax. e„ +r.-,c" I! H I @ I�` A et. I I 4 I it! t' I I1 II i_FFA_ II I _ t iit _ I m, d i I ' 11 it —_ .__ _ __ I '11—; I !I S > I.3 I 8 i' g i —.t 1• I— 4.:.r A I.. I. 0_">1 ' { ' II ! .i t !; is, t '� 4 0 ail g g t 'b, I I` 1 g I " ii I i ,a t i' ! I 81 I ' 8 ! I i ', ti a t I II Ii I i A k,.. _ — __ —.. Idg __,,,1__,,,a__ I I _ ' I A a I I I i.,l`g' it I I_ 148_ 1iI_ -.. ._ . _ $' I t 1i 'd I 1 I ,1 i I 'iI , I I II i I W ! 1, *---,„ ,L1 ta S. tG g I i •_I I 1 1Ivd_ _J I' i.A I i 08, mim na,:.aaa�r I I I I S t i i.i , m! i _ ' ( d$ 421 iI ._ ,i I IAI ! ''6 1 'mmll 1I S I i id ( I itI at a CITY OF SEWER LINES Figure FORT REQUIRING QUARTERLY MAINTENANCE lift LUPTON 3-1 structured such that it appears that larger-diameter sewers can be con- - structed at flatter slopes than smaller-diameter sewers. This reasoning has resulted in the construction of larger-diameter sewers upstream from smaller-diameter sewers in Fort Lupton. This practice is acceptable if sewage flows equivalent to one-half of the sewer's capacity are achieved, resulting in self-cleaning velocities of 2 fps. If these flow rates are not achieved, velocities remain less than 2 fps, with the result that heavier solids settle from the flow and collect in the pipelines. The use of larger-diameter sewers at flatter slopes should be examined on a case- by-case basis in the future. F. CONDITION OF EXISTING FACILITIES The existing collection system was reported to be in good condition by the operating staff. Gravity-flow sanitary sewers are normally designed to operate under open-channel flow conditions. When open-channel flow capa- city is exceeded, the sewer line becomes full, and the water level in the manholes raises. A sewer line where the open-channel flow capacity is exceeded and the water level in the manhole is raised is said to be surcharged. Evidence of past surcharging is apparent during a visual inspection of a manhole. The staff has not observed surcharged sewers anywhere in their collection system. Surcharged sewers are an indication that the capacity of a collection system has been exceeded. There are no recurring reports of sewers backing up into individual residences or businesses. Sporadic backups occur and are attributed to problems in the individual sewer service lines. A lack of recurring backups corroborates the reports that existing sewers do not surcharge. 3-4 � . CHAPTER 4 FUTURE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS A. INTRODUCTION There are two distinct philosophies that can be applied to evaluating future improvements to the wastewater collection system. In one, the needs of new development and existing users are treated as distinct and separable, with new development causing a minimum impact on existing facilities. The other is to combine the needs of all users and develop a unified system that serves everyone's needs at a minimum overall cost, while avoiding undue complexity. The future collection system discussed i'n this report is of the latter type. The methodology used in this report has been to develop a complete sewage collection system and then determine the capability of the existing system to contribute carrying capacity to the future system and future needs. This approach has been taken because the planned population in year 2010, based on the population growth rate in the Land Use Element, is approximately twice the current population, some elements of the existing system may be reaching the end of their useful life, and ultimate flows may exceed five times current flows. The 2010 population, projected using the growth rate in the Land Use Element, is nearly twice the current population. This indicates sewage contribution may be twice current flow rates but the location of flow contributions will certainly not be evenly distributed among existing -- facilities. A change in the ratio of commercial/industrial development to residential development and population will also change the amount and location of sewage flows. Significant new sewage collection facilities will be required over the next 20 years. It is appropriate to evaluate how future improvements may benefit existing customers as well as new developments. Some existing facilities are approaching the end of their useful life because of deterioration due to age, excessive infiltration, or lack of capacity. As new development occurs, it will be cost-effective to oversize new collection facilities to replace existing facilities that are scheduled to be phased out of service. 4-1 f 1' Ultimate flows assigned to future development areas will greatly exceed current flows. A small additional increase in cost would be required for a proposed sewer that is oversized for future development to also be oversized to include existing flows. Oversizing new sewers to include existing flow allows the replacement of old facilities at a minimum cost. B. SEWER MASTER PLAN An urban growth area was developed by Cityscape Urban Design in the Land Use Element. This plan has been updated and enlarged by the City of Fort Lupton; the updated plan is shown on Figure 4-1. The enlargement to the planning area is generally west of the Platte River. The area shown on Figure 4-1 was evaluated to develop a master plan for a conceptual sewer layout. Sewers are expected to last for approxi- mately 50 years or more, and the sewer master plan is intended to provide for ultimate development. To provide for ultimate development, the larger planning area boundary was used to develop the sewer master plan instead of the smaller 208 planning area boundary. The plan is based on service area, topography, ultimate development, and location of treatment facilities. This plan is shown on Figure 4-2. The figure shows general locations of proposed sewer mains and the service area for each sewer main. Proposed sizes of sewer mains are not shown since sewer main sizing is discussed in following sections of this chapter. C. FUTURE GRAVITY SEWERS Two specific situations were evaluated for planning purposes; ultimate flow of the urban growth area and anticipated flow in the year 2010. Ultimate flows were examined because frequently a small oversizing of a proposed sewer main will serve an entire drainage area and prevent the future construction of a small, parallel sewer main. This results in a lower total cost and minimizes disruption of service in existing neighbor- hoods during sewer line construction. With information concerning ultimate capacity needs, planners and decision makers can determine the magnitude of oversizing necessary to provide for future development in the urban growth area. 4-2 / , �'vNA iA - 1 --` i . T F U II 1 rl I ) HL ,� • j r P I ,_ 1 / �I 1 p� i ° J al r ' : ho' ' :. ,, \a' : 1 (� fly ' d' I F Ii �..+' jam-. va , 4 i y i I. - " �f-\� I• 1 . J.I--.. :rl I I , (, C e op, i l' �- t0 N ' ' c.-:L..7,.. r 1 )co ;z ri ,I. . >m p Q • t, 1 I ' Ca_ _ w V�( ' IIV... 1 [ 9snh 1l Imo., lI:"ll' I, r!'• �,LL , rF- ... I' a �l 1� . 7 .fir �'._ O r7�� k q I • z arr a // �)i I , z \� 1 ) JJ r,I- ,-N • .( z / �\,', ,M W J 111 I, -� •1 / I �W 7/n "- r olr�rrooro A �./ I W pgio 0,76° 4. � �- 'E1. Q�� Il]rQ ( (.r I uoiy9u8 ' * _ • ,''--4-7 , , I � � ` ( 1 - r P [�Id llfT .T / : /T l(.f 7 II I J in'I ,< I `!s I zo ', 11r . .,� w n �' �� jg t� s c ,�a .- v .. . i u - N �• gar u fl ;� , 1 It t cam' +� , tom`-' r t. D , . JA F t Z � ii Ii 2. Z s" - W _ „ w w . > N W W x • CC > ir F LL �, wCL � W Z V a S W J y 0. lit 1 n y �. Q n O _ Wi, cc I V \\ Imo. u T - f., I # i . r7"\......r",.....--,-, y\J , •I O 0 ; „a , o t s II a 7. -. O O , j I ; F¢a % —O- Sewage flows were evaluated for the year 2010 because that is the planning period of this study and that period represents flows that will be generated in the near future. Future sewage flows depend on the type of development as well as population growth. There is significant uncertainty concerning the exact nature of future development. For this report, peak sewage flows have been evaluated for the design of sewers based on three classifications of land use; residential, commercial/industrial, and other. The "other" classification is for uses that do not contribute sewage flows. The mixture and location of future development was obtained from the Land Use Element, which recognized 13 different land use categories. The City of Fort Lupton staff selected Alternative A from the Land Use Element for use in this report. Table 4-1 relates the land use categories used in this report to those from the Land Use Element. Land use categories were used to project sewage contribution. The flow contribution rates of 6,500 gallons per acre per day (gpad) for residential and 5,000 gpad for commercial/industrial land uses were used to size sanitary sewers. These flow contributions include peaking factors appropriate for design of sewers and an allowance for inflow and infiltration. These flow contributions are not directly related to flow calculations that will be used to evaluate treatment facilities. The drainage areas shown on Figure 4-2 were evaluated for flow contributions in the year 2010 and ultimate flow contribution. Table 4-2 shows the tributary areas and the acreage associated with each area. Flow contributions to each sewer main were calculated for the year 2010 and ultimate development; this information is shown in Table 4-3. The design criteria used to design the sewer interceptor and mains in the study area are: • Minimum velocity of the wastewater when sewers are flowing half full is 2 fps. • Manning's formula is used to determine sewer capacities. • "N" values used in Manning's formula are 0.015 for sewers up to and including 24-inch diameter and 0.013 for larger-diameter sewers. 4-3 Or, sir lc. TABLE 4-1 CORRELATION OF BLACK & VEATCH AND LAND USE ELEMENT LAND USE CATEGORIES Black & Veatch Land Use Element Residential Residential Commercial/Industrial Commercial Services Industrial Transportation Utilities Public Quasi-public Other Parks Recreation NOTE: Three other categories in the Land Use Element are agricultural, vacant, and street right-of-way. The land areas associated with each of these categories were assigned to residential or commercial/industrial uses. 4-4 TABLE 4-2 ACREAGE OF TRIBUTARY AREAS Tributary Name of Area Area Principal Sewer Main Served (acres) I North Main 550 II 14th Street Main 1,400 III Ninth Street Main 450 IV First Street Main 500 V Cemetery Road Main 800 VI South Main 350 VII East River Main 300 VIII Northwest River Main 400 IX Highway 52 Main 800 TOTAL 5,550 4-5 _r TABLE 4-3 2010 AND ULTIMATE SEWAGE FLOW CONTRIBUTION (mgd) 2010 Flow Ultimate Flow Tributary Commercial/ Commercial/ Area Residential Industrial Total Residential Industrial Total I 0 0.37 0.37 0 2.64 2.64 II 1.93 1.08 3.01 3.86 3.10 6.96 III 0.80 0.38 1.18 1.62 0.57 2.19 IV 0.74 0.37 1.11 1.89 0.89 2.78 V 1.45 0.62 2.07 2.80 1.15 3.95 VI 0.59 0.24 0.83 1.18 0.47 1.65 VII 0 0.21 0.21 0 1.48 1.48 VIII 0 0.27 0.27 0 1.91 1.91 IX 0 0 0 4.00 0 4.00 4-6 • Sewers were designed to carry the peak flow rate. • Gravity flow was used when possible. Each sewer alignment was evaluated to determine a probable slope of the sewer line in its lower reach. The resulting sewer pipe sizes and capacities are shown on Table 4-4 along with the required capacity for year 2010 and ultimate development. As discussed previously, the methodology used in this report is to determine the pipe sizes required for future development without regard for existing facilities and then to evaluate the ability of existing facilities to meet some or all of the needs identified. Table 4-5 identifies the capacity of existing facilities and the master plan areas the facilities serve. If it is determined that existing sewers are in satisfactory condition and would remain so for a considerable period of time, future needs may be reduced by the availability of existing capacity. Table 4-6 shows the additional capacity and facilities required to meet year 2010 and ultimate development needs if existing facilities are fully utilized. Table 4-7 summarizes the pipe sizes required for the various assump- tions previously discussed. The information presented in this section has been concerned with the nine drainage areas and sewer mains serving those areas. Several of the sewer mains contribute flow to the Platte River interceptor sewer. This interceptor extends from Lift Station No. 1, which is located near Highway 85 at the intersection of the extensions of Grand Avenue and 10th Street, to the south and intercepts flows from sewer mains serving Areas IV, V, and VI. Flow from Area III enters the lift station wetwell directly. The Platte River interceptor sewer was evaluated for three reaches, designated Reach A, B, and C. These reaches are shown on Figure 4-3. Reach C extends from the Cemetery Road sewer main south to the south sewer main that serves drainage Area VI. Reach B extends from the First Street sewer main south to the Cemetery Road sewer main. Reach B carries sewage flows from Reach C and drainage Areas V and VI. Reach A extends from Lift Station No. 1 south to the First Street sewer main. Reach A principally 4-7 TABLE 4-4 _ SIZE OF REQUIRED SEWER PIPE 2010 Development Ultimate Development — Tributary Required Pipe Pipe Required Pipe Pipe Area Capacity Diameter Capacity Capacity Diameter Capacity (mgd) (in. ) (mgd) (mgd) (in. ) (mgd) I 0.37 10 0.58 2.6 18 2.8 II 3.0 18 3.6 7.0 24 7.6 III 1.2 15 1.6 2.2 18 2.7 IV 1.1 12 1.2 2.8 18 3.5 V 2.1 15 2.1 4.0 21 5.1 VI 0.83 12 1.3 1.7 15 2.3 VII 0.21 8 0.32 1.5 15 1.8 VIII 0.27 8 0.48 1.9 18 2.6 IX 0 - 0 4.0 21 5.1 4-8 S ',0 a . . TABLE 4-5 CAPACITY OF EXISTING FACILITIES Tributary Pipe Area Size Capacity * (in. ) (mgd) I None 0 II 12 0.94 18 2.60 3.54 III 12 0.94 12 0.94 1.88 IV 10 0.65 V None 0 VI None 0 VII None 0 VIII None 0 IX None 0 * Capacities were estimated using available information. Pipe diameters and invert elevations were not measured. 4-9 TABLE 4-6 FUTURE ADDITIONAL SEWAGE COLLECTION FACILITIES 2010 Facilities Ultimate Facilities Additional Additional Tributary Capacity Additional Capacity Additional Area Required Pipe Size Required Pipe Size (mgd) (in. ) (mgd) (in.) I 0.37 10 2.64 18 II None None 3.42 18 III None None 0.31 8 IV 0.46 10 2.13 15 V 2.07 15 3.95 21 _ VI 0.83 12 1.65 15 VII 0.21 8 1.48 15 VIII 0.27 8 1.91 18 IX' 0 - 4.00 21 *No existing facilities. 4-10 TABLE 4-7 SUMMARY OF PIPE SIZES (inches) Existing Supplemental Pipe Complete Pipe Replacement Tributary Pipe 2010 Ultimate 2010 Ultimate Area Size Development Development Development Development I' None 10 18 10 18 II 12 None 18 18 24 18 III 12 None 8 15 18 12 IV 10 10 15 12 18 V None 15 21 15 21 VI None 12 15 12 15 VII None 8 15 8 15 VIII None 8 18 8 18 IX None - 21 - 21 4-11 TABLE 4-8 EXISTING INTERCEPTOR SEWER CAPACITY Pipe Reach Diameter Capacity* (in. ) (mgd) A 15 1.4 B 15 1.4 C 12 0.94 Capacities were estimated using available information. Pipe diameters and invert elevations were not measured. 4-13 h - TABLE 4-9 INTERCEPTOR SEWER PIPE SIZE REQUIREMENTS 2010 Development Ultimate Development Required Pipe Pipe Required Pipe Pipe Reach Capacity Diameter Capacity Capacity Diameter Capacity (mgd) (in. ) (mgd) (mgd) (in.) (mgd) A 4.0 24 4.1* 8.4 30 8.5�� e ** 2.9 21 2.9� 5.6 27 6.5 C 0.83 15 1.2* 1.7 18 1.9 Manning N equals 0.015. ** Manning N equals 0.013. 4-14 TABLE 4-10 PARALLEL INTERCEPTOR SEWERS . 2010 Facilities Ultimate Facilities Additional Additional Capacity Additional Capacity Additional Reach Required Pipe Size Required Pipe Size (in.) (mgd) (in. ) A 2.6 21 7.0 30 B 1.5 18 4.2 27 C None None 0.71 15 4-15 TABLE 4-11 SUMMARY OF INTERCEPTOR SEWER PIPE SIZES (inches) Parallel Replacement 2010 Ultimate 2010 Ultimate Reach Existing Development Development Development Development 4 A 15 21 30 24 30 B 15 18 27 21 27 C 12 None 15 15 18 4-16 There is a definite need for future improvements to the sewage collec- - tion system. The definite need for future improvements indicates that appropriate financial planning should be carried out to ensure connection fees accumulate at a rate appropriate to fund future improvements. 4-17 C'-o , ," CHAPTER 5 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES A. BACKGROUND The existing wastewater treatment facilities of the City of Fort Lupton are evaluated in this chapter. The adequacy of the two lift sta- tions and the wastewater treatment plant will be assessed. The capability of the existing wastewater treatment facilities to comply with the Colorado Wastewater Discharge Permit issued to the City of Fort Lupton will also be discussed. In 1964, two facultative lagoons and Lift Station No. 1 (South) were constructed. Two polishing ponds were constructed and aeration equipment was added to one of the facultative lagoons to provide additional treatment in 1977. In 1978, Lift Station No. 2 (North) , percolation ponds, chlorina- tion facilities, and a laboratory were added. Modifications to the chlorine contact basin, the effluent weir, and the polishing ponds were completed in 1983. In 1987, a new effluent line was added and the chlori- nation system was modified. The percolation ponds were abandoned in 1988, and in 1989 surface aerators and baffles were added to one of the lagoons. The configuration of the wastewater treatment facilities is shown on Figure 5-1. Wastewater is collected in the sewer system, conveyed by gravity to the two lift stations, and pumped through two force mains to the aerated lagoon. The two force mains then discharge separately into the aerated lagoon. After treatment in the aerated lagoon, the wastewater flows into the polishing ponds. Effluent from the polishing ponds is chlorinated and effluent flow is measured as it flows over the Cipolletti weir. Chlorine contact time is provided in the effluent pipe, which dis- charges to a ditch that empties into the South Platte River. The holding pond is used for emergencies and during weekends, and the pond and basins west of the polishing ponds have not been used for some time. 5-1 ST r carries sewage flows from Reach B and drainage Areas IV and V. A minor amount of flow may be contributed by Area III from locations adjacent to the interceptor sewer. The capacity of the existing interceptor sewer is shown in Table 4-8 for each reach of the sewer. Table 4-9 shows the design flows to be carried in the Platte River interceptor sewer for ultimate development and development anticipated for the year 2010. The table also shows the size of pipe to convey the design flow and the capacity of the selected pipe. Table 4-9 shows the pipe sizes required if the existing sewer is completely replaced. Table 4-10 shows the additional pipe required if the existing facilities are supplemented with an additional parallel sewer. Required interceptor sewer pipe sizes are summarized in Table 4-11. D. FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS The foregoing information will assist the City with its decision- making process as new development actually occurs. One definite conclusion that can be drawn is that sewer mains and interceptors will require additional capacity in the future. The timing of those needs will depend on the timing, location, and density of future development. Location will determine which sewer lines need to be upgraded. Timing and density of development will determine when improvements are required. More detail concerning timing will assist in the decision to construct 2010 facilities or ultimate development facilities. The facilities shown as required by the year 2010 are based on the assumption that development occurs throughout the urban growth area exactly as predicted by the Land Use Element. Should development occur at a faster rate in some of the tributary areas, sufficient information has been pro- vided in this report to determine an appropriate response with regard to construction of sanitary sewers. 4-12 • 6-14 ) 4 .k z ' k.)‘,,,,r _ . w cc s ------:' .....z Zt \ :2; w Cr w LLI z a LLI CC • it cc a F.. a J W —I _ z a > � w' z a a a W cc X . 0 .- ,... • 0 N to LL Z O O o- 0. it ul 0 K NIIIMMIIIMIn 0a INIMIII 11P Z z Cl) z 0 ¢ I— co F- Co I- ~ w Q!L J L J li Or) w �L ¢ r S w S> •9d U. V R O oN z 2# LL # Q w~ wa �44b>d,94,7 LL OLL J LL J Q Z I O_ N ---t 1= J 1A. I I LL I w f a o l— (' I I of m Zf/J 7 z I ��> 0)z= I W I V N 2 z m' n j 2 O m 1 I� F' W 1 MIA 3 Z Z z o I o + N W m 1 O a m re O I 0 w z. I 0 F I I J 2 O y Z ¢ o 0 -0-z--Q w a w w r_O__'-2---m--� o J z3 re I- 12 ° O 'CO i Q z LW m Co Z W ~ w w 1"' 422 U- Nl 1 ¢ I a ¢ 0 ?-J Q .6r------lJ of o of w V CO O 7 LW I'L V/ Co 5. z J 5 m >- 0 I- 4 w c J 0 Q CO (C-0) J 0 Z o Z O O o CI- - U U.-I B. INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT The City of Fort Lupton does not have a formal industrial pretreatment program. As stated in 40 CFR, Part 403.8(a), wastewater treatment facili- ties with design flows less than 5 mgd are not required to have a formal industrial pretreatment program. The EPA may determine that specific con- ditions require a wastewater treatment plant with design flows below 5 mgd to put an industrial pretreatment program into place. The design flow at the City of Fort Lupton's wastewater treatment plant is below 5 mgd. The City of Fort Lupton has not been required by the EPA to put an industrial pretreatment program into place. The City of Fort Lupton, therefore, has no requirements to put into place a formal industrial pretreatment program. Conversations with the wastewater treatment plant staff at the City of Fort Lupton indicate that the only major industry connected to the sewer system is Golden Aluminum Company. The wastewater treatment plant staff reports that Golden Aluminum Company's wastewater has not caused any treat- - ment problems and that Golden Aluminum Company has an effective self- monitoring program. Conversations with the wastewater treatment plant staff indicate that there are no other significant industrial dischargers, with the possible exception of periodic slug discharges of grease. The reported discharges of grease should be confirmed and the source investi- gated, before significant wastewater treatment problems develop. C. LIFT STATIONS Wastewater is collected in the gravity sewer system, flows to two lift stations, and is pumped to the wastewater treatment plant. Lift Station No. 1 receives flow from the central and south portions of the City of Fort Lupton. Based on available flow records from 1989, Lift Station No. 1 pumped approximately 80 to 85 percent of the wastewater received at the wastewater treatment plant. Lift Station No. 2 receives flow from the eastern outskirts and the north portions of the City of Fort Lupton. Based on available flow records from 1989, Lift Station No. 2 pumped approxi- - mately 15 to 20 percent of the wastewater treated at the wastewater treatment plant. 5-2 Both lift stations are belowground with entrance through a hatch in a ground-level roof slab. Both lift stations have an enclosed wetwell con- taining a Parshall flume that measures flow into the lift stations. The pumps are located in a drywell next to a wetwell. Specific information about the two lift stations is in Table 5-1. Lift Station No. 1 was built in 1964 and modified in 1978. Lift Station No. 2 was built in 1978. Lift Station No. 1 discharges to the wastewater treatment plant through a 10-inch force main, and Lift Station No. 2 discharges through a 12-inch force main. (6) The two lift stations should be adequate for the 20-year planning period; however, some short-term and long-term remedial actions are necessary. One safety item that should be taken care of immediately is the addition of a permanent, hazardous gas detector in both lift stations. Dangerous gases can be present in sewage lift stations. Currently, the portable hazardous gas detector is inoperable and neither lift station has a permanent hazardous gas detector. Presently, the operators have no means of detecting hazardous gases and no system warning that a hazardous gas is present. This is a dangerous situation. A first aid kit should also be installed in each lift station. Several other short-term actions are recommended. One pump has been removed from Lift Station No. 2 and only two pumps are remaining. During a visit to the lift station, it was observed that one of the remaining pumps was not operating. The result is that the lift station has only one operating pump. This is an undesirable situation because, if the remaining pump experiences difficulties, no backup pump is available. Immediate repair of the missing pump and the pump that was not operating is recommended. It is also recommended that the wetwells in both lift stations be inspected. Raw sewage can cause corrosive conditions that could corrode the wetwells. If the wetwells are corroded, they should be repaired. Raw sewage has been used for seal water for all six pumps in the lift stations. The abrasive material in raw sewage causes shaft and seal wear. The use of potable water for the seal water, a grease seal, or a mechanical 5-3 O n s TABLE 5-1 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES WASTEWATER LIFT STATIONS Lift Station No. 1 (South) Parshall flume throat size, in. 6 Normal operating capacity of wetwell, gal 1,045 Pumps Manufacturer Crane Company, Deming Divison Type Centrifugal Number 3 Capacity Each, gpm 500 at 37 ft TDH Total firm, mgd 1.44 Horsepower, each 15 Force main size, in. 10 Lift Station No. 2 (North) Parshall flume throat size, in. 9 Normal operating capacity of wetwell, gal 2,068 Pumps Manufacturer Crane Company, Deming Divison Type Centrifugal Number 3 Capacity Each, gpm 900 at 37 ft TDH Total firm, mgd 2.59 Horsepower, each 15 Force main size, in. 12 SOURCES: Operations and Maintenance Manual for Sewage Treatment Facilities, City of Fort Lupton, Colorado, Norton, Underwood and Lamb, Engineering Associates, March 1979; revised by Nelson Renouf, Superintendent of Water and Wastewater, June 19, 1989, pp. 21-34. City of Fort Lupton, General Plan Update, 1986, Wastewater Service Plan, RBD, Inc., Engineering Consultant, p. II-6. 5-4 aT a seals should be investigated. The use of potable water for the seal water would require a potable waterline to be installed in each lift station. It is not known if the pumps have been rebuilt or replaced since the lift stations have been constructed. If not, they may be nearing the end of their service life. The pumps should be evaluated and rebuilt or replaced as necessary. The dimensions of the wetwells are not known because drawings were not available and the possibility of hazardous gas prevented the measurement of the wetwells. Estimations, made necessary by the lack of wetwell dimen- sions and the absence of reliable flow records, indicate that pump cycle times for the lift stations are acceptable. Pump cycle times are the number of times a pump turns on and off. If a pump is cycled too often, pump motors are damaged. Estimated pump cycle times and pumping capacity for Lift Station No. 2 are acceptable for current and projected future conditions. Under certain projected future conditions, cycle times during high flows could be shorter than recommended at Lift Station No. 1, due to wetwell capacity and pumping capacities. It is recommended that at least two of the pumps in Lift Station No. 1 be replaced with variable-speed pumps. Variable-speed pumps would elimi- nate any difficulties that might occur due to short cycle times. Also, the variable-speed pumps should have sufficient capacity and head to be able to pump the flows projected for the end of the planning period. The existing pumps do not have sufficient capacity to pump flows projected for the end of the planning period. Preliminary calculations indicate that gravity-flow sewer lines from the southern portions of the planning area can empty into the wetwell at Lift Station No. 1. A visual inspection of Lift Station No. 1 indicated that it should be serviceable for the remainder of the planning period. For these reasons, replacement of Lift Station No. 1 is not recommended. The sewer calculations were based on information from Table 4-9 and Figure 4-3 and are preliminary in nature. As development in the southern areas makes new sewer-line construction necessary, the ability of Lift Station No. 1 to serve these areas should be confirmed. 5-5 Some of the northern portions of the planning area are too low to be served by either lift station. As these areas are developed, they should be served by the existing lift stations, if possible. The nature and timing of development in these areas is uncertain. If these low areas are developed and require sewer service, a new lift station will eventually be necessary for this area. Flow records from the two lift stations have not consistently agreed with effluent flow records. It is recommended that the flow measuring equipment in the two lift stations be calibrated at least every six months. The flow capacity for a 6-inch Parshall flume, such as the one in Lift Station No. 1, is 0.03 to 1.9 mgd. The flow capacity for a 9-inch Parshall flume, such as the one in Lift Station No. 2, is 0.06 to 3.3 mgd. Based on the records available, estimated minimum flows at Lift Station No. 2 may be too low for the flow capacity of the Parshall flume. Other estimated flows at the two lift stations appear to be within the flow capacities listed. Lift Station No. 1 has a connection for an emergency generator, but the emergency generator switching equipment is not operational. Lift Station No. 2 cannot be operated by an emergency generator. Colorado Department of Health regulations require that power be supplied from at least two independent generating sources or than an emergency power source be supplied. Colorado Department of Health regulations also allow con- sideration of storage or use of portable pumping equipment during a power interruption. No facilities for storage of the wastewater during an emergency are available. During a power interruption, wastewater would have to be pumped by a portable pump from the wetwell into a tank truck and hauled to the wastewater treatment plant. The most desirable solution is to provide emergency generators for both lift stations. D. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 1. AERATED LAGOON. The force mains from the two lift stations empty into the northeast corner of the aerated lagoon. The aerated lagoon originally had a volume of 26.6 million gallons and a depth of 5.7 feet (Table 5-2). Due to deposits on the floor of the aerated lagoon, both the 5-6 TABLE 5-2 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES AERATED LAGOON AND POLISHING PONDS Aerated Lagoon Volume, mil gal 26.6 Surface area, acres 14.5 Depth, ft 5.7 Detention time, days At 0.9 mgd 30 At 1.5 mgd 18 Aeration equipment Grid system Number of grids 14 Blower motor horsepower 40 Blower output, scfm 4,650 Mechanical surface aerators, hp each 3 aerators 30 4 aerators 15 2 aerators 10 Polishing Ponds Number 2 Volume, each, mil gal 3.5 Surface area, 'each, acres 2.3 Depth, ft 5 Detention time, each pond, days At 0.9 mgd 3.9 At 1.5 mgd 2.3 SOURCES: Operations and Maintenance Manual for Sewage Treatment Facilities, City of Fort Lupton, Colorado, Norton,' Underwood and Lamb, Engineering Associates, March 1979; revised by Nelson Renouf, Superintendent of Water and Wastewater, June 19, 1989, pp. 34-45. City of Fort Lupton, General Plan Update, 1986, Wastewater Service Plan, RBD, Inc. , Engineering Consultant, p. II-9. 5-7 F-r'' tea, volume and depth have decreased since the construction of the lagoon. A grid-type aeration system was added in the northeast corner of the lagoon in 1977. Nine surface aerators were added throughout the lagoon and a series of baffles were placed in the lagoon in 1989. The aeration system, surface aerators, and baffles were added in an attempt to improve treatment. Effluent leaves the lagoon through a pipe in the southeast corner of the lagoon. Estimations based on the information available indicate that the aeration equipment in the lagoons can provide sufficient oxygen to treat wastewater loads projected through the planning period. A spare blower and motor and the duplication among the surface aerators should provide suffi- cient backup equipment. Calculations indicate that the aeration equipment in the aerated lagoon is not sufficient to completely mix the lagoon. Colorado Department of Health regulations require the ability to bypass and dewater lagoons and, based on the available information, it does not appear that this is possible. The aerated lagoon is also shallower than the depth of 8 t 20 feet recommended by the Colorado Department of Health. It is also suspected that the asphalt lining in the aerated lagoon is cracked, resulting in wastewater leaking into the groundwater. 2. POLISHING PONDS. Under current operational procedure, effluent from the aerated lagoon is discharged into the northeast corner of the east polishing pond. The wastewater in the east polishing pond can also flow into the adjacent polishing pond to the west through an opening in the berm. Effluent from the polishing ponds is discharged from the east polishing pond through a pipe in the southwest corner of the pond. Each polishing pond originally had a volume of 3.5 million gallons and a depth of 5 feet (Table 5-2) . Due to deposits on the floor of the polishing ponds, both the volume and the depth have decreased since construction of the ponds. The third polishing pond, west of the other two is no longer used. Colorado Department of Health regulations require the ability to bypass and dewater polishing ponds and, based on the available information, it does not appear that this is possible. The effluent line from the west 5-8 polishing pond is inoperable. It is suspected that the bentonite lining of the polishing ponds is allowing wastewater to leak into the groundwater. Colorado Department of Health regulations require that a polishing pond have a minimum depth of 5 feet and recommend that the depth be as great as practical. As originally constructed, the polishing ponds were in com- pliance with the 5-foot depth requirement; however, due to deposits, the pond depths are now less than 5 feet. Colorado Department of Health regulations suggest a detention time in the pond system of 10 to 25 days. The detention time in the aerated lagoon and one polishing pond, based on the average flow of 0.9 mgd in 1989, was approximately 34 days. At the rated flow of 1.5 mgd, the detention time in the aerated lagoon and one polishing pond is approximately 20 days. The Colorado Department of Health regulations require that the detention time in polishing ponds be between two and five days. At a flow of 0.9 mgd, the detention time is approximately four days for one pond and eight days for two ponds. At a flow of 1.5 mgd, the detention time is approximately two days for one pond and five days for two ponds. 3. CHLORINATION FACILITIES, EFFLUENT FLOW MEASUREMENT, AND HOLDING POND. Effluent discharged from the polishing pond is chlorinated at the chlorine contact basin. Chlorine is stored in 150-pound cylinders and is dispensed through two cylinder-mounted feeders in the chlorine building. Information concerning the chlorination facilities is contained in Table 5-3. Chlorine feed rate is controlled manually at the feeders, and an automatic switchover unit changes chlorine feed from an empty to a full cylinder. The chlorine gas is dissolved in potable water and the resulting chlorine solution is added just before the Cipolletti weir. Effluent flow is measured at the Cipolletti weir, and the chlorine is mixed with the wastewater as it flows over the weir. Chlorine contact time is provided in the effluent pipe. Several safety items concerning chlorination should be corrected immediately. Colorado Department of Health regulations require a window in the door used to enter the chlorine building, an oxygen mask, and several 5-9 *4-r TABLE 5-3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES CHLORINATION FACILITIES AND HOLDING POND Chlorination Facilities Chlorine feed equipment Number 2 Capacity, lb/day 4 and 25 Chlorine contact pipe Diameter, in. 18 Volume, gal 36,400 Contact time, min At 0.9 mgd 58 At 1.5 mgd 35 Holding Pond Volume, mil gal 26 Approximate surface area, acres 14 Depth, ft 5 SOURCES: Operations and Maintenance Manual for Sewage Treatment Facilities, City of Fort Lupton, Colorado, Norton, Underwood and Lamb, Engineering Associates, March 1979; revised by Nelson Renouf, Superintendent of Water and Wastewater, June 19, 1989, pp. 41-48. City of Fort Lupton, General Plan Update, 1986, Wastewater Service Plan, RBD, Inc., Engineering Consultant, p. II-9. 5-10 canister masks. There is no window in the entrance door to the chlorine building allowing the room and its contents to be viewed prior to entering the room. Some of the equipment on the oxygen mask units currently used may be outdated and may need to be replaced. These masks should be stored outside the chlorine building. In addition to the Colorado Department of Health requirements, it is recommended that a gas detector be installed in the chlorine building and an emergency eye wash be installed. If Weld County or the City of Fort Lupton has adopted the 1988 Uniform Fire Code, chlorine gas scrubbing equipment could be required at the fire marshal's discretion. The chlorination facilities are marginally adequate for the rated flow of 1.5 mgd. Colorado Department of Health regulations require a contact time of 30 minutes at peak hourly flow. At the estimated peak hourly effluent flow in 2010, the detention time in the effluent pipe is approxi- mately 25 minutes. The chlorine contact basin will provide additional contact time, and the total detention time should approach 30 minutes. The maximum chlorine feed rate at the estimated peak hourly design flow is approximately 2 mg/1 and this is less than standard design values. The two cylinder-mounted feeders can be modified to allow a chlorine feed rate of 100 pounds per day (lb/day). At the estimated peak hourly design flow, a feed rate of 100 lb/day would result in a chlorine feed concentra- tion of approximately 5 mg/l. A concentration of 5 mg/1 complies with the lower limits recommended in design standards and would probably be acceptable. Currently, a feed rate of 0.5 mg/1 of chlorine is producing acceptable effluent coliform concentrations. As long as the existing chlorine feed system provides sufficient chlorine and contact time to keep effluent coliform concentrations below the standard, additional chlorine facilities will probably not be required. During normal operation, the effluent is discharged through the effluent line into a ditch and then into the South Platte River. Information concerning the holding pond is contained in Table 5-3. Valves and pipes allow the effluent to be diverted from the effluent line and enter the southwest corner of the holding pond. Effluent from the holding 5-11 pond is discharged back into the effluent pipe from the southeast corner of the holding pond. During weekends, flow is diverted into the holding pond and discharged during weekdays. Discharging to the South Platte River only on weekdays avoids having an operator sample the effluent on weekends. Diverting the effluent to the holding pond on weekends, however, allows algae to proliferate during warm weather. The algae in the effluent con- - tribute to high solids, BOD5, and pH and the resulting difficulties in complying with the discharge permit. 4. ABANDONED FACILITIES. Summarized in Table 5-4 are the facilities that are no longer used. The third or westernmost polishing pond is no longer used. Also, the three percolation basins, located west of the polishing ponds, are no longer being used. The laboratory building is fully equipped and appears to be operable but is not being used. E. EVALUATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS The two lift stations appear to be adequate for the rest of the plan- ning period. All pumps and motors and the wetwells should be inspected. The pumps and motors in Lift Station No. 2 should be repaired or rebuilt, if necessary. At least two of the pumps in Lift Station No. 1 should be replaced with variable-speed pumps. If corrosion has damaged the wetwells, they should be repaired. When average flows in Lift Station No. 2 begin to approach 0.65 mgd, the 12-inch force main should be evaluated to determine the flow capacity of the line. Calculations and estimations indicate that, as flows exceed 0.65 mgd, the 12-inch force main may not have sufficient _ capacity to carry peak flows. Some safety equipment such as a hazardous gas detector and a first aid kit should be installed at the two lift stations. It is recommended that all three pumps in both lift stations be kept in good repair and the prac- tice of using raw sewage for seal water be discontinued. The Parshall flumes should be calibrated at least every six months. Also, during the inspection of the wetwells, the wetwell dimensions should be determined and the dimensions along with flow records should be used to evaluate pump cycle times. It is also recommended that both lift stations be modified to allow operation by an emergency generator. 5-12 1'70'7' 3 TABLE 5-4 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES ABANDONED FACILITIES Polishing Pond Number 1 Volume, mil gal 3.5 Surface area, acres 2.3 Depth, ft 5 Percolation Basins Number 3 Volume, each, mil gal 0.59 Bed area, each, acres 0.65 SOURCES: Operations and Maintenance Manual for Sewage Treatment Facilities, City of Fort Lupton, Colorado, Norton, Underwood and Lamb, Engineering Associates, March 1979; revised by Nelson Renouf, Superintendent of Water and Wastewater, June 19, 1989, pp. 45-52. City of Fort Lupton, General Plan Update, 1986, Wastewater Service Plan, RBD, Inc., Engineering Consultant, p. II-9. 5-13 O-l>0 The aerated lagoon and polishing pond system has failed to comply with the discharge permit. It is suspected that algae exerting an oxygen demand in the effluent are the reason for this failure. The algae grow because of inadequate mixing in the aerated lagoon, insufficient depth in the aerated lagoon, and excessive detention time in the lagoon and polishing ponds. The aerated lagoon was originally designed as a facultative lagoon, which is shallower than an aerated lagoon. When aeration equipment was added to create an aerated lagoon, the pond was not deepened. The shallow aerated lagoon allows light to penetrate almost the entire depth of the lagoon. Inadequate mixing allows the algae to stay near the surface and grow. The excessive detention time allows the algae to remain in the lagoon and polishing ponds and proliferate. Given the existing configuration, it appears that little can be done to allow the wastewater treatment plant to consistently comply with the BOD5 limitations of the discharge permit. Based on observations of the flow pattern, short circuiting is occurring in the aerated lagoon. The result of short circuiting would be that significant portions of the flow would bypass much of the aeration equipment and not receive sufficient aeration. It is also suspected that the lining of both the aerated lagoon and the polishing ponds are leaking, allowing wastewater to leak into the groundwater. Present practice is to sample influent only from Lift Station No. 1. This practice ignores the influent flow coming from Lift Station No. 2 and violates the discharge permit, which requires that samples be taken from both influent lines. _ Based on available flow records from 1989, a substantial portion (15 to 20 percent) of the influent flow was pumped by Lift Station No. 2. The chlorination facilities are marginally adequate and will likely allow effluent coliform standards to be met during the planning period. Adding a window to the entrance door of the chlorine building, modifying the oxygen masks, and installing a chlorine gas detector in the chlorine building are recommended. These improvements would make the working conditions at the chlorination facilities safer. 5-14 C 1 One of the most important steps the City of Fort Lupton can take to improve the operation of their wastewater treatment facilities is to reduce infiltration and inflow. Reducing infiltration and inflow will remove water with little oxygen demand that dilutes influent wastewater and should increase the concentration of BOD5 in the influent. Increasing the concentration of BOD5 in the influent could improve BOD5 removal efficiency and result in fewer violations of the discharge permit. Also, reducing infiltration and inflow will become important as sewer lines and lift stations approach capacity. Reducing water contributed by infiltration and inflow could forestall the need to construct new sewer lines and extend the life of the lift stations. Some short-term steps can be taken to improve the operation of the wastewater treatment facilities. It is recommended that the opening in the berm between the two holding ponds be closed and only one holding pond be used at a time. This would reduce the detention time in the holding ponds and give the algae less time to grow; thus, reducing algae in the effluent. It is also recommended that samples at different depths in the holding pond be taken and tested for total suspended solids. If the sus- pended solids vary significantly with depth, some type of pipe to allow withdrawing effluent from different depths could be devised for the effluent line. This would allow the withdrawal of effluent from levels in the holding pond that might contain lower concentrations of algae. The addition of copper sulfate to kill algae in the holding pond could also be tried. It is also recommended that a maintenance program be implemented. A program to periodically service each piece of equipment, such as pumps, blower, and instruments, should result in improved efficiency, improved operation, and a longer service life. It is also recommended that suffi- cient spare parts be kept on hand to ensure that critical pieces of equipment will be out of service for the minimum amount of time. The City of Fort Lupton should also decide if it is cost-effective to continue to pay for an outside laboratory to do all of the wastewater tests. If it is not cost-effective to have the outside laboratory perform these tests, the existing laboratory and equipment could be used. 5-15 +T ':0 ri - CHAPTER 6 EVALUATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES A. INTRODUCTION In the previous chapter, it was determined that the existing waste- water treatment facilities have violated the discharge permit in the past and are likely to do so in the future. For the City of Fort Lupton to meet the effluent limitations in their Colorado Wastewater Discharge Permit, the existing wastewater treatment facilities must be modified or new facilities constructed. In this chapter, an alternative where no action is taken and alternatives capable of meeting effluent limitations are evaluated. B. SITE LOCATION The existing wastewater treatment facility is located in the 100-year flood plain but is protected from the 100-year flood by berms that surround the facility. A letter from the Colorado Department of Health concerning the issue of the 100-year flood plain is in Appendix B. The facility can be located in the 100-year flood plain if it is protected from, is access- ible during, and operable during the 100-year flood. The berms protect the facility from the 100-year flood. It is not known what the Colorado Department of Health might require to assure the facility is accessible during a 100-year flood. It will be necessary to ensure that the wastewater treatment facility is capable of discharging during a 100-year flood. Providing access and the ability to discharge during a 100-year flood should be evaluated during the design phase of the new wastewater treatment facilities. A new location for the wastewater treatment facility on land that might be acquired by the City of Fort Lupton was considered. This land is just east of the South Platte River at the northern edge of the planning area. The location of a new wastewater treatment facility at this location is not a viable option. 6-1 O -�r7 The wastewater would have to be pumped to the new site, resulting in the cost of a new pumping station and pipeline. In addition, the existing site would have to be reclaimed. Reclaiming the existing site would involve disposal of asphalt, earthwork, removal of pipes, relocation of equipment, and landscaping, resulting in a significant cost. An entirely new treatment facility would have to be constructed at the new site. The new site is next to the river and probably in the flood plain. Berms would have to be constructed at the new site for flood protection. To locate a facility such as this in the flood plain, a lengthy application process through the United States Army Corps of Engineers must be completed. This application process could significantly delay construction of a new waste- water treatment facility. A new pumping station, new pipeline, new treatment facility, and reclaiming the present site would add significant costs, and locating in the flood plain would be difficult and cause delays. Relocation of the wastewater treatment facility to a new site is not a viable option because of cost, difficulties, and probable delays. C. SCREENING OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT OPTIONS Several different wastewater treatment options are identified. Each of these options is briefly examined to determine whether or not the option might be viable for the City of Fort Lupton. 1. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE. The Colorado Wastewater Discharge Permit issued to the City of Fort Lupton requires compliance with certain effluent limitations. The BOD5 limitations have been violated in the past and, if no action is taken, will continue to be violated in the future. Continued violations could result in the Colorado Department of Health fining the City of Fort Lupton. Continued violation of the discharge permit, in addition to fines, could also result in the court prohibiting the connection of any new sewer services. Continued violation of the discharge permit will also result in degradation of the South Platte River and depletion of oxygen in the river. A court-ordered prohibition of the connection of new sewer services could 6-2 adversely affect economic development if sewage service is not available for new industries, commercial development, or residential development. All of these impacts are possible if no action is taken. Taking no action would have an undesirable institutional, environmental, and economic effect and is not a viable option. 2. OPTIMUM OPERATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES. The existing facil- - ities have been modified several times and have continued to violate the discharge permit. The polishing ponds allow algae to grow, and it is suspected that algae are the major contributing factor leading to the discharge permit violations. Given the present configuration of the wastewater treatment facility, it is unlikely compliance with the BOD5 limitations in the discharge permit can be consistently achieved throughout the year. Compliance with the BOD5 limitations in the discharge permit could possibly be achieved by chemical addition to kill the algae or cause the algae to settle. Chemical addition over a long period of time would be costly and would also add chemicals (generally metals, such as copper or aluminum) to the sludge. If the concentration of metals in the sludge became high enough, it could result in difficulties in disposing of the sludge. Also, there is no guarantee that chemical addition would com- - pletely stop all of the BOD5 violations of the discharge permit. Optimum operation of the existing facilities, either with or without chemical addition, is not considered a viable option. 3. CONVENTIONAL BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PROCESSES. Conventional bio- logical treatment processes include many of the activated sludge processes, such as completely mixed and plug flow activated sludge, contact stabili- zation, and extend aeration. Basically, these processes involve adding air to the wastewater and allowing microorganisms to convert most of the objec- tionable material to more stable inorganic material or cellular material. Most of these processes involve high capital costs, high operational and maintenance costs, and create significant quantities of sludge, which requires disposal. Most of these processes are more appropriate for muni- cipalities with larger flows because of the cost and sludge disposal 6-3 - er factors. Only those processes that have lower capital, operation, and maintenance costs and are more appropriate for smaller municipalities will be considered as viable options for the City of Fort Lupton. One activated sludge process that has been used successfully in many smaller municipalities is an oxidation ditch. This process has compara- tively low capital costs, low operation and maintenance costs, and generates less sludge than many of the activated sludge processes. An oxidation ditch is considered a viable wastewater treatment process and will be evaluated. Attached-growth processes are also included in conventional biological treatment processes. In these processes, the microorganisms responsible for converting most of the wastewater's objectionable material to more stable inorganic material or cellular material are attached to some type of inert material. Included in the attached-growth processes are trickling filters, roughing filters, rotating biological contactors, and packed-bed reactors. Of the attached-growth processes, the one that is most appro- priate for and has had the most success in small municipalities is a trickling filter. Trickling filters will also be evaluated to determine if they are appropriate for the City of Fort Lupton. 4. OTHER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES. There are other waste- - water treatment processes that might be appropriate for the City of Fort Lupton. These processes include land treatment, aerated lagoon, and — wetland treatment. Land treatment uses plants, the soil, and soil microorganisms to treat the wastewater. The wastewater is applied to ground with or without plants, and the wastewater either soaks through the ground or flows over the ground, or both. Objectionable materials are removed from the waste- water by filtration through the soil, by plant uptake, or through the action of soil microorganisms. Land treatment is not considered a viable option for the City of Fort Lupton for several reasons. Groundwater that is close to the surface forced abandonment of the existing rapid infiltration basins at the wastewater treatment facility. For rapid infiltration to work, the effluent would have to be pumped to an 6-4 qr y T area where groundwater is not so close to the surface. None of the land treatment processes are capable of consistently removing almost all of the nitrogen in the wastewater. Virtually all of the nitrogen in the waste- water would eventually appear as nitrates in the groundwater. Much of the groundwater in the area near the City of Fort Lupton already has nitrate concentrations above what is considered safe for drinking water. Any type of land treatment process would add to the nitrate contamination of the groundwater, and all land treatment processes are eliminated from addi- tional consideration for this reason. A completely mixed aerated lagoon system has been used by many smaller municipalities to successfully treat wastewater. This system would have an initial completely mixed lagoon, a second partially mixed lagoon, and a third lagoon used for settling. It would be deeper and have three separate lagoons that are smaller than the existing lagoon. This system is prac- tical, has reasonably low capital costs, has low operation and maintenance costs, and has worked well for many smaller municipalities. An aerated lagoon system will also be evaluated to determine if it is appropriate for the City of Fort Lupton. A process that has recently been used by smaller municipalities is wetland treatment. In a wetland treatment system physical, chemical, and biological processes take place that are similar to those in conventional wastewater treatment plants. The organic material and nutrients from the wastewater are used by the plants and organisms for food. The wetland plants supply oxygen to the wastewater. If land is available or not too expensive, wetland treatment systems have relatively low capital costs. Wetland treatment systems have relatively low requirements for operation and maintenance and have been used successfully for smaller municipalities. A wetland treatment system will be evaluated to determine if it is appropriate for the City of Fort Lupton. 5. PHYSICAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES. Settling basins, filters, or flotation processes are also common in wastewater treatment. A settling basin, a filter, a microscreen, or a dissolved air flotation unit after the existing polishing ponds might be used to remove solids from 6-5 or inzn 7 <. the effluent. A settling basin and a dissolved air flotation unit would both probably require chemical addition and this would add to operationing and capital costs. Also, these processes may not be successful in removing algal solids and discharge permit violations may still occur. Microscreens may experience plugging, and filters may become plugged or experience short filter runs leading to frequent backwashing. Both microscreens and filters produce a wash water, which must be treated. Filters could also require chemicals to be added to the wastewater to improve treatment. Past experience indicates these processes will have operational dif- ficulties or will not remove sufficient insoluble BOD5 (solids) to ensure compliance with the discharge permit. The algae and microorganisms presently in the effluent from the wastewater treatment facilities are dif- ficult to remove. None of these processes remove soluble BOD5. Soluble BOD5 can only be removed by improving the treatment process. It is recom- mended that the entire wastewater treatment process be improved, instead of relying on a process to remove solids at the end of the existing wastewater treatment facilities. 6. REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT. If one wastewater treatment facility could treat the wastewater from several communities, it might be cost-effective. Some communities in the area were contacted to determine if there was any interest in cooperating with the City of Fort Lupton on regional wastewater treatment. Some communities expressed an interest in the concept of regional wastewater treatment and some did not. The City of Platteville was selected to perform a preliminary analysis on regional wastewater treatment. The City of Platteville is near the City of Fort Lupton and is also lower than the City of Fort Lupton so that a gravity sewer might be possible. Preliminary calculations indicate that a gravity sewer line is possible. A conservative preliminary cost estimate indicates that a gravity sewer line from the City of Platteville to the City of Fort Lupton would cost at least $2.2 million. This is approxi- mately equal to the cost of a new wastewater treatment facility and _ includes no costs for a new wastewater treatment facility. Regional wastewater treatment at a community higher than the City of Fort Lupton 6-6 would also have to include costs for a new pumping station. Based on this preliminary estimate, regional wastewater treatment does not appear to be a cost-effective wastewater treatment option. D. OXIDATION DITCH ALTERNATIVE An oxidation ditch is a type of activated sludge process that was originally developed in Europe. The wastewater enters at one end of an oval-shaped ditch, circulates around the oval, and the effluent exits at the opposite end of the oval. A surface brush aerator is often used to aerate the wastewater. A portion of the sludge that is separated in the final clarifier is returned to the oxidation ditch. The remainder of the sludge is wasted. A schematic of the oxidation ditch alternative is shown on Figure 6-1. A new headworks, including a bar screen and a Parshall flume to measure influent flow, would be constructed. Disposal of screenings from the bar screen would be in a landfill. The wastewater would then be treated in the oxidation ditch and be settled in the final clarifier. Effluent from the final clarifier would then be disinfected and discharged to the South Platte River. Settled sludge from the final clarifier would be pumped by the sludge pumping station. Some of the settled sludge would be returned to the oxi- dation ditch and the rest would go to an aerobic digester to be stabilized. An aerobic digester was selected because it is the simplest viable form of sludge stabilization. Supernatant from the aerobic digester would be returned to the oxidation ditch for treatment. It will be assumed for the purpose of this evaluation that stabilized sludge from the aerobic digester will be hauled away for land application by a private firm. E. TRICKLING FILTER ALTERNATIVE A trickling filter is a type of attached-growth process that has successfully been treating wastewater for many years. Primary effluent is sprayed over rocks, plastic media, or some other inert media and allowed to trickle or percolate through the media. The microorganisms attach to the 6-7 e .`,0. 15 I r cn - ow wF wa 0a U 1---W O_ 0Ow ~ O to LI W W lL Z 0 z 0 c to H J a 4 t U 0 111 J W CI. h a cn a 00 z aW W U Z — IJ O J — Z o V as Da~ mE-' W Z--I J7H X WU 0a CO CO H Q Z x - W F J Q rril x a i- 0 _ z 0 W Z H o O 0 U J Q x t N O 0o z x �J I- O __ � F W CC e J - 00 J LL W O N O d J ix. - - 0j J to - m 0 ? O I i Z Z W a F. O Z Cr Z W Z W U W I 0 0 CO I- LL J U U. Z J inert media and the wastewater is treated as it trickles over the micro- organisms attached to the inert media. The wastewater is collected at the bottom of the filter and the solids are separated in the final clarifier. A schematic of the trickling filter alternative is shown on Figure 6-2. A new headworks, including a bar screen and a Parshall flume to measure influent flow would be constructed. Disposal of screenings from - the bar screen would be in a landfill. Primary solids would be separated from the liquid stream in a primary clarifier. Primary effluent and recirculated trickling filter effluent would then be pumped to the top of the trickling filters by the trickling filter pumping station. Effluent from the trickling filter would be treated in the final clarifier, and the final clarifier effluent would be disinfected and discharged to the South Platte River. Settled sludge from the final clarifier would be pumped back into the primary clarifier influent by the secondary sludge pumping station. Settled sludge from the primary clarifier would be pumped to the gravity thickener. Thickened sludge from the gravity thickener would be digested in the anaerobic digester. An anaerobic digester is used because it is the most appropriate process for digestion of primary sludge. It will be assumed for the purpose of this evaluation that stabilized sludge from the anaerobic digester will be hauled away for land application by a private firm. Effluent from the gravity thickener and supernatant from the anaerobic digester would be returned to the trickling filter for treatment. F. AERATED LAGOON ALTERNATIVE Aerated lagoons have been used by smaller municipalities successfully for many years. Aerated lagoons often contain multiple cells. Most of the treatment takes place in the first completely mixed cell. Subsequent cells are used for additional treatment and to settle the biological and inert solids. Aeration equipment provides oxygen and keeps the microorganisms responsible for wastewater treatment suspended in the wastewater. 6-8 w A w O OJ j cm Co C C1- i w c i I cr o OC13 Li- I _ UDj O O O D cn � J mil m C O_ immum Wis: F- O I as 1 w w I Za J I N J I It U o I I x w t O ]a. ` OWZZ Oj Yu.' L Z U- O °I... col UN Z ~w� NVJia c~n Jw w 0 p 1 i a. o > It o " a 0 I aw z O ir U J O W W Z O Z I m W — F- m Ytrzo -� ¢� ! Q 6 w E p I- i ww CC-IDl I ao W F- -au) 1 I $ 1. mg I a J >_101 wYrW >' oz > z U� WzQ � 4040 -�• jY H g f f Ua a a cc _ aU aviaaco 0F- I tar— _ _ J z w w 'sir a c..> m co LL. o z _ w_ J I- 00 CL Z UoD A schematic of the aerated lagoon alternative is shown on Figure 6-3. A new headworks, including a bar screen and a Parshall flume to measure flow, would be constructed. Disposal of screenings from the bar screen would be in a landfill. The wastewater would then flow to a completely mixed aerated lagoon where most of the wastewater treatment would take place. The effluent would then flow to a partially mixed lagoon where the remainder of the treatment occurs. The second cell contains aeration equipment but is not completely mixed. The first two cells are approxi- mately 15 feet deep, and this would prohibit the use of the existing aerated lagoon and aeration equipment. The wastewater then flows to the third cell of the aerated lagoon where the solids are separated from the liquid. Effluent from the settling basin is then disinfected and dis- charged to the South Platte River. It is anticipated that settled solids would be removed once each year from the settling basin. The solids would have to be pumped from the bottom of the basin to a truck. It will be assumed for the purpose of this evaluation that the solids would be pumped from the settling basin and hauled away for land application by a private firm. G. WETLAND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE Wetlands that are constructed specifically to treat wastewater are becoming popular, especially for smaller municipalities. Wetlands have large areas of slow-moving water, allowing solids to settle. The plant stems, plant roots, gravel, and soil filter out solids. Microorganisms responsible for treating the wastewater are supplied with oxygen by the plants growing in the wetlands. If the wetland plants cover the entire water surface, no light can reach the water surface, and the algae cannot grow. A schematic of the wetland treatment alternative is shown on Figure 6-4. A new headworks, including a bar screen and a Parshall flume, would be constructed. Disposal of screenings from the bar screen would be in a landfill. The existing aerated lagoon would be modified to reduce the detention time and more closely approach a completely mixed lagoon. The 6-9 W O1- C 1- M F 1 WJ 3 30 W 0a O J J W 4' Cr K M Z OIFW — P co>>_ J F cox a O o J N w W LI- U) t i ,—.., a a I i Z........____.....e w I o W I J W t Z >o F > il J U Z >J cc w z m a i— Fn a Z —�� COW Q WQ 0Z Z fn(!1 JJ O O O cTo wzu_ u_ Q aao J } C J o W J W Z -I- 5041-0 Q I..IliO CC a.WQ W 6.fCJ Q _ O W X_ J 2 w J W W Z W Jpa0 1" 0faa 0. 1 O o V 1- Z O J W � �� 2J M M W W - Co O CO N K Z Q a CO-I I- U. Z Z I O O F-h- _1 I - oa U. D Z OU.J 2 a a. 3 . L `° o 0 J m WJ LL OH / 75 O_ WIPO 0 J .5 CO liillil ¢ a a = te c.) w No? o I ocncr z is 1 0 I ___L W J Z O Z )- J J li W w Z W c) %n > - O F- Q Z 2 W O J Z Q W Q Z cn m W Z 2 � a Q W 0 CL aV > J CC W W Z � - O� Q W W Z o Z 0 J Q-X 0 O CJJ W O—WQ m0N cf 4 aa0 - K CCW — ��Om CoJ __ CO V) CO J O LL Z 0 .••• •• U O r a. z ou_J Fi et existing aeration equipment would be demolished, new surface aerators would be installed, and the lagoon would be relined to prevent wastewater from leaking into the groundwater. Wastewater from the bar screen would flow to the completely mixed aerated lagoon, and effluent from the lagoon would flow to a settling basin. The solids would be separated from the effluent in the settling basin, and the effluent would receive additional treatment in the wetland cells. After treatment in the wetland cells, the effluent would be disinfected and discharged to the South Platte River. This alternative attempts to modify the existing aerated lagoon as little as possible. The lagoon would have to be relined but not deepened. The settling basin and the wetland cells would be located where the aerated lagoon, the polishing ponds, and the percolation basins are now located. It is anticipated that settled solids would be removed once each year from the settling basin. The solids would have to be pumped from the bottom of the basin to a truck. It will be assumed for the purpose of this evaluation that the solids would be pumped from the settling basin and hauled away for land application by a private firm. It is also possible that eventually enough solids would accumulate to require solids removal from the wetland cells. Because of limited experience in treating munici- pal wastes in wetland treatment systems, it is not known to what extent solids will accumulate. For this evaluation, a conservative assumption will be made that every 10 years the wetland cells would have to be dried, dredged, replanted, and the solids hauled away. It will be assumed that this would also be done by a private firm. H. ECONOMIC EVALUATION The EPA's Construction Grants Program requires that a present worth analysis be performed to determine which treatment alternatives are most cost-effective. A present worth analysis is a form of economic analysis that tries to account for the time value of money. The present worth cost is an estimate of the total cost of treatment over the planning period — expressed in 1990 dollars (Engineering News Record Building Cost Index equal to 2,725). The analysis is based on a 20-year planning period, 6-10 an interest rate of 8-3/4 percent mandated by the EPA, and no salvage value. No inflation was included because it was assumed that all alterna- tives would be affected equally by inflation. The analysis attempts to portray today's value of construction (including engineering, legal, and administrative costs) , financing the cost of the project, and operating the facilities over the planning period. Present worth values that are within 20 percent should be considered equal for the purposes of this cost comparison, because of inaccuracies in the estimation. The degree of accuracy achieved is sufficient for planning purposes. Construction costs were developed using values from other similar projects, estimations of quantities, and references. (' 8) Annual operation and maintenance costs were based on various references. (8, 9) Presented in Table 6-1 is the present worth analysis for the four alternatives. Initial costs include construction of the new facilities, engineering, legal, and administration. Additional costs include removal and disposal of sludge now in the existing aerated lagoon and removal of sludge and replanting of the wetlands in the future. Removal of sludge from the existing aerated lagoon may not be necessary and should be evaluated during the design phase. Annual costs are the estimated 1990 operation and maintenance costs expressed in 1990 dollars. The oxidation ditch has the lowest present worth, followed by the aerated lagoon, trickling filter, and wetland treatment alternative. The present worth of the oxidation ditch and the aerated lagoon are within 20 percent of each other and, for the purposes of this cost comparison, can _ be considered almost equal. The large surface area of the basins and wet- land cells and groundwater mitigation measures were among the reasons the wetland alternative was the most expensive. Annual operation and mainte- nance costs for all four alternatives are relatively close, with costs for the trickling filter being the highest. I. NONECONOMIC EVALUATION Each alternative was evaluated subjectively based on noneconomic factors. The results are presented in Table 6-2. Each alternative was given as plus (+), a zero (0), or a minus (-) . A plus was a positive 6-11 TABLE 6-1 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS OF TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES Alternatives Oxidation Trickling Aerated Wetland Ditch Filter Lagoon Treatment ($) ($) ($) ($) Present worth of initial costs 2,360,000 3,238,000 2,726,000 7,137,000 Present worth of additional costs 97,000 97,000 97,000 158,000 Annual costs (1990) 204,000 233,000 207,000 207,000 Total present worth 4,353,000 5,500,000 4,747,000 9,219,000 6-12 C, r TABLE 6-2 NONECONOMIC COMPARISON OF TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES Alternatives Oxidation Trickling Aerated Wetland Ditch Filter Lagoon Treatment Reliability + + + 0 Compatibiliy with the existing system 0 0 0 - __ Expandability 0 0 0 Operational complexity 0 0 + + Land requirements + + 0 - Regulatory impacts + + 0 + TOTAL +3 +3 +2 +1 + = Alternative is positive compared to other alternatives. 0 = Alternative is neutral compared to other alternatives. - = Alternative is negative compared to other alternatives. 6-13 (T r. rating for the category, a zero was neutral rating, and a minus was a negative rating. Reliability, compatibility with the existing system, expandability, operational complexity, land requirements, and regulatory impacts were considered. All processes were selected with reliability of wastewater treatment as an essential criterion; therefore, all processes will consistently produce a well-treated effluent. Because both the oxidation ditch and the trickling filter have only one treatment train, they will both be sus- ceptible to upsets. The oxidation ditch and the trickling filter, however, each have several process variables, such as return sludge rate and recir- culation rate, that can be varied to compensate for upsets. The aerated lagoon and the wetland treatment system both have several stages and much longer detention times making them less susceptible to upsets. The wet- land treatment system, however, has not been widely used for municipal wastewater treatment, and its reliability has not been proven over a long period of time. The existing treatment facilities would be abandoned under all of the alternatives. With the exception of the wetland treatment system, the area occupied by the existing holding pond appears to be large enough for any alternative to be constructed in that area. To construct the wetland treatment system, the existing surface aerators would be moved to the holding pond and a temporary dike constructed to form a completely mixed aerated lagoon. The rest of the holding pond would be used as a settling basin. The modified holding pond would serve as a temporary treatment system. With the other three alternatives, the holding pond would be taken out of service and the treatment facilities would be constructed in that area. After the new facilities become operational, the existing aerated lagoon and polishing ponds would be abandoned. The oxidation ditch, trickling filter, and aerated lagoon alterna- tives are only expandable by adding a completely parallel process. For facilities of this size, it is not cost-effective to build several smaller parallel treatment trains or to stage parallel treatment trains over a planning period. The oxidation ditch, trickling filter, and aerated lagoon 6-14 ^.4 . would be sized for the projected flow in 2010. The wetland treatment system could be expanded, up to a point, by adding more wetland cells, using the holding pond area, if necessary. The oxidation ditch and trickling filter are relatively simple to operate when compared to other mechanical treatment processes. When the oxidation ditch and trickling filter are compared to an aerated lagoon and a wetland treatment system, however, they are more complex to operate. The oxidation ditch and trickling filter both require comparatively little land and will fit in the holding pond area without disrupting treat- ment in the existing aerated lagoon and polishing ponds. The aerated lagoon alternative requires much more land and would probably fit in the holding pond area; however, this would have to be confirmed during design of the facilities. The wetland treatment alternative requires almost all the land now occupied by the existing aerated lagoon, polishing ponds, abandoned polishing pond, and abandoned percolation basins. It is anticipated that if an oxidation ditch or trickling filter treatment system is built, the effluent limitations for the City of Fort Lupton would be lowered. Most likely, the effluent limitation for TSS would be lowered to 30 mg/1 for the 30-day average. If properly operated, both the oxidation ditch and trickling filter treatment systems should easily be able to comply with these effluent limitations. It is anticipated that if an aerated lagoon or wetland system is built, the effluent limitations would remain the same. If properly operated, both the aerated lagoon and the wetland treatment system should easily be able to comply with the existing effluent limitations. If the Colorado Department of Health should lower the 30-day TSS limitations to 30 mg/1, the aerated lagoon most likely would experience occasional violations. J. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Each alternative was evaluated subjectively based on environmental factors. The results are presented in Table 6-3. Each alternative was given a plus, minus, or zero, similarly to the noneconomic evaluation. Water quality, water resources, air quality, land use, public health, 6-15 TABLE 6-3 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISON OF _ TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES Alternatives Oxidation Trickling Aerated Wetland -- Ditch Filter Lagoon Treatment Water quality + + 0 0 Water resources 0 0 0 0 Air quality 0 0 0 0 Land use + + 0 - Public health + + + + Noise 0 0 0 0 — wildlife 0 0 0 + Vegetation 0 0 0 + Archaeology 0 0 0 0 General public welfare + + + + Population 0 0 0 0 Industrial growth 0 0 0 0 Solid waste + + 0 0 -- Construction 0 0 0 TOTAL +5 +5 +2 +2 + = Alternative is positive compared to other alternatives. ._ 0 = Alternative is neutral compared to other alternatives. - = Alternative is negative compared to other alternatives. 6-16 noise, wildlife, vegetation, archaeology, general public welfare, population, industrial growth, solid waste, and construction were considered. The oxidation ditch and trickling filter produce an effluent of superior quality when compared to the aerated lagoon and wetland treatment system. Water quality would be better with the oxidation ditch or trick- - ling filter. Plastic liners in all lagoons, basins, or cells and concrete structures will prevent wastewater from leaking into the groundwater. No _ significant changes in water resources from present operation are antici- pated for the oxidation ditch, trickling filter, or aerated lagoon. The plants and additional water surface area required for the wetland treatment system may lead to more water loss by evapotranspiration and evaporation. This is a water rights issue that should first undergo a legal review before a wetland treatment system is built. There should be no significant long-term impacts on air quality. Odors can be a problem for all of the alternatives if the processes are overloaded or improperly operated. Some short-term deterioration in air quality due mostly to particulates can be expected during construction. The City of Fort Lupton has sufficient land available at the existing wastewater treatment facilities for any of the alternatives. It has been assumed that the land and existing facilities not used will be abandoned in place. Under some of the alternatives, however, unused land could be available for other uses. The oxidation ditch and trickling filter alter- natives require the least land, while the aerated lagoon requires more _ land. The wetland treatment system requires approximately twice as much land as the aerated lagoon. All of the treatment alternatives would improve water quality and have a positive impact on the public health. No adverse public health effects are anticipated. All alternatives would continue chlorine use in the cur- - rent manner. The possibility of a chlorine leak would not change. Almost all motors or other devices that are noisy would be enclosed within buildings. The wastewater treatment facilities are also not presently near 6-17 �> ,? any residential, commercial, or industrial developments. Some construction activities will raise noise above normal levels, but no adverse noise impacts are anticipated after construction. The oxidation ditch, trickling filter, and aerated lagoon would have no effects on any wildlife near or at the existing facilities. The wetland treatment system may have some positive effects on waterfowl and other small wildlife. All wildlife at the existing treatment facilities will be disturbed during construction. All treatment alternatives will improve water quality, which will have a positive effect on aquatic life and wildlife. No effects on any vegetation are expected, with the exception that the wetland treatment system would provide a habitat for wetland plants. No archaeological sites are known to exist at the wastewater treatment facilities, and no other known sites would be affected. All alternatives would have a positive effect on the general public welfare due to the improvement in water quality. No other aspects of the general public welfare would be affected. All alternatives would have the capability to provide wastewater treatment for the projected population through the end of the planning period. Significant increases in population above projections would affect all alternatives. Small industries or commercial developments in the City of Fort Lupton would not have an effect on any of the treatment - alternatives. Large industries with large organic or hydraulic loads or small industries discharging toxic wastes would have significant impacts on all treatment alternatives and may require industrial pretreatment facilities or regulations. Solid waste handling and disposal costs will be approximately equal for all alternatives. Because digestion is included for the oxidation ditch and trickling filter alternatives, quantities of solid waste generated would be less. The oxidation ditch, trickling filter, and, most likely, aerated lagoon could all be constructed in the area currently occupied by the holding pond. The existing treatment facility would not be affected and 6-18 -- ,gin _ could continue wastewater treatment virtually uninterrupted. The wetland treatment system would require major modifications to the existing treat- ment facility and the construction of a temporary treatment facility in the existing holding pond. Construction of the wetland treatment system would be more difficult than the other alternatives. Difficulty of actual construction of the physical facilities among the alternatives should not differ. K. RECOMMENDATION A summary of the evaluation of the four alternatives is presented in Table 6-4. The oxidation ditch and the trickling filter alternatives are tied for the highest ranking in the noneconomic and environmental evaluations. The oxidation ditch has the lowest present worth of all of the alternatives. The recommended alternative is the oxidation ditch. Another advantage of the oxidation ditch is that it can be operated to achieve nitrification, with some minor process variations. Several of the wastewater treatment plants that discharge to the South Platte River upstream from the City of Fort Lupton have had ammonia and nitrate limita- tions added to their permits. If the City of Fort Lupton is required to reduce the amount of ammonia discharged to the South Platte River, this could be accomplished by nitrifying in the oxidation ditch. 6-19 TABLE 6-4 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Alternatives Oxidation Trickling Aerated Wetland Ditch Filter Lagoon Treatment Present worth, $ 4,353,000 5,500,000 4,747,000 9,219,000 Noneconomic evaluation +3 +3 +2 +1 Environmental evaluation +5 +5 +2 +2 6-20 CHAPTER 7 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS A. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS An oxidation ditch was selected as the preferred alternative because it had the lowest present worth and it was tied for the highest ranking in the noneconomic and environmental evaluation. A preliminary site plan showing a possible arrangement of the new facilities is on Figure 7-1. The existing holding pond would be drained, and all of the new facilities would be constructed at the existing holding pond location. This would allow the existing treatment facilities to continue operation uninterrupted until construction was completed. After the new treatment facilities are opera- tional the existing aerated lagoon and polishing ponds would be abandoned. The two existing influent force mains would be intercepted and rerouted to the influent structure. A Parshall flume would measure influent flow, and a bar screen would be used to remove large objects from the wastewater. A mechanically cleaned bar screen would be in the main channel with a manually cleaned bar screen in a bypass channel. The oxi- dation ditch would most likely be an oval shaped structure, with a channel allowing the wastewater to move around the oval. Aeration equipment in the oxidation ditch would be used to aerate the wastewater. The final clari- fier would follow the aeration basin. Effluent from the final clarifier would be disinfected using the existing chlorination facilities, and the existing effluent line would be used. It will be necessary to confirm during the design of the new facilities that it is hydraulically possible to use the existing chlorine contact basin and effluent line. Recycle sludge from the final clarifier would be pumped back to the oxidation ditch by the sludge pumping station. Waste activated sludge would be pumped from the final clarifier to the aerobic digester by the sludge pumping station. Decant from the aerobic digester would be returned to the influent line to the oxidation ditch. Aerobically digested sludge would be pumped from the aerobic digester by the sludge pumping station. An independent firm can be hired to haul away and land apply the 7-1 ..... ._.. .. w r c1 i� 7 '-- O a? U U O h co 0 v im 5_ o ( O O I a z z a 0w < 0 z z O m = z z Caz J Q O co a a A. A-. 4 I Qv h� Z O 0 CO 0 0 Z J 4 J o w a a w cc F w N CC 4 _Z J w Jl re z a re W 0 LL a _ z Q a W J -J CC () 0 J F- 4 U Z U) LL U) Z _ Z V w I- re Z LL Iii 0 ? O N Q IL 1- Q 0 N X () 0 z a 00-3 a 0 cn ¢ 0. o w a Z 4 w 0 0 0 J N 4' 2 O o Fcca —o.J 0u.J aerobically digested sludge. Presented in Table 7-1 are some preliminary parameters for the new processes necessary for the oxidation ditch alternative. Table 7-2 presents the opinion of total project probable construction costs. The costs shown include the remedial repairs recommended for the two lift stations and the remedial repairs recommended for the existing wastewater treatment facilities that will be reused. These costs include engineering, legal, administrative, and contingencies. It was assumed that a separate emergency generator will be needed for each lift station. It may be possible to use the same emergency generator for both lift stations; however, this must be evaluated during the design phase. In addition to the costs shown in Table 7-2, an additional cost of approximately $190,000 may be necessary for effluent dechlorination facilities. The dechlorina- tion of the effluent may be required to meet the residual chlorine limitation in the Colorado Wastewater Discharge Permit. The annual operation and maintenance costs, shown in Table 7-3, were estimated to be $204,000 in 1990 dollars. Annual operation and maintenance costs have been separated to show labor, sludge disposal, maintenance, and utilities. A certified Colorado Class C operator, another operator, and some part-time help from the remainder of the staff will be required to operate the recommended wastewater treatment facilities. It is anticipated that a private contractor can be hired to pump waste sludge from the aerobic digester and dispose of the sludge by land application. Maintenance includes replacement of equipment and supplies. Operation and preventative and scheduled maintenance will be addressed in the operation and maintenance manual. Utilities include costs to operate the pumping and aeration equipment. B. FUNDING AND SCHEDULE The construction cost projected for this project is significant. It is recommended that the City of Fort Lupton perform a rate study. A rate study develops a financial plan in which prospective sources of funding, such as bonds, sewer rates, loans, and grants, are considered. 7-2 or- inn. . , i-s.r:. .i. -D TABLE 7-1 PRELIMINARY PROCESS PARAMETERS FOR OXIDATION DITCH ALTERNATIVE Process Parameter Parshall flume Average flow, mgd 1.5 Bar screens Type One mechanically cleaned and one manually cleaned Oxidation ditch Volume, mil gal 1.2 Hydraulic detention time at design flow, hr 24 Design space loading, lb BOD/1,000 cu ft 10 Design MLSS concentration, mg/1 3,000 Design food-to-microorganism ratio, lb BOD/day/lb MLVSS 0.08 Final clarifier Diameter, ft 50 Side water depth, ft 15 Overflow rate at design flow, gpd/sq ft 610 Detention time at design flow, hr 4.6 Aerobic digester Volume, mil gal 0. 16 Solids retention time, days 20 7-3 TABLE 7-2 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Cost* ($) Oxidation Ditch Wastewater Treatment Facilities Contractor mobilization 64,000 Bar screen 42,000 Oxidation ditch 548,000 Final clarifier 93,000 Pumping station 270,000 Aerobic digester 205,000 Dewatering 32,000 Emergency generator 90,000 SUBTOTAL 1,344,000 Sitework (15 percent of subtotal) 202,000 Electrical and instrumentation (15 percent of subtotal) 202,000 SUBTOTAL 1,748,000 Contingencies (20 percent of subtotal) 350,000 Modifications Modification of two lift stations and existing wastewater treatment facilities 260,000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 2,358,000 Engineering design services (11 percent of total construction cost) 262,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST 2,620,000 *August 1990 dollars, ENR Building Cost Index = 2,716. 7-4 TABLE 7-3 OPINION OF PROBABLE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Annual Costs* ($) Labor 70,000 Land application of sludge by contractor 55,000 Maintenance 21,000 Utilities 58,000 TOTAL 204,000 *Costs are expressed in 1990 dollars. 7-5 The Colorado Department of Health was contacted in behalf of the City of Fort Lupton. The City of Fort Lupton is on the priority list for funding. Loans are available to municipalities on the priority list for wastewater treatment plant construction. The interest rate on these direct loans is 4 to 5 percent. The interest rate can be reduced by as much as 1.5 to 2.0 percent depending on the amount of matching funds supplied by the municipality. There is no limit to the loan amount, and the loan can be used for any eligible construction expense. Presented in Table 7-4 are two scenarios using different interest rates and the changes in a typical single-family rate assuming a rate increase funds the entire loan. Shown in Table 7-5 is a tentative implementation schedule. The schedule shows the tasks that must be completed to complete the oxidation ditch wastewater treatment facilities and estimates the time required for these tasks. 7-6 rh_^ , s TABLE 7-4 PRELIMINARY FINANCING PLAN Cost ($) Simple interest at 1 percent Capital cost eligible for financing 2,358,000.00 Annual repayment to revolving loan fund 130,669.31 Total repayment to revolving loan fund over 20 years 2,613,386.00 Approximate annual rate increase per single-family customer 58.13 Quarterly increase in rates for a single-family customer 14.53 (39 percent) Simple interest at 4.6 percent Capital cost eligible for financing 2,358,000.00 Annual repayment to revolving loan fund 182,848.10 Total repayment to revolving loan fund over 20 years 3,656,962.00 Approximate annual rate increase per single-family customer 81.35 Quarterly increase in rates for a single-family customer 20.34 (54 percent) Assumptions: o Annual single-family residential rate equals $151.70. o The percentage of the sewer revenue generated by single-family customers is 44. Industrial, commercial, educational, and multifamily customers are classified separately and would have comparable rate increases. o Analyses are based on a 20-year repayment period. 7-7 m7, q TABLE 7-5 TENTATIVE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Date Task February 13, 1991 Fort Lupton adopts Facility Plan. May 6, 1991 Fort Lupton submits Facility Plan to CDH. July 15, 1991 CDH and EPA approval of Facility Plan and issuance of project's "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI). August 1, 1991 Complete water and wastewater financing studies. August 14, 1991 Award design contract and begin design of recommended facilities. August 30, 1991 Submit site application to CDH. October 16, 1991 50 percent design complete. December 2, 1991 90 percent design complete. Submit drawings and specifications to CDH. January 6, 1992 Receive CDH design approval. January 20, 1992 Advertise for bids. February 24, 1992 Receive bids. March 11, 1992 Fort Lupton awards construction contract. December 31, 1992 Complete substantial construction of new treatment facility. January 30, 1993 Achieve operational status and compliance with effluent limitations. 7-8 c) a CHAPTER 8 ENVIRONMENTAL, PUBLIC AGENCY, AND PUBLIC REVIEW ISSUES A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT In this chapter, several issues will be discussed. The existing environment in the planning area will be described. A description of the environment prior to construction allows a comparison of conditions before and after construction so that the effect of the project on the environment can be assessed. Because construction only on the existing wastewater treatment facility site was recommended, no adverse environmental impacts are expected. During construction, some minor adverse temporary environ- mental impacts, such as a slight increase in air particulates, may occur. 1. PHYSIOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS. The planning area is in Weld County and includes parts of Range 66 West, Townships 1 and 2 North and Range 67 West, Townships 1 and 2 North. The planning area is in the South Platte River Basin with the South Platte River flowing through the planning area. The wastewater treatment facility is on the west side of the South Platte River, and almost all of the developed area of Fort Lupton is to the east of the river. Most of the land surface is fairly flat with elevations ranging from approximately 4,870 to 5,060 feet mean sea level. The eastern and central portion of the planning area containing the developed areas of the City of Fort Lupton is relatively flat. The western part of the planning area has relatively few developed areas and has a steeper slope. The land slopes down toward the South Platte River, which is in the west-central part of the planning area. The 100-year flood plain for the South Platte River is shown on Figure 8-1. The flood plain contains swamps, oxbow lakes, abandoned meander scars, and low indistinct terraces. Generally, the flood plain is north and west of the river and is bounded by two separate terraces, which gradually slope toward the river. The terraces have distinct escarpments, which separate them from the flood plain and each other. The Kuner Terrace is the lower terrace, is approximately 10 to 15 feet above the river's flood plain, and is discontinuous on both sides of the valley. The Kersey 8-1 C+/7-;,3-., _ n 5 • :4Ø 14,i . W 1 I S ' `, • d W IIX �r a 1 • O J W t' t. 7 [ [- [ _ __ _ Z ." ', Z Q .-'.::.:..k:::., ..z .. CC C r:�.' .11 • $'.. `�:f: U. r I- O a ® I ' N , ry < O I 3 ! .c z~t ,.. \ ' r tea. , , , }�� ' ICr Cl- - \ 4 0 U. Terrace is the upper terrace, underlies the City of Fort Lupton, has a broader and flatter surface, and is a significant feature of the valley. The Kersey Terrace is approximately 20 to 40 feet above the flood plain. The Kersey Terrace deposits, which underlie the City of Fort Lupton, are from the Quaternary period and are unconsolidated clay, silt, sand, and gravel. In the Fort Lupton area, approximately 5 feet of brown, loamy soil is above the Kersey Terrace deposits. The Kersey Terrace deposits underlying Fort Lupton are made up of approximately 40 to 45 feet of — medium- to coarse-grained sand and gravel with some pebbles. A distinct layer of orange, medium- to coarse-grained sand about 5 to 10 feet thick is found about 5 to 10 feet below the surface. The lower edge of the Kersey Terrace deposit is delineated by a layer of rounded cobbles approximately 2 feet thick. Below the Kersey Terrace deposit is the Denver Formation consisting of clay, soft shale, and siltstone with significant quantities of carbonaceous material. (10) The Colorado Geological Survey was contacted and a copy of the letter of response is in Appendix C. The letter states that the existing waste- water treatment facility is underlain by sand and gravel. There are no known geological hazards in the planning area. It is recommended that a geotechnical investigation be performed before construction. 2. SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY. The dominant surface water feature in the planning area is the South Platte River. The South Platte River flows from south to north through the planning area. There are several small marshes, wetlands, and ponds in the planning area. Several ditches or canals, used primarily to transport water for irrigation, are also in the planning area. Deposits of the Kersey Terrace make up the unconfined aquifer under- neath Fort Lupton. The Kersey Terrace deposits are composed primarily of sands and gravels making the aquifer very porous and permeable. The static water level is about 15 feet below the surface in Fort Lupton. The water table slopes slightly toward the South Platte River. (10) The static water _ level at the wastewater treatment facility is shallow, resulting in the abandonment of the percolation ponds several years ago. 8-2 in, , , , 3. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC PLANTS, ANIMALS, AND NATURAL HABITATS. The planning area can be divided into various ecosystems, including plains grassland, plains streamside, ponds, marshes or wetlands, urban, and agri- cultural land. The types of wildlife habitats include open land, wetland, and rangeland habitats. The open land habitat consists of cropland, pasture, meadows, and areas overgrown with grasses, herbs, shrubs, and vines. The wetland habitat consists of marshy, swampy, or shallow water areas where water-tolerant plants grow. The rangeland habitat consists of wild herbaceous plants and shrubs. Small areas of wetland vegetation are located in the planning area and significant areas of wetland vegetation are located along the South Platte River. A copy of the National Wetlands Inventory map provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was used to locate the wet- land areas shown on Figure 8-1. Trees typical of wetlands are cottonwood and box elder. Numerous herbs and shrubs such as reeds, rushes, shrubs, and sedges are often found in wetland habitats. Trees that might typically be found in the planning area, especially along creeks and ditches, include box elder, cottonwood, and Russian olive. Shrubs that might be typical in the planning area are hawthorn and willow. Several species of grasses would also typically be found in the planning area. The USFWS was contacted to determine if any endangered and threatened species are in the planning area. A copy of the letter from the USFWS is in Appendix C. There are no federally listed plants that are endangered and threatened in the planning area according the USFWS. The Colorado butterfly weed (Gaura neomexicana spp. coloradensis) is the only plant that is a candidate for official listing as endangered and threatened that might be found in the planning area. Due to the proximity of water and the terrestrial habitats described previously, a variety of birds can be found. Birds that might be typical in the planning area are migratory waterfowl, swallows, magpies, robins, and other birds typical of a plains, wetland, or shore environment. 8-3 According to the USFWS, the endangered and threatened bird species are _ all migratory birds that might be passing through the planning area. The endangered and threatened bird species are peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) , bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), whooping crane (Grus americana), and Eskimo curlew (Numenius borealis). A letter from the Colorado Division of Wildlife is also in Appendix C stating that the possibility of negative impacts relating to the bald eagle is doubtful. The USFWS also states that burrowing owls (Speotyto cunicularia) are a protected migratory species and could be in the planning area. Several other birds are candidates for official listing as endangered and threatened species according to the USFWS. These birds are the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailli extimus), long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) , mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), and black tern (Chlidonias niger). Many animals are common in a typical plains environment such as the planning area. Reptiles that are typical in environments similar to the planning area are toads, frogs, salamanders, and lizards. Typical mammals for plains environments are rabbits, squirrels, prairie dogs, rats, and mice. According to the USFWS, the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) is the only endangered and threatened species that might be in the planning area. The candidates for official listing as an endangered and threatened species that might be in the planning area are the northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) and swift fox (Vulpes velox). The South Platte River in the planning area is typical of stream systems in the arid west. Water from the South Platte River is used extensively, and the river is altered by irrigation diversions and return flows. Typical fish that might be found in the South Platte River at this location include carp, fathead minnows, and white suckers. According to the USFWS and Colorado Division of Wildlife, no other protected, endangered, or threatened species, other than those listed previously, inhabit the planning area. 8-4 4. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE. The planning area is located in an area of relatively good air quality. The major source of air pollution is wind- borne particles and dust from roads, agricultural activity, and industry. Noise in the area is typical for a small town or rural setting. Noise is caused by agricultural activities, vehicles, and industry. The existing wastewater treatment facility typically does not cause odor problems. Occasionally, anoxic conditions from an overload or decay- ing algae may result in slight odor problems. Because the wastewater treatment facility is in a rural area with few houses nearby, odor com- plaints are minimal. There are no significant sources of air pollution at the existing wastewater treatment facility. The greatest sources of noise at the existing wastewater treatment facility are the blower and aerators. The blower is housed in a small building, which reduces noise somewhat. The blower and the aerators are not near any houses or populated areas. Because of the rural location of the wastewater treatment facility, few noise complaints about the blower or aerators are received. 5. ENERGY PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION. No large-scale energy pro- ducing facilities are in the planning area. There are no very large industries in the planning area. Energy consumption is typical for what might be expected for rural, small urban, commercial, and light industrial communities and establishments in the planning area. No energy is produced at the wastewater treatment facility. Most of the energy at the wastewater treatment facility is used by the blower and aerators. Other uses of energy at the wastewater treatment facility are relatively small. 6. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. Maps of the area do not show any public, state, or national parks or recreation areas. There are several city parks in the planning area. There are no wild and scenic rivers in the planning area. Public facilities and services are typical for what a small town might offer, such as a city hall, school system, police protection, and fire protection. The wastewater treatment facility is not accessible by the public and has no public facilities or services. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE. The most significant environmental impact of the recommended alternative will be to improve the quality of the effluent discharged from the wastewater 8-5 - Oce71, . treatment facility. Improved wastewater effluent quality should also improve water quality in the South Platte River. The existing lagoons and ponds at the wastewater treatment facility presently allow wastewater to leak into the groundwater. Wastewater will no longer leak into and contaminate the groundwater after the new wastewater treatment facilities are operational. The new wastewater treatment facilities will be constructed on the site of an existing lagoon. Construction will not disturb or harm any endangered and threatened species because no endangered and threatened species are present at the existing wastewater treatment site. Because treatment levels will improve, odors at the wastewater treatment plant will be negligible or absent. Traffic during construction and construction itself may have a slight effect on air quality; however, these effects will only be temporary. Very slight increased traffic required to operate the new wastewater treatment facilities should have a minimal effect on overall air quality. There may be a temporary noise increase during construction due to construction and equipment. Almost all of the equipment associated with the new wastewater treatment facilities will be enclosed in buildings; therefore, ambient noise levels should decrease or remain constant. No energy will be produced at the new wastewater treatment facilities. Most of the energy consumption after construction at the new facilities will be from the aeration and pumping equipment. During design, energy codes, passive solar heating, reduced cooling and heating of unoccupied buildings, equipment efficiency, and adjustable weirs for the oxidation ditch to decrease energy consumption should be considered. These and other measures to reduce energy consumption should all be incorporated into design. All of the new wastewater treatment facilities will be constructed on existing wastewater treatment sites; therefore, no public facilities, parks, recreation areas, or wild or scenic rivers will be impacted. The existing treatment processes will be kept in service during construction so that wastewater treatment will not be interrupted. No other federal or state projects are currently taking place in the planning area. 8-6 or 0 . The Soil Conservation Service was contacted and a copy of the letter of response is in Appendix C. Prime farmlands are shown on Figure 8-1. No prime farmlands will be disturbed as a result of any recommendations made during this 201 Facilities Plan. B. PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW Several federal and state agencies were contacted and requested to comment on the 201 Facilities Plan, and responses received from these agencies are in Appendix C. Comments from the Colorado Geological Survey, USFWS, Colorado Division of Wildlife, and Soil Conservation Service were discussed in the previous section. The Colorado Historical Society stated that there are no cultural resources in the planning area that are currently included in the Colorado Inventory of Cultural Resources. The response from the Corps of Engineers indicated that a Department of the Army Permit will not be required. The letter from the Office of the State Engineer stated that the project appears to have no potential impacts on water rights. A copy of the letter written by the Colorado Department of Health after the review of the preliminary 201 Facilities Plan is in Appendix C. A copy of the letter responding to the review comments by the Colorado Department of Health is also in Appendix C. The appropriate government agency will be contacted should circumstances change during design or construction requiring additional input or action by that agency. C. CITY OF FORT LUPTON AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The staff and council members of the City of Fort Lupton have partici- pated in the formulation of the facilities plan from the beginning of the planning process. Meetings with various staff members to gather informa- tion or review progress were held March 21, June 22, and August 13, 1990. A preliminary copy of the facilities plan was reviewed by various staff and council members before it was released to the public. 8-7 An important part of the facility planning process is to inform and receive comments from the general public. This was done by soliciting input from the city staff and elected officials and by holding a public meeting. A public meeting was held on November 19, 1990, at the Fort Lupton City Hall. The advertisement published to give notice of the meeting and a list of those attending the meeting is in Appendix D. In — addition to those listed, the Fort Lupton City Council and various city officials also attended. The facility planning process, the alternatives considered, and the recommended actions were explained during the presentation, comments were solicited, and questions were answered. The 201 Facilities Plan for the City of Fort Lupton was adopted by the City of Fort Lupton on February 13, 1991. 8-8 2;m07,-1," ; LIST OF REFERENCES 1. City of Fort Lupton, General Plan Update, 1986, Wastewater Service Plan, RBD, Inc. , Engineering Consultant, p. I-1. 2. Construction Grants 1985 (CG-85) , United States Environmental Protection Agency, 430/9-84-004, July 1984, pp. 26-27. 3. Climatological Data, Colorado, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, July 1989, Volume 94, Number 7. 4. Existing Sewer Evaluation and Rehabilitation, American Society of Civil Engineers and Water Pollution Control Federation, 1983, p. 99. 5. RBD, Inc. , Engineering Consultant, p. III-7. 6. Operations and Maintenance Manual for Sewage Treatment Facilities, City of Fort Lupton, Colorado, Norton, Underwood and Lamb Engineering Associates, March 1979; revised June 19, 1989 by Nelson Renouf, Superintendent of Water and Wastewater, pp. 21-24, 26-29, 7. Means, Building Construction Cost Data, 1990, William D. Mahoney, Editor-in-chief, 1989. 8. Estimating Sludge Management Costs, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/625/6-85/010, October 1985. 9. Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Sewered Small Communities, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-625/1-77-009, October 1977. 10. Report of Sampling Activities, Fort Lupton, Colorado, TDD #T08-8910-010, Ecology and Environment, Inc. , January 1990, pp. 10 and 14. _. c- +rp APPENDIX A ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BOD5 Five-day biochemical oxygen demand C Degrees centigrade cu ft Cubic feet EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency fps Feet per second ft Feet gal Gallons gpcd Gallons per capita per day gpd Gallons per day gpd/sq ft Gallons per day per square foot gpm Gallons per minute hp Horsepower hr Hour in. Inch lb/day Pounds per day mgd Million gallons per day mg/1 Milligrams per liter mil gal Million gallons min Minute(s) ml Milliliter MLSS Mixed liquor suspended solids MLVSS Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids No. Number PVC Polyvinyl chloride scfm Standard cubic feet per minute TDH Total dynamic head TSS Total suspended solids VCP Vitrified clay pipe A-1 DEFINITIONS Activated Sludge. A diverse culture of aerobic bacteria and other microorganisms, which consume organic material for food, use it for cellular growth, and convert it into carbon dioxide, water, and energy to sustain cell life. Activated Sludge Process. A biological wastewater treatment process in which a mixture of wastewater and activated sludge is agitated and aerated. The activated sludge is subsequently separated from the treated wastewater (mixed liquor) by sedimentation, and wasted or returned to the process as needed. Aeration. Intimate contact between air and liquid. Aerobic. Requiring, or not destroyed by, the presence of free elemental oxygen. Aerobic and Anaerobic Digestion. The biological stabilization of sludge through partial conversion of putrescible matter into liquid, dissolved solids, and gaseous by-products, with some destruction of pathogens. These processes also reduce the amount of dry sludge solids. Consequently, these processes result in stabilization and in solids reduction or conversion. Algae. A primitive form of plant life, without true roots, stems, or leaves, which is found free-floating in water, usually as scum (algal blooms or masses of algae) . Ambient. A synonym for surrounding. Ammonia. A chemical combination of hydrogen (H) and nitrogen (N) occurring extensively in nature; NH3. Anaerobic. Requiring, or not destroyed by, the absence of air or free elemental oxygen. Aquifer. A subsurface zone that yields economically important amounts of water to wells. Attached Growth Process. A biological wastewater treatment process that uses a solid medium upon which bacterial solids are accumulated in order to maintain a high population. Background Concentration. The amount of a substance that is always present. A-2 Bacteria. A group of universally distributed, rigid, essentially unicellular microscopic organisms lacking chlorophyll. Bacteria usually appear as spheroid, rod-like, or curved entities, but occasionally appear as sheets, chains, or branched filaments. Bacteria, Coliform Group. A group of bacteria predominantly inhabiting the intestine of man or animals but also found on vegetation, including all aerobic and facultative anaerobic gram-negative, nonspore-forming bacilli that ferment lactose with gas formation. Biochemical. Pertaining to chemical change resulting from biological action. Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD). The quality of oxygen used in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter in a specific time, at a specified temperature, and under specific conditions. It is a standard test in accessing wastewater strength. Biological Oxidation. The process whereby living organisms in the presence of oxygen convert the organic matter contained in wastewater into a more stable or mineral form. Biological Process. The process by which the life activities of bacteria and other microorganisms in search of food break down complex organic materials into simpler, more stable substances. Self-purification of polluted streams, sludge digestion, and all of the so-called secondary wastewater treatments result from this process. Biomass. A synonym for biological solids. Bypass. An arrangement of pipes, conduits, gates, and valves whereby the flow may be passes around a hydraulic structure or appurtenance. Carbonaceous. Relating to or composed of carbon. Carbon Monoxide (CO). A colorless odorless gas resulting from the incomplete oxidation of carbon; found in automobile exhaust; poisonous to animals. Centrifugal Pump. A pump consisting of an impeller fixed on a rotating shaft and enclosed in a casing and having an inlet and a discharge connection. The rotating impeller creates pressure in the liquid by the velocity derived from centrifugal force. Chamber. A general term applied to a space enclosed by walls and a floor or a compartment, often prefixed by a descriptive word, such as "grit chamber," "screen chamber," or "flushing chamber," indicating its function. A-3 <x Chemical Conditioning. The use of inorganic or organic flocculants to promote formation of a porous, free-draining sludge cake structure. In this way, the flocculants improve sludge dewaterability, alter sludge blanket properties, and improve solid capture. In dewatering, flocculants facilitate cake formation and increase the degree of solids capture both by destabilization and agglomeration of fine particles. The resultant cake becomes the true filter media. In thickening processes, the flocculants promote ore rapid phase separation, higher solids contents, and a greater degree of capture. Chemical Precipitation. Precipitation induced by the addition of chemicals. Chlorination. The application of chlorine to wastewater, generally for the purpose of disinfection, but frequently for accomplishing other biological or chemical results. Chlorine. An element ordinarily existing as a greenish-yellow gas approximately 2.5 times as heavy as air. Chlorine Dose. The amount of chlorine applied to a liquid, usually expressed in milligrams per liter or pounds per million gallons. Chlorophyll. The generic name for any of several oil-soluble green tetrapyrrole plant pigments which function as photoreceptors of light energy for photosynthesis. Chlorophyll a. C55 H72 05 N4 Mg. A magnesium chelate of dihydroporphyrin that is esterified with phytol and has a cyclopentanone ring; occurs in all higher plants and algae. Clarification. Any process or combination of processes with primary purpose of reducing the concentration of suspended material in liquid. Clarifier. Sedimentation tank. Decomposition. The breakdown of complex material into simpler substances by chemical or biological means. Degradation. The breakdown of substances by biological action. Degreasing. The process of removing greases and oils from waste, wastewater, sludge, or solid waste. Density. The mass of a given substance per unit volume. Deposition. The act or process of settling solid material from a fluid suspension. A-4 1.: .._ Digestion. The biological decomposition of organic matter in sludge, resulting in partial gasification, liquifaction, and mineralization. Dilution. The process of making less concentrated. Disinfection. A process that kills the majority of the microorganisms in or on a substance with the probability that all the pathogenic bacteria are killed by the agent used. Dissolved Oxygen. The oxygen dissolved in water or wastewater, usually expressed in terms of milligrams per liter, parts per million, or percent saturation. Effluent. Wastewater or other liquid, partially or completely treated, or in its natural state, flowing out of a reservoir, basin, treatment plant, or industrial treatment plant. Evaporation. The process by which a liquid becomes a vapor at temperatures below the boiling point. Evapotranspiration. Discharge of water from the earth's surface to the atmosphere by evaporation from lakes, streams, and soil surfaces and by transpiration from plants. Facultative. Having the ability to live under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Final Sedimentation. The separation of solids from wastewater in a final settling tank. Flotation. The rising of suspended matter to the surface of the liquid in a tank as scum--by aeration, evolution of gas, chemicals, electrolysis, heat, or bacterial decomposition--and the subsequent removal of the scum by skimming. Grease. A group of substances, including fats, waxes, free fatty acids, calcium and magnesium soaps, mineral oils, and certain other nonfatty materials. Grit. The heavy suspended mineral material in wastewater, such as sand, gravel, and cinders. Groundwater. All subsurface water. Head Loss. The drop in the sum of pressure head, velocity head, and potential head between two points along the path of a flowing fluid, due to causes such as fluid friction. A-5 O17:415=7,1.4 Heavy Metals. Metals that can be precipitated by hydrogen, sulfide in acid solution, for example, lead, silver, gold, mercury, bismuth, and copper. Hydraulic Retention Period. The theoretical time required to displace or replace the contents of a body of water at a given rate of discharge/replacement. Industrial Wastes. The solid and liquid wastes from industrial processes, as distinct from domestic or sanitary wastes. Infiltration/Inflow (I/I). The quantity of unpolluted water entering a sewer system. Infiltration is the entrance of unpolluted water through cracked pipes, broken or offset joints, improper connections, leaky manholes, etc. This may be either underground or diffused surface water percolating through the upper, aerated soil over an extended period of time. Inflow is the discharge of surface water or snowmelt into sewers or service connections from such sources as roof, yard and area drains, manhole covers, and cross connections from storm sewers. Influent. Wastewater or other liquid, raw or partially treated, flowing into a reservoir, basin, treatment process, or treatment plant. Liquor. Water, wastewater, or any combination; commonly used to designate liquid phase when other phases are present. Liquor, Supernatant. (1) The liquid overlying deposited solids. (2) The liquid in a sludge digestion tanks that lies between the sludge at the bottom and the floating scum at the top. Microorganism. Minute organism, either plant or animal, invisible or barely visible to the naked eye. Nitrification. The conversion of organic and ammonia nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen by bacteria. This process can be made to occur in either a combined (with secondary treatment) or a separate (after secondary treatment) stage. Nutrients. Inorganic substances involved in energy transfer and necessary for the growth and development of plants and animals. Odor. The property or quality of a thing that stimulates or is perceived by the sense of smell. Odor Control. The prevention or reduction of objectionable odors by chlorination, aeration, or other processes. Organic Nitrogen. Nitrogen combined in organic molecules such as proteins, amines, and amino acids. A-6 Overflow Rate. One of the criteria for the design of settling tanks in treatment plants, expressed in gallons per day per square foot of surface area in the settling tank. Oxidation. The addition of oxygen to a compound. More generally, any reaction that involves the loss of electrons from an atom. Parasitic Bacteria. Bacteria that thrive on other living organisms. Particulate Matter. Matter in the form of small liquid or solid particles. Pathogenic Bacteria. Bacteria that may cause disease in the host organism by their parasitic growth. pH. The reciprocal of the Base 10 logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration in moles per liter. Neutral water has a pH of 7 and a hydrogen ion concentration of 10-7 moles per liter. If the pH is less than 7, it is acidic, and if the pH is greater than 7, it is alkaline. Precipitation. The phenomenon that occurs when a substance held in solution in a liquid passes out of solution into a solid form. Preliminary Treatment. Initial unit operations at a treatment plant, such as screening and grit removal, that prepare the wastewater for subsequent treatment. Pressure Head. Also known as head. The height of a column of fluid necessary to develop a specific pressure. Primary Sedimentation. The first major sedimentation process for the removal of settleable solids in a wastewater treatment plant. It is not considered a sludge process; however, the primary clarifiers are used to thicken sludge in some cases. Primary Sludge. Sludge obtained from primary clarifiers. Primary Treatment. Following preliminary treatment, the process of settling out larger suspended solids and skimming off of floating grease and scum. Process. A sequence of operations. Putrefaction. Biological decomposition of organic material with the production of ill-smelling products associated with anaerobic conditions. Raw Sludge. Settled sludge promptly removed from sedimentation tanks before decomposition has much advanced. Frequently referred to as undigested sludge. A-7 Screen. A device with openings, generally of uniform size, used to retain or remove suspended solids or floating solids in flowing water or waste- - water and to prevent them from entering an intake or passing a given point in a conduit. The device may consist of parallel bars, rods, wires, grating, wire mesh, or perforated plate, and the openings may be of any shape, although they are generally circular or rectangular. Screening. The removal of the relatively coarse suspended solids and floating solids by straining through racks or screens. Scum. A mass of matter that floats on the surface of the wastewater. Secondary Treatment. Following preliminary and primary treatment, the processes that remove or reduce suspended solids, dissolved solids, and fine and colloidal solids and cause the reduction of organic matter. Sediment. Solid material settled from suspension in a liquid. Sedimentation. The process of deposition by gravity of suspended matter. Septicity. A condition produced by the growth of anaerobic organisms. Side Water Depth. The depth of water measured along a vertical exterior wall. Skimming. The process of removing floating grease or scum from the surface of wastewater in a tank. Sludge. The accumulated solids separated from wastewater during processing, or the precipitate resulting from chemical treatment, coagulation, or sedimentation of wastewater. Sludge Sulking. A phenomenon that occurs in activated sludge processes whereby the sludge occupies excessive volumes and will not concentrate readily. — Sludge Digestion. The process by which organic or volatile matter in sludge is gasified, liquefied, mineralized, or converted into more stable organic matter, through the activities of either anaerobic or aerobic organisms. Sludge Thickener. A tank or other equipment designed to concentrate wastewater sludge. Stability. The ability of any substance, such as wastewater, chemicals, or digested sludge, to resist chemical or biological change. Stratification. The arrangement of a body of water into two or more horizontal layers of differing characteristics, especially densities. A-8 e ... +rv,.r '-t a Supernatant. The liquid standing above a sediment or precipitate. Synthesis. Any process or reaction for building up a complex compound by the union of simpler compounds or elements. Tank. Any artificial receptacle through which liquids pass or in which they are held in reserve or detained for any purpose. Tertiary Treatment. Those processes that treat effluent from seconday treatment to remove or reduce nutrients, residual organics, and residual solids. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). The solids that are present in solution. Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The sum of dissolved and undissolved constituents in wastewater, usually stated as milligrams per liter. Transpiration. A removal of water from the ground into plants, ultimately to be evaporated into the atmosphere by them. Treatment. Any process involving the removal of solids or non-aqueous liquids from wastewater and/or transforming them into stable substances. Trickling Filters. A filter consisting of an artificial bed of coarse material such as broken stone, clinkers, slate, slats, brush, or plastic materials over which wastewater is distributed or applied in drops, films, or spray from troughs, drippers, moving distributors, or fixed nozzles, and through which it trickles to the underdrains, giving opportunity for the formation of zoogleal slimes which clarify and oxidize the wastewater. Vector. An insect capable of biologically transferring a pathogen from one organism to another. Volatilization. The conversion of a chemical substance from a liquid or solid state to a gaseous or vapor state by the application of heat, by reducing pressure, or by a combination of these processes. Also known as vaporization. Waste Activated Sludge (WAS). That portion of settled solids from the final sedimentation unit that is removed from the wastewater treatment processes to the solids handling facilities for ultimate disposal. Waste Load. The quantity of material in a waste stream that requires treatment; or the quantity of material carried in a body of water that exerts a detrimental effect on some subsequent use of that water. Wastewater. The spent water of a community. From the standpoint of source, it may be a combination of the liquid and water-carried wastes from residences, commercial buildings, industrial plants, and institutions, together with any groundwater, surface water, and storm water that may be present. A-9 rt These definitions were taken directly or modified from the following sources: Glossary of Water and Wastewater Control Engineering, American Public Health Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, American Water Works Association, Water Pollution Control Federation. Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Water Pollution Control Federation. Manual of Wastewater Operations, Texas Water Utilities Association. Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7040.0100. Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 625/1-74-0006, October 1974. A-10 APPENDIX B LETTER FROM THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH /o? co� 4210 East 11th Avenue Telefaa- /Va+'� Denver. Colorado 80220-3716 1303)322-9076(Main Buddin /Denver) ti �I Phone (303) 320-8333 1303)320-1529(Ptarmigan Place/Denver 13031 248-7198(Grand Junction Regional Office) June 19, 1990 ��n��7,� i J 'b _ i .��1-1 Ro% Romer Li ] ! - 1 l �, 1 Governor Thomas 51. Vernon. \1.D. James I. Michael JUL 0 21990 E"ecutne Director Black and Veatch i Engineers-Architects V` 1400 S. Potomac Street, Suite 200 BLACK & VEATCH Aurora, CO 80012 Dear Mr. Michael: The Colorado Department of Health's policy regarding the location of wastewater treatment facilities close to water ways is as follows: The wastewater treatment plant can be located in the flood plain, provided it is protected from a 100 year flood by physical means such as berms or dikes. The facility cannot be located in the flood way under any circumstances. In addition, the legal owner of the facility has to have flood insurance and has to be able to provide access to the facility during 100 year flood event. This means the owner is obligated to operate the treatment plant before, during and after a 100 year flood event. I hope this clarifies the Department's position and provides you the answer you need to conduct the City of Fort Lupton's study. If you have any questions, please call me at (303) 331-4585. Sincerely, FOR DIRECTOR, WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION La—.-471/74—y- - Victor H. Saint, P.E. District Engineer Field Support Section VHS/lc xc: Permits & Enforcement, CDH, MS-3 File USA, EPA Region VIII 2416m/0175m APPENDIX C LETTERS RECEIVED FROM GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC AGENCIES CT^`;•Tu+�. •L .>L .:n oe co, 0 1 ? r H� APR 2 51991 ll ROY R. ROMER f -� r k o GOVERNOR BLACK 9. VEATCHOHN W. BOLD Ol DIRECTOR 1876 COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING- 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER,COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303)866-2611 April 22, 1991 WE-91-0007 Mr. Dave Buth Black and Veatch 1400 South Potomac Street Aurora, Colorado 80012 Re: City of Fort Lupton 201 Facilities Plan Dear Mr. Buth: At your request and in accordance with the requirements of the Colorado Department Of Health, Water Quality Control Division, we have reviewed the documents submitted in support of and investigated the geologic conditions in Fort Lupton that would affect feasibility of improvements to the Fort Lupton sewage-collection and treatment facilities. The following comments summarize our findings. (1) Geologic materials present immediately beneath most of the incorporated area of Fort Lupton consist of ancient and modem stream-derived sands and gravels of the South Platte River. Owing to the proximity of the City to the River, there is a near constant shallow ground-water table which undoubtedly contributes greatly to infiltration of the City's sewers. While it is probably impractical and prohibitively expensive to completely correct this condition by repair or replacement of many of the sewer mains, it might be beneficial to determine the most susceptible places to this and then as normal maintenance and repair of the system is undertaken, to take corrective measures. (2) The location of the existing sewage-treatment plant is similarly underlain by sand and gravel. While these materials do not normally present difficult-to-solve foundation- engineering problems, they are highly susceptible to erosion, especially during flooding, and "inflow" of surface-water runoff. In addition, sands are prone to failure by lateral spreading when saturated with water. Therefore, we recommend that qualified soils and foundation and drainage engineers be retained to do structural and drainage designs for the improvements at the sewage-treatment plant itself. Care should be taken to ensure that ponds do not leak and that structures can withstand slight differential movements. Flood protection from the 100-yr. flood of the River should be maintained. GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST... KEY TO THE FUTURE f ^. ` Mr. David G. Buth April 22, 1991 Page 2 (3) As most of the Front Range and eastern plains areas of Colorado, Fort Lupton has relatively low seismic potential. Structures should be built to withstand earthquakes in conformance with Seismic Zone 2 of the Uniform Building Code. You may wish to consult our Bulletin 43 and/or the Uniform Building Code itself for additional information. In general, except as noted above, geologic conditions in this area should not present great problems for these proposed sewage- collection and treatment system improvements. I apologize for our delay in getting this review out. Thee large number of review requests lately and other commitments by our staff have caused this. Thank you for your patience. Sincerely, _ ames M. Soule Engineering Geologist 0.`otsT 00, t� ; United States Department of the Interior ill 71 77 FISH LO OWILDLIFE SERVICE APR 2 4 • COLORADO FIELD OFFICE � 1991 "*3e, „w 730 SIMMS STREET ROM 292 GOLDEN, COOLORADO 80401 BLACK g; VtATCH� IN REPLY REFER TO: FWE/CO: Endangered Species Mail Stop 65412 A: \FTLUPTON.WPF APR 1 8 1991 David G. Buth Black and Veatch 1400 South Potomac Street, Suite 200 Aurora, Colorado 80012 RE: Review of Preliminary 201 Facilities Plan for the City of Fort Lupton; Federally 'Listed and Candidate Species List. Dear Mr. Buth: In response to your letter of March 18, 1991, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is providing the list of endangered and threatened (Federally listed) animal and plant species that could be present at the site of the project located near the city of Fort Lupton, Weld County, in the State of Colorado. This information, and the comments provided in this letter regarding the Preliminary Facilities Plan should be helpful in the preparation of the final 201 Facilities Plan (Plan) . Mammals: Black-footed ferret (Mustela picrioes) Birds : Peregrine falcon (Falco nerecrinus) Bald eagle (lit'GUAllaPerrs, 1pj,rnceohal jic) Whooping crane (Grus americana) Eskimo curlew (Numerluq borealis) Historically, the black-footed ferret occurred throughout --- Colorado. Literature and recent field studies document a close association between prairie dogs and black-footed ferrets . The standard that is used by the Service for determining possible project effects to black-footed ferrets is the disturbance of currently occupied prairie dog habitat. Should any of the activities associated with this project result in an impact to prairie dogs, black-footed ferret surveys may be necessary. As black-footed ferret surveys are considered valid for 1 year, prairie dog towns surveyed more than 1 year prior to construction may have to be resurveyed. Burrowing owls ($oeotvto cunicularia) often occur in association with prairie dog colonies. Burrowing owls are a migratory species and, therefore, protected in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U. S.C. 701-718h) . Migratory birds are considered to be any non-resident species that migrate across state and/or national boundaries. Protection prohibits the 9r'�N"f . .✓�..I r "taking" of birds , eggs , nests , parts or products . A "take" means to harass , harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill , trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Your proposed project should be designed and/or timed to ensure that a "take" of burrowing owls will not occur. The four listed bird species are potential migrants in the area of your project. The bald eagle and the peregrine falcon are the two species most likely to occur within the project area. The whooping crane and the Eskimo curlew are rare migrants in the project area. Severe weather in the Great Plains may force migrating birds west of normal flight paths . The Service would like to bring to your attention species which are candidates for official listing as threatened or endangered .species (Federal Register, Vol . 54 , No. 4 , January 6, 1989 ; Vol 55 , No. 35 , February 21 , 1990) . While these species presently have no legal protection under the Endangered Species Act (Act) , it is within the spirit of the Act to consider project impacts to potentially sensitive candidate species. Additionally, we wish to make you aware of the presence of Federal candidates should any be proposed or listed prior to the time that all Federal actions related to the project are completed. Amphibians : Northern leopard frog (Rana Diniens) Birds : Southwestern willow flycatcher (fmoidonax trailli extimus) Long-billed curlew (Numenius nericanus) White-faced ibis (Pleaadis chihy) Mountain plover (Charadrius Montanus.) Black tern (Chlidonias nicer) Mammals : Swift fox (Vuloes velox) Plants : Colorado butterflyweed (Gaura peomexicana spp. coloradensiS) Furthermore , the Service regards wetlands as an important resource due to their high value for fish and wildlife. A copy of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map for the Fort Lupton 'area is enclosed with this letter. This map defines wetlands according to "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States" (Cowardin, et al. , 1977) . We recommend that any adverse impacts to wetlands within the project influence be avoided (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the fill of wetlands on public and private land) . The Service does not provide information on Recreational Areas , which in this case would be under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. The information on Wild and Scenic Rivers is available from the National Park Service. Further, it is the responsibility of the Project ' s leading agency to assess if the project will affect any listed or candidate species . The Service also recommends that you coordinate with Colorado Division of Wildlife on the effects of the project on game and non-game species . If the Service can be of further assistance, please contact Bernardo Garza of this office at (303) 231 - 5280 . Sincerely Yours , ,:. peRoy W. C lson Colorado State Supervisor cc : FWS/FWE; SLC CDOW, Fort Collins, CO (Attn. Don Bogart) Colorado Department of Health Reading file Project file a• rt �� • .04 .�►�•..III k.,4,00-4., wY-• 60:°,----"N \ Yy I\� O. \ _-mil " \ ' 17i/ '// I J.I. . . .. it---... i s f f) ..,./,.o i ti IV/9— • • :�- - , . , / jr.'—• , • • .w �` 'aa © —,__J�� at • N_. a:_ Thit r _ con �• aa E. i •• . fir,+ Or a• c.':7 b i w+ a. — iNMc • .. ,M�a,lY,wlff.i�r}.wi= 1j m I ' �x N jam` il � � c1 � o ;�• „_�_* ,r.f .. en m err I 1,� Cc L... .7 w +�� ' •, tenj 0 ab i I �_ j ��.• — • �` S �: ' Ali •.�t ..• -7,h s . (a. oEC15?V STATE OF COLORADO REFER TO Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MAR 2 6 1991 ! '; `O�,OR44, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE BLACK EA ch " �_ AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER g. Perry 0. Olson. Director Northeast Region 6060 Broadway 317 West Prospect BOA Denver. Colorado 80216 P OF Telephone: 13031297-1192 Fort Collins, Colorado 80526' For WiIdlife— ForPeopfe March 25, 1991 David G. Buth Black and Veatch 1400 South Potomac Street Suite 200 Aurora, Colorado 80012 RE: Fort Lupton 201 Facilities Plan Dear Mr. Buth: The plan for this project has been reviewed and the Fort Lupton site has been visited. Since the site is already a treatment site, there should be no additional negative impacts to the area for wildlife by the changes you propose. Probably the most obvious member of the endangered species in this area is the Bald Eagle. They use the river corridor during the winter months for hunting, feeding and resting. There are no known nesting sites in the vacinity of the project, therefore it is very doubtful if they will suffer any negative impacts. It is also doubtful if any of the other endangered species would be impacted, even if they were known to be in this area, as this project is basically the same area as the present plant. As this involves the area that presently is being used, any remodeling or rebuild- ing of the waste water plant should not produce any substantial changes from its present use for wildlife. Sine rely, aj D n o t Environme al Biologist DB/vt cc: Moss T. Lynch C. Leonard file DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hamlet J. Barry, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, William R. Hogberg, Chairman • Dennis Luttrell. Vice Chairman • Eldon W. Cooper. Secretary Felix Chavez Member • Rebecca L Frank Member • Louis F. Swift, Member • George Van()sneerg, Member• Larry M. Wright, Mernoer C.1,.;PO 7 �� United States CiSoil ) Department of Conservation 60 South 27th Avenue Brighton, CO 80601 Agriculture Service 659-7004 April 16, 1991 0 EC IV .�' ;\:\ - APR 17 1991 1'";J BLACK &VEATCH Mr. David G. Buth Black and Veatch 1400 S. Potomac Street, Suite 200 Aurora, CO 80012 RE: City of Fort Lupton 201 Facilities Plan Dear Mr. Buth: The Fort Lupton Wastewater Treatment Facility is within the City limits of Fort Lupton, Colorado. Your letter states, "that the only area in _ which construction is recommended in conjunction with the 201 Facilities Plan is on the existing wastewater treatment facilities site." Any construction within this site will not affect any agricultural land. I have outlined the City of Fort Lupton, Colorado, planning area on a copy of part of the Important Farmlands Map of Weld County, Colorado. On this map I have shown the Prime Farmland for the planning area. On — the second page I have provided a legend for the map. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, _ 4.4/ ced( Roy DL Bell District Conservationist O cry,T, - FARMLANDS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE - PI PRIME ( IRRIGATED) - FARMLANDS OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE IRRIGATED LAND (NOT PRIME ) HIGH POTENTIAL DRY CROPLAND - PRIME IF THEY BECOME IRRIGATED - OTHER CATEGORIES - ► PRIME IF THEY BECOME IRRIGATED URBAN AND URBAN BUILD-UP LAND WATER OTHER LAND WELD COUNTY COLORADO SHEET 2 OF 3 asrt - ";0; IMPORTANT FARMLANDS OF K °stet i ;' WELD COUNTY COLORADO til .__ �► ^ _ , y .•rsruua^,uv .'. '3ri: o III `-�,/ R.67 W. R. 66 Y/. //,__/ I 1\ Sanc ills ' �` °��, I —ice ((;r1ni 'CI, e WI /the/ t1 ,; .7a. w . S^ �---i r t��r�i ti5t��v'Msh}.tw"i} t`At y' __ _.I...I._. 1 a uAl� r:v� fp Atin 1 wa ila�. . i ''''--”, �C • • \I ' z v K - -A, , . asi7 Ps i : - .- ,/ I, \\NI ..c to, . - Ear i Ill { - IS r / /ll..mmttrr..__Ill ge'9 i [1 'I S t a if tallmtil :7-1... N / • ir 4 SSE.VA ;: J u " `". r I C • t L—Mr , fi , r9 4,44e 411 I E6 C. y��'zH $ 4 I) c(1° a. S nr , r x: ayyriq M L �jk ,r r a ^'s », : w r GrTi rr Yv° n1 "S` yy.kkffii rn��,� Smith � eS-, ifs < {'cY ' s�k t ..:11i. LC':. i ��eF!''�i` c I1t"�' w ,�» O �+ H MO tin C� 12,tea rw f 5 i o� ry Y i //Z 1 f SHEET 3 OF 3 ! I f r4 ' SEE SHEET 2 FOR KEY APPROXIMATE MEAN DECLLNATION.1979 n ' MAR 25 1991 COLORADO BLACK &YEA-I Len HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver,Colorado 80203-2137 March 20, 1991 David G. Buth Black & Veatch 1400 South Potomac Street, Suite 200 Aurora, CO 80012 Re: Fort Lupton 201 Facilities Plan Dear Mr. Buth: This is to acknowledge receipt of your March 14, 1991 correspondence concerning the above proposed project. A search of the Colorado Inventory of Cultural Resources indicated that there are no known cultural resources within the project area. Based on the information you supplied, we believe the present nature of the proposed project area is such that no (further) impact upon cultural resources will occur. Therefore, the proposed undertaking may proceed upon approval of the appropriate agency. However, if previously unidentified archaeological resources are discovered in the course of the project, work must be interrupted until the resources are properly evaluated in terms of the National Register of Historic Places eligibility criteria (36 CFR 60.4) in consultation with this office. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If we may be of further assistance, please contact our Compliance Division at 866-3392 or 866-3395. Sincerely, Susan M. Collins Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer SC/WJG C","e i r ,�F, E( EtilE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 0 CORPS OF ENGINEERS,OMAHA DISTRICT TRI-LAKES PROJECT OFFICE,9307 STATE HWY 121 LITTLETON,COLORADO 80123-6901 MAR 211991 March 19 , 1991 BLACK &VEATCH TI ATTIO ON OF Regulatory Branch Mr. Dave Buth Black and Veatch 1400 S . Potomac Street Suite 200 Aurora, CO 80012 Dear Mr. Buth: Your proposed 201 Facilities Plan on behalf of the City of Fort Lupton at the wastewater treatment facility located in Section 31 , T-2-N and Section 6 , T-1-N, both in R-66-W, Weld Co. , Colorado , has been reviewed by this office. This letter is to inform you that the proposed activity will not require a Department of the Army (DA) Permit. Although a DA Permit will not be required for the project , this does not eliminate the requirement that other applicable federal , state , and local permits be obtained as required. As we discussed during our March 18 , 1991 telephone conversation concerning the entire 201 Facilities Plan, please contact Bill Pearson with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for National Wetland Inventory Maps . Mr. Pearson' s telephone number is ( 303 ) 236-2985 . Also, as we discussed, prior to any construction in areas that may be suspected as wetlands, whether they are located on the wetland maps or not, this office should be contacted for a wetland verification. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact this office or me at ( 303 ) 979-4120 or 4121 . Sincerely, CS,) buuctirktil-- TERRY McKEE Environmental Resource Specialist cc: Permit Files Omaha Files Branch oc tai -The 4OF'0pf 1 ROY ROMER "Q' Governor H ,� Oi, JERIS A. DANIELSON p State Engineer s 1876�� OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES _ 1313 Sherman Street-Room 818 u .,N Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 FAX[303]866=3589 �'. APR 2 21991 �'.' . it April 19, 1991 Bu-tuK VE/11t t Mr. David Buth Black and Veatch 1400 South Potomac Street, Suite 200 Aurora, CO 80012 Subject: Fort Lupton, Colorado 201 Facilities Plan Dear Mr. Buth: Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide input on the 201 Facilities Plan for Fort Lupton submitted March 18, 1991. It appears Fort Lupton's existing wastewater treatment facility is inadequate to meet the effluent requirements for the discharge permit. Of the treatment alternatives discussed in the report, the oxidation ditch was selected as the preferred alternative. This plan was reviewed from a water rights/material injury standpoint. As such, the oxidation ditch alternative was evaluated to determine if there was the potential to cause material injury to — water rights. Based on our initial review, there appears to be no potential impacts on water rights. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, _ fk. tnaw,�- J e A. Kraus Water Resources Engineer c*': � STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH �oe co,_ a: �$4210 East 11th Avenue 7elefax 13071322-9076 Main Building/Denver) �� N Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 1 Phone (303) 320-8333 13031320-1529 IRfarmigan Place/Denver) �(C 11011248-71987196 I Grind Junction Regional Office, •�">" '1/ (B76 i Roy Romer Governor November 15, 1990 Thomas 1 Vernon .1, Executive Director City of Fort Lupton Attention: Gale Custer, Mayor 130 South McKinley Avenue • P.O. Box 148 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 RE: Advance of Allowance C080748-01A City of Fort Lupton Dear Mayor Custer: The Water Quality Control Division has reviewed the preliminary Draft 201 Facility plan for the above mentioned project. I have documented our comments and concerns below. Enclosed is the "Facility Plan Review Checklist" which indicates the specific information needed. The planning area defined in the study is approximately three (3) times larger than defined in the 208 Areawide Water Quality Plan (208 Plan) , 1988, Update. The shaded area on the enclosed map (1-2) shows the area of concern. The 208 Plan, 1988, Update also indicates the need to perform major improvements to the existing facility or consider the possibility of regionalization: but, regionalization should not occur until the year 2010 "or when the City needs to replace its present plant" . No new facility has been identified for the immediate future. The City must addresses these discrepancies by contacting Dave Dubois at the Northern Front Range Water Quality Association to amend the above mentioned plan. Precipitation and temperature are mentioned in the Inflow/Infiltration study. An analysis is needed for average, peak, dry and wet weather flows. (Page 2-4, 2-6, & 4-6) November 15, 1990 City of Fort Lupton Page 2 The population projections presented in the study are consistently higher than the one in the 1989, 208 Plan update. For example: Year 201 Population 208 Population % Increase 1990 5, 500 5, 200 6. 3 1995 6, 500 5,970 8 . 1 2000 7, 650 6, 700 12 . 4 2005 9, 000 7, 400 17. 8 The Water Quality Control Division request the use of population projection verses land use to adequately size the planned facility (Page 2-1) . A more comprehensive study is needed of the existing water quality problems, due to inadequate treatment. The study points out that the 85% removal efficiency, stipulated in the discharge permit, has been violated seven (7) times in 1989 alone. Inflow/Infiltration is not clearly related to the permit violations. The study must demonstrate that 85% removal of BOD and TSS will be achieved by the selected alternative. The plan should show if the reduction of Inflow/Infiltration or additional capacity will be more economical. The report indicates that the existing average daily flows are estimated at 167 gpd while projected flows are assumed to be 100 gpd. Please explain (2-4) how the decreased flow rates will be generated. The analysis of alternatives considered did not indicate the cost of a new regional facility. (Page 6-6) The study stated there were additional communities other than the City of Platteville interested in a regional facility, but these -_ communities were not listed. A sludge management plan must be included in the plan. A proposed capital financing plan must be included which breaks the annual/monthly user fees. A schedule with target dates must also be a part of this plan. Referring to the Division's checklist the following information was not addressed and is relevant in order for this plan to be approvable. November 15, 1990 City of Fort Lupton Page 3 The following existing conditions must be addressed: Surface and groundwater hydrology Physiography, topography, geology and soils Terrestrail and aquatic plants, animals and natural habitats Air quality and noise Energy productiona do consumption Public facilities and services Map locating environmentally sensitive areas The location of bypasses and overflows and the extent of any combined sewer system at the existing wastewater treatment facility. Evaluation of potential land application which includes addressing: Land use areas Soils identified Geology acceptability Description of Topography Vegetation identificaiton Please refer to the checklist for additional needed information to be included in this plan regarding land application. The facility plan must discuss operation and maintenance requirements, budget, staffing, replacement costs, etc. Comments from the following agencies must be included as appendices to this plan: Fish Wildlife State Division of Wildlife Historical Society State Engineer's Office Corps of Engineers State Geologist Soil Conservation I have also enclosed a list of these addresses. e s City of Fort Lupton November 15, 1990 Page 4 Victor Sainz, District Engineer and myself plan on attending the public meeting on Monday, November 19th. If we can answer any questions prior to this meeting please do not hesitate to • call me at (303) 331-4572 . Sincerely, Donna D. Wessel Project Administrator Grants/Revolving Fund Assistance Program WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION Dam\ xc: h Dave Buth, Black & Veatch Victor Sainz, District Engineer, WQCD Derald Lang, District Engineer, WQCD Ginny Torrez, Permits and Enforcement, WQCD Dave Duboise, City of Loveland Enclosures: Facilities Plan Review Checklist Planning Area Map Agency Contact List i' R, ised, 9/ 1/90 r/ ATTACHMENT 1 / FACILITIES PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST �P.NT G1T� OFt��i LaP�VAJ PROJECT NO: /!PERECEIVED 10/ /6 / 4'7 O DATE COMPLETED /c2/2 3 h D - REVIEWER Vfc7P H. riglAJF _ Does the facility plan address the following : YES NO PAGE NO • A. Has the loanee been designated by the Governor and approved by EPA as a management agency? ( Advance of Allowance only) — B . Project need and planning area identification 1 . Is the map and narrative description of the planning area consistent with local and regional planning , including the adopted 208 plan for the area? 2 . Has the need for a wastewater project been � f S77./01 identified in the area wide 208 Water Quality Management Report? PA S-ZL C . Existing Conditions 1 . Does the facility plan describe the following existing conditions? a. Surface and groundwater hydrology ( quantity, quality, and uses ) X b. Physiography , topography, geology and soils X — c . Precipitation, temperature and prevailing 4/� winds _ d. Terrestrial and aquatic plants , animals and natural habitat e . Air quality and noise X f . Energy production and consumption g . Population, socioeconomic and public 7 / health conditions h . Land use and development G1-2 4r i . Public facilities and services X j . Related Federal , State and other projects in the planning area _ k . Existing water, quality and public health problems caused by inadequate wastewater treatment disposal practices / - 3 )1( SEC GoHM arm rs 1 YES NO PAGE NO map locating environmentally sensitive eas (wetlands , floodplains , prime agricultural lands , recreational areas , archaeological/historical sites , endangered species , wild and scenic rivers , etc . ) X included? 3 . Existing wastewater flows and treatment systems a. Major influent characteristics (particularly -toxic pollutants ) ?- 4 b. The location of industrial and municipal trea avant, p1 nt„�y clu.4g° agn pt n _ , IJLeLLtatmct[t plants , pumping stations , and Sewer service areas Z-4/f/6. 2-1 ( i ) Are any non-compatible industrial wastes contained in influent? )( ( ii ) Has the appropriate municipal pretreatment program been developed where applicable? ,.LQ - c. A description of these facilities , including design capabilities , existing flows , characteristics of wastes , discharge permits , and overload conditions 2-Sig-/ d. Locations of significantly developed areas served by onsite or unconventional systems /— Z e . A discussion and analysis of average , peak, dry, and wet weather flows Q b N D f. Locations of bypasses and overflows g . The extent of any combined sewer system �C h. A description of flow-reduction programs in effect /.Gv tv- i . Flood Insurance a. Has loanee been identified as being in a flood hazard area? u� Date : b. Is loanee enrolled in a flood insurance program? k-o c. Will project include insurable improvements? ILO 4 .. Effluent limitations Have all discharge permits issued to existing facilities in the planning area been identified? a . Secondary Treatment b . Advanced treatment based on State and EPA approved wasteload allocation c . State effluent standard r d . Any water supply impact 2 or-,11P. i • YES NO PAGE NO. 5 . Infiltration and Inflow ( I/I ) Does the infiltration/inflow analysis demonstrate X an excessive ( 120 gpcd) rate? P ' -71 a . If yes ; has the applicant demonstrated that 85% removal of DOD and TSS is being or will will be achieved? • Has the applicant requested a waiver of the 85% removal requirement from the permitting agency, as defined in 40 CFR Part 133 . 103 (d) ? b. If no: ( i ) Has the loanee shown that the proposed project is cost effective and requested approval to proceed without further analysis? ( ii ) Was further study performed to determine quantity of excessive I/I through a cost effectiveness survey and are the results incorporated into the facility plan? ( iii ) State approved the Infiltration/Inflow analysis . Date AWDPE CVSN'17V3 — D . Future Conditions 1 . Are population projections in the planning area _ during the next 20 years consistent with the adopted 208 plan for the area? a. Source of population projections ow? f17GT f L4AI 2 . Does reserve capacity projection exceed NOT APPLICABLE 20 years? 3 . Have land use plans been coordinated with the plan? =r-3/¢-/yz.r. • 4 . Flow projections a. Has average daily base flow been determined by multiplying existing per capita flows (minus flow reductions ) by projected population or by actual monitoring �' r records? ( i ) Are seasonal and day visitors kl/A included? ( ii ) Existing per capita flow used / c-,7 gpcd b. Have peak daily flows been considered? c . Industrial flows ( i ) Have letters of intent from significant industries been obtained? _ ( ii ) Have flows from future industrial growth been considered? 4-3/a-17 • YES NO PAGE NO. E. Analysis of alternatives considered Were the following alternatives considered? __ 1 . No action 2 . Upgrade the operation and maintenance of the --Jr existing system as an alternative or supplementV to construction of new facilities 3 . Regional management and physical consolidation of systems (Regionalization) 4 . Conventional collection system " a . Does the community meet the State ' s definition of an existing community at time of loan application? ^X b. Percentage of design flow generated from /OO % - existing community c . Has the loanee provided assurance that the existing population will connect to the system within a reasonable amount uo_ APJ7Lit,04t2 of time after project completion? 5 . Biological or physical-chemical treatment and ¢ discharge to surface waters . - 6 . Innovative and alternative treatment processes /V O and technology. ( If applicable) if _ 7 . Land application ( If applicable) a. Potential land treatment sites evaluated X ( i ) Land use area X ( ii ) Soils identified X ( iii ) Geology acceptable X ( iv ) Topography described x ( v) Vegetation identified (vi ) Surface groundwater hydrology /A described b. Do loading rates and land area values agree with existing published data? c . Do estimated costs for land treatment compare with existing literature as updated using current and local cost X indexes? d. Will the level of pretreatment prior to land application conform with State X — requirements? e . Does the environmental evaluation of the Land treatment system emphasize quality and quantity of surface and groundwater resources , energy conservation , X pollutant recycling and compatibility of Land use? 4 YES NO PAGE NO. f . Have the following techniques of land 7JjT /a : ', ', treatment been considered as potentially - cost effective? ( i ) Slow rate irrigation • ( ii ) Rapid infiltration ( iii ) Overland flow ( iv ) Other N g . Are storage needs realistic? h . Will there be any water right problems? v — i . Have any revenues produced been considered in present worth analysis? Y j . Have lease arrangements , if any, been investigated? x __ k . Are 0 &' M costs shown realistic? x 8 . Small alternative wastewater systems :7-07 / ,2['L ' L r1 ii a. Were any of the following systems evaluated: ( i ) Septic tanks and drainfields X ( ii ) Small diameter sewers 'r - ( iii ) Subsurface disposal Y ( iv ) Cluster systems or mound system Y (v) Pressure or vacuum sewers x (vi ) Privately owned ( individual ) systems X (vii ) Other b. If privately owned on-site system in 8 a A.,(.)7 q P2!i c-ri t above were evaluated: - ( i ) Do they serve principal residences and small commercial establishments that were inhabited or in use on or _ before December 27 , 1977? • ( ii ) Is municipal access to the system Y assured? ( iii ) Are total costs less than that of a conventional system? X ( iv ) Does the facility plan describe a management program to assure the — applicant will properly operate u and maintain the facility? ( v) Is public ownership not feasible? Y 9 . Sludge handling and disposal 5 (O 4maDJ' S -/k a. Is an adequate overall septage management plan set forth in the facility plan? ( e . g . sludge hauling) b. Does the proposed wastewater treatment y&I-S - alternative include an adequate sludge handling and disposal plan? 7-/ c . Has testing been done to determine the volume and characteristics or the _ sludge in accordance with Federal ' ' - Regulations? ( i ) Are the results in conformance with ,P Federal requirements and State Regs? 5 YES NO PAGE NO d . Has a specii _c site or sites been selected and are piano developed iat their aoquis4tivrr anti ase° e>�: . ( i ) Has a State Site application been obtained? or _ ( ii ) Has a State Site application been applied for? kiA e . Have potential odor problems or other environmental impacts been adequately considered? X f . Does the plan conform to CFR Part 25/ and other applicable EPA and State regulations , particularly with respect to meeting Cadmium limitations on land used for the production of food-chain crops , with respect to limitations for Polychlorinate Biphenyls (PCBs ) and with respect to meeting • requirements for processes that further reduced pathogens as necessary to control potential disease transmission? Al/A g . Does the plan adequately consider protection co,�• ox/ae3r. of the groundwater against pollution? )( b/77.J74 h. Are test or monitoring wells needed? X i . Have soil characteristics on land application sites been adequately evaluated? /l/4 j . Are proposed rates of sludge application consistent with State regulations and /A guidelines? k . Is the sludge management plan consistent with existing EPA guidance documents MCD 61 and MCD 72? KC/A 10 . - Other alternatives 11 . Have alternatives for reuse or ultimate disposal of treated wastewater and sludge been evaluated? /LID 12 . Has a cost effectiveness analysis been performed _ inn L'i ing thoce r�.lutiv�. tll iuuwI ati vejal teixtaLlVe 44 {e4y? 13 . Have systems which generate revenue been considered in accordance with 201 ( G ) ( 5 ) ? 14 . Have open space and recreation opportunities been analyzed in accordance with 201 ( G ) ( 6 ) /10 6 YES NO PAGE NO Evaluation of Principal Alternatives Has a thorough analysis of the following been performed for the principal alternatives? 1 . Monetary costs a . Was the current discount rate used? wr- _ _ - b. Have costs of future expansion and long term needs for reconstruction been estimated? 20 / o y,2 2 . Additional capacity 3 . Demonstration of financial capability 7-Z 4 . Environmental impact ( e .g. ,Wetlands Mitigation) N�A 5 . Water supply impact A 6 . Reliability (EPA' s reliability criteria) 7 . Energy requirements 8 . Implementability X 9 . Recreational opportunities N /A 10 . Cost comparison of alternatives included G. Selected Plan 1 . Does the facility plan describe the selected treatment works and the complete wastewater treatment system in detail? 2 . Is the selected plan the Most cost effective means of meeting the applicable effluent, water quality and public health requirements while recognizing environmental and other non-monetary conditions? X 3 . Does the facility plan adequately justify the selected plan? X - • / _ .. YES NO PAGE NO . 4 . Is a proposed capital financing plan included? 5 . Has the toanee certified that it has the capability to finance and manage the building and operation of the project? L(.2 6 . Does the project include facilities to be used exclusively by individual users? IN 7 . Does the project include costs for facilities to serve a major activity of the Federal government which will contribute 250 , 000 GPD or 5% or more of the design flow? N J 8 . Does the facility plan include preliminary design data to include the following: a. A description of the major features b. Unit processes and sizes 7 viu,T peacESSES. YES) S 'rES:U-p c . A schematic flow diagram for treatment plants and plant and pumping station siting X d. Sewer length and sizes A e. Proposed design criteria ZO ( i ) Detention time - X fza gist) ( ii ) Overflow rates ( iii ) Process loadings lD ( iv) Removal efficiencies (v) Initial design flow - -(vi ) Reserve capacity ALD f. Schedule for completion of design and construction A 9 . Have the performance standards to be met one year after initiation of operation been clearly identified? )( 10 . Does the facility plan include an estimate of total project costs (capital costs , O & M costs, and replacement costs ) and�aver e n,; E nnual or mont�7i y charges to customer?J G-/2/ 6_i t'Idz 11 . Implementation Arrangements a. Does the implementation of this project require inter-municipal agreements? ).1O b. Does the facility plan include specific activities to implement the plan and to meet its objectives on schedule and do the dates in this schedule correspond to compliance dates specified in the discharge permit? ( If applicable ) /4.O 8 c * m YES NO PAGE NO. c . Does the facility plan discuss operation and maintenance requirements (O & M budget , staffing replacement costs , training , laboratory requirements , special maintenance requirements , special operating requirements , residuals disposal , etc . ) ? / -0 d . If a pretreatment program is necessary , does the facility plan include a schedule of actions to implement such a program? /10 12 . Does the facility plan address availability of the most suitable land for the project and an appropriate means to secure rights to the land? X 13 . Have features that conserve, recover or reduce energy consumption been described? PLO 14 . Have environmental impacts of the selected plan been discussed? X Have comments been included from: a. Fish Wildlife (Wild & Scenic Rivers Endangered Species ) b. Historical Society (Historical & Cultural (Resources) A2O c. Corps of Engineers ( Floodplains & Wetlands ) /O d. Soil Conservation (Agricultural lands ) ttO e . State Division of Wildlife (Wildlife Protection and Endangered species ) u O f . State Engineer' s Office (Water Rights ) /0 g. State Geologist - Geologic Hazards u-0 h. Is an Air Pollution permit needed for either construction or point source from air pollution? - NO 15 . Public participation, as per 40 CFR Part 25 a. Was a public participation program part of the facility planning process? b. Was a public meeting held before the Pc17ti 4c y/.3 2tit_ facility plan was formally adopted? ,'J •-ov N oi�:�� /T . c. Is a final responsiveness summary attached? ti1O ;li State planning clearance : a. Was a draft facility plan submitted to clearinghouse? b. Did clearinghouse comment? ( i ) Date ( ii ) State application identifier ( iii ) Does clearinghouse want to see subsequent applications? 9 cs : Certified: ��a�+ ^ /� Date : /0/23/9 ,7ect ngineer Approved by: Date : Program Administrator Certified: '--itirt-411 4 ��C�2CL2� Date: V/,/rio Project Administrator FACPLAN/WP5 .0 10 i r N 1 .�� , LL , 1 fi _ OP p) 'Nu) _ ..--e"--- ,..: ••..• :II) ' I l m _try 1. PiIa j: �m ri 'ro. .i , 3 , / s y., • J a \ fn ' //2. Z V LL / j W �' i �--- is I • • 7 N / _I UU.J - I ja / /,77 ,'7_ ii 201 FACILITY PLAN - AGENCY CONTACT LIST A. Fish & Wildlife (Wild & Scenic Rivers/Endangered Species) U.S. Fish & Wildlife 730 Sim Street, Room 290 Golden, CO 80401 Leroy W. Carlson (303) 236-2675 B. Historical Society (Historical & Cultural Res. ) Colorado Historical Society 1300 Broadway - Denver, CO 80203-2137 Karen Hardy-Hunt (303) 866-3398 or Jim Green (303) 866-4674 • C. Corp of Engineers (Floodplains & Wetlands) U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Regulatory Office • 9307 State Highway 121 Littleton, CO 80123-6901 -- Terry McKee (303) 979-4120 D. Soil Conservation (Agricultural Lands) U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service 655 Parfet Street, Room E200C Lakewood, CO 80215-5517 Flavio R. Gonzalez (303) 236-2903 E. Division of Wildlife (Wildlife Protection & Endangered Species)-Area Map Attached Division of Wildlife Central Region . 6060 N. Broadway Denver, CO 80216 Dave Weber (303) 291-7231 Division of Wildlife Southeast Region 2126 N. Weber Colorado Springs, CO 80907 Bruce Goforth (719) 473-2945 Division of Wildlife • Southwest Region 2300 S. Townsend Ave. Montrose, CO 81401 Bob Clark (303) 249-3431 Division of Wildlife Northwest Region 711 w. Independent Ave. Grand Junction, CO 81505 Bill Clark (303) 248-7175 Division of Wildlife Northeast Region 317 W. Prospect Street Fort Collins, CO 80526 Don Bogart (303) 484-2836 F. State Engineer's Office (Water Rights) • Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman, Room 818 Denver, CO 80203 Jim Hall (303) 866-3581 0872m/0179m/lc OL0 .Di'J Cr L :LOLI E TEL : - 3-1y ,-74 _ i Jun iD 3 iC = _D N - J 4v �J'J.. G` 1 1 + t ' 1 1 : lol� .... i I .ci i ^t lot P , I r t e ' e t I1�! 3M r a sc 1 Ir Y t .� i i‘v :-• I l I� r �+ 1 II #;0,7034 1 \i `�c = 11 'w r1 i; ;xt 1 , I I \t .• .- . D.. ‘ i; A 1fi I f . - . 1 r 1 -- = z c r I s 1 3 •us ._. ifi'.1 . -; .. 'II it .i: r i ' I' i V I •il; ..' 1 `` J `5t ..Et 11 • i I _ • I 4 I 4! 1 ' �.' �' T o'....il I i e g v i 1 i ' I e i ' • 1 ' 1 io , o Ie J r. �' t / ; -. • j 11. • •. it J (0 "311 / • lilt k41 . [i N to iITrll 11 "'1 // \ [k_ •.t _ 1 efttilliiii I •—*�-- I •{I � .�� ►� `` ` • I�1 1 }� t $ 1• a t _ : ,g, ..,,,-,,,T.., , . ,, ft... .2.MAW rMilil.uptt. litti. ior I r ` ah1.� E I . ._ 1,IW li 1 1, • -- / 0.�� '+ SI tyamoI' r 1•_ .� t R ! 7 tr � . ~ 1 iI it W r fLila �.` u r+ 4 t 111- • .3)us Ili . :1 w t e . 1 c• ` %� " 1111 • _ 1 I �►J,—�i�^.i 111 1!: Arai' f e,-.7„--• As% I : a i* jam'„ 41r0..,41 . Illirli—lhill .• 'II 17. r 41 �./ . , :1w t ,it ; VIII —J I) r •1 ! : ` 1j 1 I IIi I i5 I 1 ' N1 ,__._ 1 _ t' S 1 ' 0 I ` i1 O '' 1 \-...,ti • t r WIT: Q.�f ��, 1\ J •>. = to L.__ _ • /• _ ly,, c �' m.-_--•— ; i ! y 7" ` •t r W j1 -144 .... .MP .., T.LL :. �-I S e1 =M .; i t' \ r 1 I 1k(_. iit1 t 1 ---' }-.-�jT_ I�1 Y ... L I , ; I !. ; , i \i 1 + 1 e1 . t* • I1 ' i. 'I ;C .' 1 Il i ''. i 1 ig ..i i ri "1 Y i , 4` •\:" . i , _.,, ,t . ., , .• _ ... , I I 1,. I . ' -- 4 • i L 4 ,, •° - -.% i t I ) i •i ) ‘%-\ .. ' 1 S , VI r1 i o 1� /,�lii . is t + t�. itt 11 t 1 BLACK & VEATCH 1400 South Potomac Street,Suite 200, Aurora Colorado 80012 (303) 6714200 Fax (303)671-4285 Fort Lupton, Colorado B&V Project 16995.100 201 Facilities Plan B&V File A May 2, 1991 Ms. Donna Wessel Project Administrator Grants/Revolving Fund Assistance Program Water Quality Control Division 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 Subject: 201 Facilities Plan, Fort Lupton, Colorado Dear Ms. Wessel : Enclosed are three copies of the City of Fort Lupton, Colorado, 201 Facilities Plan. We appreciate the review of the preliminary copy of the plan by the Colorado Department of Health. We have the following responses to the review comments; the responses follow the same order as the review comments in your letter dated November 15, 1990. • Pages 1-2, 2-1 , 4-1 , and 4-2 and Figures 1-2 and 2-1 have been changed to include the planning area shown in the 208 Plan, 1988, Update. Chapter 4 discusses a sewer master plan dealing with the ultimate development of the City of Fort Lupton. Because Chapter 4 deals with planning for ultimate development and no state or federal funds are requested for sewer improvements, the figures use the planning area reflecting ultimate development. The smaller planning area from the 208 Plan, 1988, Update is not used in Chapter 4. • A letter from Mr. David DuBois, Manager of the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association dated March 8, 1991 , is enclosed. Mr. DuBois states that the City of Fort Lupton should proceed with an interim wastewater treatment solution because a regional facility will not be ready for 10 to 20 years. The City of Fort Lupton will forward a request for a 208 Plan Update to the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association along with the 201 Facilities Plan. BLACK & VEATC C Page 2 Ms. Donna Wessel B&V Project 16995. 100 May 2, 1991 This will be done as soon as the 201 Facilities Plan has been approved by the Colorado Department of Health. • Pages 2-10, 2-11 , and 2-12 have been changed. The infiltration and inflow analysis includes periods of average, peak, dry, and wet weather flows. • Pages 2-1, 2-3, 2-4, 2-8, and 2-9, and Figure 2-2 have been changed. The population projections from the 208 Plan, 1988, Update have been included and were used for flow projections. • A copy of the calculations evaluating the existing wastewater treatment facilities were sent to Mr. Victor Sainz for his review. As discussed on pages 5-14 and 6-3, it is suspected that algae in the effluent exert an oxygen demand causing discharge permit violations of the biochemical oxygen demand limitations. Little can be done to eliminate algae because of the shallow depth and long detention time in the aerated lagoon and polishing ponds and inadequate mixing in the aerated lagoon. Given the existing configuration of the wastewater treatment facilities, it appears that little can be done to ensure consistent compliance with the biochemical oxygen demand limitations of the discharge permit. • Wastewater treatment facilities, similar to the recommended facility, have reliably complied with secondary treatment standards, 30 milligrams per liter (mg/1) biochemical oxygen demand (BOO) and total suspended solids. It was determined in Chapter 2 of the 201 Facilities Plan that infiltration is potentially excessive, and it was recommended that infiltration and inflow be reduced. Reducing infiltration and inflow will remove water with negligible oxygen demand, thus increasing influent BOD concentration. Increased influent BOD concentration in conjunction with consistent effluent BOD concentrations of 30 mg/1 or less should allow compliance with the requirement to achieve 85 percent BOD removal efficiency. If infiltration and inflow are not reduced and influent BOD remains near the present concentration, an effluent filter may be necessary. Soluble BOD from an oxidation ditch is typically less than 10 mg/1 , and filtration should remove most of the nonsoluble BOD, reducing the effluent BOD to below 15 mg/l . An effluent BOD of 15 mg/1 or less should ensure 85 percent removal efficiency for all anticipated r-- , BLACK & VEATC C Page 3 Ms. Donna Wessel B&V Project 16995.100 May 2, 1991 conditions. Costs for an effluent filter are provided for in the contingency portion of the construction costs. • No additional capacity is requested. It was shown on pages 2-13, 2-14, and 2-15 that it is more cost-effective to reduce infiltration and inflow than it is to treat it in the existing facility. It will be even more expensive to treat infiltration and inflow in the recommended treatment facilities; therefore, reduction of infiltration and inflow is cost-effective. It is recommended that the City of Fort Lupton begin an infiltration and inflow reduction program. • Existing flows, when using a population of 5,200, are approximately 173 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). As explained on pages 2-4 and 2-8, the projected flow for future individuals is 100 gpcd. The value of 100 gpcd represents approximately 65 to 85 gpcd of domestic and commercial flow. The remaining flow is nonexcessive infiltration and inflow. New sewers built after 1990 will use current construction methods and materials, substantially reducing infiltration and inflow and resulting in the lower flows. Decreased flow rates for the existing population are not projected. The existing population of 5,200 at 173 gpcd generates a flow of 900,000 gallons per day. Projected population for 2010 is 8,130 or 2,930 additional people. The present flow of 900,000 gallons per day plus 2,930 additional people at 100 gpcd equals the total projected flow of 1 , 190,000 gallons per day in 2010. Flows could be even lower if infiltration and inflow is reduced, thus reducing the value of 173 gpcd. A flow 1 ,190,000 gallons per day with a population of 8,130 results in an overall average flow of 146 gpcd. • Nick Adeh, Director of Public Works, Brighton; Gene Kennedy, Director of Utilities, Brighton; Robert Thorson, Town Administrator, Platteville; and Frank Stevens, Wastewater Operations Manager, Greeley, were contacted. Brighton is at 70 percent of capacity presently and would prefer to reserve additional capacity for growth that may result from the new airport. The flow from Fort Lupton would put Greeley close to 80 percent of capacity, and they would have to begin facility planning to study expansion. Fort Lupton would be expected to help with expansion costs. BLACK & VEATC C Page 4 Ms. Donna Wessel B&V Project 16995. 100 May 2, 1991 Platteville is near the City of Fort Lupton and is interested in regional treatment. As explained on page 6-6, the estimated cost of a gravity sewer to Platteville is $2.2 million, which is approximately equal to the cost of the recommended wastewater treatment facility. In addition to this sewer, a new regional treatment facility would have to be constructed and at least partially funded by Fort Lupton. Regional treatment does not appear to be cost-effective. • Chapter 6 discusses sludge disposal for each of the different treatment alternatives. A copy of a letter from Liquid Waste Management expressing interest in disposing of sludge from a new wastewater treatment facility at Fort Lupton is enclosed. • Page 7-2 and Table 7-5 have been changed and Table 7-4 has been added. These changes add a financing plan and change the tentative implementation schedule to include dates. • Chapter 8 has been added and pages 8-1 through 8-5 and Figure 8-1 address existing conditions. • According to the wastewater treatment staff at the City of Fort Lupton, there are no bypasses, overflows, or sewers combining storm water and sewage in the collection system. The only bypass at the existing wastewater treatment facilities allows the bypass of the existing holding pond. • In Chapter 6 on pages 6-4 and 6-5, land application and concern about contamination of groundwater by nitrates is discussed. Treatment processes capable of removing nitrogen from the wastewater at Fort Lupton are not planned. Land application of wastewater will eventually result in the addition of nitrates to the groundwater. Concentrations of nitrates in the groundwater have exceeded the drinking water standards in Brighton and at certain groundwater wells in the Fort Lupton area. Land application would add more nitrates to the groundwater and make the problem worse. Because of concern about nitrate concentrations in the groundwater, land application is not recommended. In addition to concerns about nitrates, the Code of Colorado Regulations (14CR1 , 1-91 , Section 6.9.2 and 13CR1 , 1-90, Section 10.1.4) require that wastewater used for land application meet secondary treatment standards. The present wastewater treatment facilities cannot consistently meet secondary treatment standards, and the recommended wastewater BLACK & VEAT Page 5 Ms. Donna Wessel BD Project 16995.100 May 2, 1991 treatment facilities are the most cost-effective means of meeting secondary treatment standards. Providing additional facilities such as pumps and piping to apply wastewater to the land would add additional costs and would not be cost- effective. • Pages 7-2 and 7-5 have been changed and now discuss budget, staff, and operation and maintenance. • Comments and letters of response from the listed state and federal agencies have been included in Chapter 8 and Appendix C. In addition to comments from your letter dated November 15, 1990, we have the following responses concerning the checklist enclosed with the letter. The responses follow the same order as the comments in the checklist. Only comments not already mentioned in the letter receive a response. • Item C.3.b ( ii) . An industrial pretreatment program is discussed on page 5-2. • Item C.3.h. It was recommended on page 2-16 that the City of Fort Lupton begin a program to reduce infiltration and inflow. • Item E.6. Wetland treatment and disposal of sewage sludge by land application were evaluated in Chapter 6 as innovative and alternative treatment processes and technology. • Items E. 11 and 13. Land application of effluent is discussed on pages 6-4 and 6-5. Land application of sewage sludge is discussed in Chapter 6. • Item E.14. Open space and recreational areas are discussed on pages 8-5 and 8-6. • Item F. 1.a. The current discount rate of 8-3/4 percent was used for calculations for Table 2-8 and the present worth analyses in Chapters 6 and 7. • Item F.7. Energy issues are discussed on pages 8-5 and 8-6. • Item G.4. A proposed financing plan has been added and is presented on page 7-6 and Table 7-4. BLACK & VEAT ( ( Page 6 Ms. Donna Wessel B&V Project 16995.100 May 2, 1991 • Item G.B. Table 7-1 has been changed to show unit sizes and process design criteria. Specific dates for the implementation schedule are now shown on Table 7-5. • Item G. 10. Table 7-4 presents costs that might be added to a typical quarterly sewer charge for a single family dwelling unit as a result of the recommendations. • Item G.11 .b. Dates have been added to Table 7-5. • Item G.11.d. An industrial pretreatment program is discussed on page 5-2. • Item G.13. Energy conservation during design is discussed on page 8-6. • Item G.14. Environmental impacts and comments from state and federal agencies have been included in Chapter 8 and Appendix C. • Item G.15. Public participation is discussed in Chapter 8 and Appendix D. We have also enclosed Form AD-1006, which the Soil Conservation Service indicated must accompany any request for federal funding. We would like to thank the Colorado Department of Health for the assistance provided during this project. If you have any questions, please call Jim Michael or me. Very truly yours, 0 aA eAk7t David G. Buth smo Enclosures cc: Mr. David Yamada, City of Fort Lupton ,4 NORTH FRONT RANGE WATER QUALITY PLANNINU ASSOCIATION Civic Center, 500 East Third, Loveland, CO 80537 667-6130 _` 0 E 757,,57 7 March 8 , 1991 • IMAR 121991 Mr . Jim Michael BLACK & VEATCH Black & Veach Consulting Engineers 1400 S. Potomic Street, Suite 200 Aurora, CO 80012 RE: 208 Plan Recommendations for Fort Lupton Dear Mr . Michael : The 1989 Update of our Areawide Water Quality Management Plan ( 208 Plan ) contains a recommendation concerning Fort Lupton which states : "The city may also want to consider the possibility of joining with dischargers in the northern Metro area in the use of a regional plant that may be built near Fort Lupton in the future . The timing for such considerations would be after 2010 or when the city needs to replace its present plant" (emphasis added ) . This recommendation was predicated on the assumption that the city ' s plant had a usable remaining life of at least ten years and that some of the northern Metro communities would be ready to jointly plan and build a regional sewage treatment facility in that approximate time frame. It appears that at this time the Metro communities will not be ready to consider planning a regional facility for several years , and it would not be available for ten to twenty years . Fort Lupton is therefore left with the situation of having to plan and implement an interim solution for their needs . This should be their course of action now, with the idea in mind that they may be able to work with other communities on a regional solution down the road . The city should request a plan amendment to reflect this current situation . I hope this adequately answers your questions on the 208 Plan provisions . If you need nay further information , please let me now . Sincerely , e' David F . DuBois, Manager cc : David Yamada, City Manager , City of Fort Lupton '`; y � liqui T7111d was a management inc. ( MAR 121991 L 11 l March 11, 1991 -- Mr. Jim Michael Suite 200 1400 S. Potomac Aurora, CO 80012 Dear Mr. Michael, I am writing on behalf of Liquid Waste Management to express our interest in providing services at the proposed Waste Water Treatment Plant for The City of Ft. Lupton. As per conversations with Dave Booth of Black & Veatch, Liquid Waste Management is prepared to offer our sludge pumping, sludge hauling, land permitting, and/or land application services when needed in the future at the Ft. Lupton Plant. We have the manpower, equipment, and experience to serve Ft. Lupton in any capacity required to serve their sludge management needs. Yours truly, ric674 ay r. Holmes Vice President P.O. Box 888 • 204 South Bowen • Longmont. CO 80501 • (303) 651-7070 E?c •. - . U.S. Department of Agriculture L FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING 1 PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request April 10, 1991 Name Of Project Federal Agency Involved City of Fort Lupton - 201 Facilities Plan Proposed Land Use County And State Wastewater Treatment Facility Weld, Colorado PART II (To be completed by,SCS) Date Request Received By SCS • Does the site contain prime,lst>i April 11. .991 quesetatewideotlocal important farmland? - Yes -No Acres Irrigated Average FarmSize (If no, the FPPA does cot apply-do not cwnpfetesdditiona!parts.of this form); O 11 Major Crops) Fumble Land in:Govt.Jurisdiction Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA Acres: % Acres: % Name Of Land Evaluation System Used -Name Of Locat SIu Asesmsn system Date La Eval ation Returned By SCS 06 / as PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alter ative ite Rating Site A Site B Site C Site D A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly C. Total Acres In Site PART lY(Tmmp/eted by'SCSJ Land Eveltution Information A. Total Acres Prime-And Unique-Farmland B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland L C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt.Unit To Be Converted D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt.Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value PART V (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Criterion Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted(Scale of 0 to 100 Points) PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum Site Assessment Criteria(These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 558.516) Points 1. Area In Nonurban Use 2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use 3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area — 6. Distance To Urban Support Services 7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland ---_ 9. Availability Of Farm Su on Services 10.1 Effects On-Farm Conversion 11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 12. Co SITE AS With ENTim POINTS ltural Use TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT PINTS 160 PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) _--- Relative Value Of Farmland (From Pan V) 100 Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above ore local site assessment) 160 - TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260 Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Site Selected: Date Of Selection Yes ❑ No ❑ - Reason For Selection: • a,•Cs S (See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 110-831 APPENDIX D ADVERTISEMENT AND ATTENDANCE LIST FOR PUBLIC MEETING A PUBLIC MEETING on the CITY OF FORT LUPTON, CO. CENTRAL TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY .PLAN • will be held NOV.19,Monday at 730 p.m at the Fort Lupton City Hag 130 South McKinley Ave. • The City of Fort Lupton's consulting engi- neers have prepared a Phase 1 Report covering four possible alternatives for ex- pansion of the Fort Lupton Wastewater Treatment Plant to treat wastewater from the proposed planned urban growth area to the year 2010. The alternatives deal with tour• different levels of treatment for wastewater discharge to the South Platte River and to a major agricultural irrigation system. The different levels of treatment, ranging in capital cost from $2,360,000 to 67,137,000 would have varying impacts on the quality of water in the river. A public meeting has been arranged to present information about the planning study to Fort Lupton area citizens and to seek their viewpoints on alternative cours- es of action by the Fort Lutpon Mayor and City Council. Copies of the Phase 1 Report are available at the following locations: Fort Lupton City Hall, 130 South McKinley Ave. Fort Lupton Public and School Library, 530 Reynolds. Your participation and opinions are wel- come. For further information contact: Bill Wilson or Dave Yamada City of Fort Lupton • 130 South McKinley Ave. Fort Lupton, CO 80821 Phone 857-6694 Published In the Fort Lupton Press Octo- ber 17, 1990. D-1 ATTENDANCE AT PUBLIC MEETING People other than City Council members attending the Public Meeting for the City of Fort Lupton 201 Facilities Plan: Name Organization Floyd Baker Fort Lupton Long Range Planning Dave Buth Black & Veatch Dave DuBois North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association Charles Kovouda Taxpayer Jim Michael Black & Veatch S. David Norcross Fort Lupton Water and Sewer Board Victor H. Sainz Colorado Department of Health Kipp Scott City of Northglenn R. J. Vincent Fort Lupton Water and Sewer Donna Wessel Colorado Department of Health Loren Willey Fort Lupton Public Works Commission Bill Wilson City of Fort Lupton Gary Withrow Taxpayer Larry Wyenco City of Northglenn D-2 Hello