The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About760901.tiff V temp-o f litari _ r Se s21'�L3�iitii M , 1 ALAN L CANTER,Chairman DON ALLARD,Chairman Pro Tern 6450 YORK STREET FRED N THOMAS,Secretary BORIS S VOUKOVITCH,Treasurer DENVER, COLORADO 80229 WILLIAM E.KORBITZ,P E.,Manager TELEPHONE NUMBER: 289-5941 a ✓C.r'i':Jcsr 1 , _L9 I'6 rl ;t 77 .. • Mr. Gary Fortner, Planning Director ;.• Weld County °`� '� P.O. Box 459 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Daar Mr. Fortner: . ".. =J_ . te.1 :a% ..a, this 1 ei.t:.-2.r is a copy of T c\-ir_r ' ooh av1 __1 :-r P.`Sas,?_ .1_ i:�j_i.1'- ..• _�iE Y?)r,`1�� '�� , r, ;7`ni .r• d-�-s:� .:i i.il�i'1�._i _i f":Js C:�.`�t _ 84 -ace art f.. �rtc�;��' I. s.:�� ,_ -•:c - ., C j t_.,. 1.i;.r e ci_ _row .:;tom:a e__. ago. 1t1c.1.-o ..t; `:t'•.C-_ ` a ..:1 cal nriL are COla..:l_,s f il iil15 _ �� '1._�'Cal�%•"z l.� :�S (;;"p '.i e jr, ea;.'_ 147: n w':, :r c 3 ,: r $ OE a)irec i.o_ s of 'i^ 11�l.''"�:� .'.'�uV,is 1... . ._.t'- .` .L •':"L i '_ .'r.- x••-,11' S: „ tY.g - r.z;7r: on t�,_ .1_� i��ti�i,y'.ir•-+r_ .. '_lr �� .._._i� � th:_. .Z-!:=t . n with ;1 o i i c, r, _ r,•- i 4-- f .a. .�+ �' . =1 Ci_ % 5=,..�.1�' c=: __ .._, �;: I_ __ _. .. ar _ >' .,_ r.,r,, tt:'n Cori &nitS !`c'?�T?i.l >, _. .C T% r;", i_.is L-:E' or --a' ? -:E":d i :'Uos will 1) Tafle to da _!lq thei It 1 n `.r m ati n __c c.r y c:J u C 0 • % LOWER SOUTH PLATTE t. FACILITY PLAN r PHASE 1 REPORT - SUPPLEMENT d AoesO ` L_e Brighton r ,,s riz Burr to __J 'Lc [— . orthglenp- -- LI,,,, 1,1<' ,uhh15 Ns c 1 • E l h Thornton crnton �� l_ • f IIo^Qo' 6 1i .L Irondole IS.:.ta _ Welby ' % / { Rocky Mountain j}•r Arsenal , Commerce CItY_ ..• i DECEMBER 1976 LOWER SOUTH PLATTE FACILITY PLAN PHASE 1 REPORT -- SUPPLEMENT • for Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1 Prepared by CH2! Ifit L. INC. ['2000 East '/t l !^ Dcnvcr, Color z,do 30239 L) sbir � .�1� I)S1)5728.A0.':.C�r INTRODUCTION The Lower South Platte Facility Plan Phase 1 Report was developed and distributed to promote involvement in the selection of a wastewater management system for the Lower South Platte Basin. The initial report provided everyone an oppor- tunity to know what alternatives are being considered, identify incorrect assumptions and add additional information. The Phase 1 Report has stimulated comments, and additional information has been received. This supplement is intended to present the new information and the conclusions of the first phase of the Lower South Platte facility planning process. Immediately following the Introduction is an errata sheet to correct minor errors in the Phase 1 Report. The errata sheet was included to make simple substitution and deletion changes. Major changes are described later in the supplement. The main body of the supplement, Selection of a Wastewater Management System, is written as the next chapter of the Phase 1 Report. It presents the actions that have occurred since the original report was released. It also presents a methodology for the selection of one wastewater management system and recommendations regarding the next phase of the study. ERRATA 1 . Change the word "primary" to "preliminary" on Page 7, seventh line of the second paragraph. 2. On Page 22, delete the following: "At present the State discharge - control system does not account for the dilution effects of the water in the receiving stream. As a result, " and start the paragraph with "The State is now. . . . " 3. Correct Table bas follows: Change the 5.9 MGD listed in the fifth column under Alt. No. 1 to 5. 1 MGD. Add A. R. to the second line, second column under Alt. No. 4. 4. On Table 9, Page 41, change the number "18.23 to "182.3" . ii SELECTION OF A • WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM During the months of October and November 1976, 201 copies of the Lower South • Platte Facility Plan Phase 1 Report were distributed throughout the region. Each Director of the Metro Sewage District Board received a copy.and most of the other copies went to individuals and organizations believed to be important to the selection process. Many of these reports were transmitted by letter. Samples of the two types of letters that accompanied the report are shown as Exhibits 1 and 2. Also shown is a partial list of who received the copies. All of the letters requested comments on the wastewater management alternatives presented in the report by December 6, 1976. SPECIAL MEETINGS The longer of the two letters was sent to those agencies which would definitely be contacted personally by the Metro Sewage District and CH2M HILL personnel . At most of the meetings with those agencies a slide and lecture presentation was made. The purpose of the meetings was to explain the study, answer questions, receive comments and aid the audience in developing a position on the alternatives. PUBLIC MEETINGS On November 18, 1976, a public meeting was held in the Adams County Administra- tion Building. The meeting was well advertised. Exhibit 3 shows a reprint of the advertisement vvh .h w s in the following nee,Aspzpers during the week o November 7 - 14: The Dispatch Brighton Sentinel The Almanac Also, the November 8, 1976, edition of the Denver Post contained the news article shown as Exhibit 14. Approximately 700 brochures were also distributed throughout the basin. The brochure used is shown as Exhibit 5. The public meeting was from 7: 30 to 9: 30 p.m. The outdoor conditions were dry and mild with clear roads. The meeting consisted of a slide and lecture presentation, questions and answers, and two questionnaires. it is estiinated that about one-third of the approximately 30 people who attended the public meeting were affiliated with the Metro Se'.vage District, one of its member municipalities, or other agencies involved in the planning activ,ty. The other participants were citizens of the b=asin primal Hy desiring rrore informa- tion. It is hoped that the views expressed at the meeting were representative of all the residents in the basin, but there is no way of really knowing. Exhibit 6 is a copy of Questionnaire No. 1 with the tabulated results of the public meeting indicated. -Twenty-s1). Lr_iestionnaires were completely or partially completed by the audience. Of those people complc`.in,; the first questionnaire, less than half had read the Phase 1 Report prio,• to the meeting. Most people alIenduei the meeting because of a concert; for their neighborhood. Most people responding believed that :'le most i •-i-urtanL uses for the South Platte River are (a) irrigation water supply, (b) domestic water supply, (c) industrial water supply, and (d) storm water drainage. Exhibit 7 is a copy of Questionnaire No. 2, which was completed or partially completed by 17 participants with the results as indicated . Question 1 results would indicate that some changes should be made to the weight factors listed on Table 10 of the Phase 1 Report. These changes are as follows: Evaluation Factor Weight Factor Old New Present Worth Cost 10 7 Energy and Chemical Consumption 7 6 Hydrology/Water Quality 7 8 Aquatic Environment 6 4 Land Use 9 7 Health and Safety 5 8 Most people sampled did not favor centralization of treatment even if it reduced the cost. When asked about the alternatives, the audience preferred the "pumping" alternatives (Alternatives 5 and 6) . A limited regional treat- ment plant (Alternative 4) was the next choice. The irrigation systems were very unacceptable. ,� TTE I Mrvl�i i � e�i'. COMMENTS Numerous organizations have submitted written comments in response to the Phase 1 Report. These written statements are included at the end of this supplement. MAJOR CONCERNS As a result of the special meetings, public meeting, and written comments, the following major concerns have been idc ntified: A genet al desire to ',maintain and improve water quality, especially ground \Nziteir quality A concern about the spread of the urban iiilpz,ct on rural life ra A cone,' n about c dors fro;.. aer a'ed 13goen L, A need to pr otect ^pater ric;hie A ric,-d to develop Dodition3I raw water supplies for the met opcdi i n portion of the basin A co ,_.:,-i"1 about s'udge d -posz. I A deslr t.iri IC-;di ri3\•Cr1Vient atitut,orny SYSTEM SELECTION METHODOLOGY The applicable Federal regulations must be followed in the selection process. In the interest of clarity it is worthwhile to repeat one definition of these regulations. U.S. EPA Rules and Regulations (40 CFR, Part 35, Subpart E, Appendix A) define the most cost-effective alternative as follows: "The waste treatment management system determined from the analysis to have the lowest present worth and/or equivalent annual value without overriding adverse nonmonetary costs and to realize at least identical minimum benefits in terms of applicable Federal, State and local standards for effluent quality, water quality, water reuse and/or land and subsurface disposal . " The following methodology for selecting one alternative is based on those rules and regulations. Step 1-Screening for Unreasonable Costs--The alternatives are first screened on the basis of present worth costs. This screening requires making a judgment that some alternatives would be excessively costly without related additional benefits. Step 2-Screening for Overriding Adverse Impacts--The alternatives remaining after Step 1 are then reviewed from an environmental and social perspective to determine if any of them would have anfoverriding adverse impact. A judgment that an alternative would have an over riding adverse impact implies that the impact would be severe and unalterable. This means that the impact could not be mitigated by additional expenditures of money or that the impact would be a significant lost opportunity. If the impact can be mitigated, the alternative must be reconsidered with the cost of mitigation included. All alternatives which pass this screening are judged to be environmentally, socially and technically acceptable. However, some may be more acceptable than others. Step 3-Comparative Evaluation--The remaining alternatives are comparatively evaluated in terms of environmental, social, and technical factors. The evaluation involves establishing weighted values for each comparative factor and numerically ranking each alternative accordinc to the weighted value and relative impact of the alternative for the particular• factor being considered. This ranking system is explained in detail in the Phase 1 Report. An arithmetic mean of the totals is calculated to screen out those scores above the mean. 'the alternatives remaining r;ftcr the comparative examination are judged to be essentially equal environmentally, socially and technically. Step 4-Selection of the Lowest Present Worth--The engineering estimates of cost are considered sound indices of relative costs between the alternatives within some limits of certainty. For this analysis it is believed that alternatives with costs within 5 percent ere the same. Considering the alternatives remaining after the comoai ative evaluation, the alternative with the l'.awest present worth cost is the selected system. • -3- Step 5-Tie Breaking Re-evaluation--Those alternatives having the same (within 5 percent) present worth cost must be re-evaluated in more detail for environ- mental and social benefits. This re-evaluation will determine which alternative is most beneficial to society and should be the selected wastewater management system. Several points in this selection process should be stressed. The economic, social and environmental evaluation must consider the entire basin being studied and may not be biased to benefit one political organization or another. However, an overriding adverse impact on a portion of the basin can eliminate an alternative. Second, the Federal regulations stress recommending the alternative with the least cost if it is environmentally and socially acceptable. Third, because the selection process can only be based on what information is available, the process may end with the conclusion that additional information or some political action is necessary before a final decision can be made. SUCCESSIVE USE PROPOSALS Successive use systems have been proposed by the Cities of Northglenn and Thornton in the Lower South Platte Basin. The proposed systems are essentially agricultural reuse systems that exchange treated wastewater for irrigation water. The effluent would be discharged directly into an irrigation ditch at some downstream point, while the irrigation water would be diverted into the domestic water supply system of these cities at some upstream location. Both the Northglenn and Thornton systems would return effluent to irrigation ditches 111 thc., Dig Dry C.1:ree..kC3Jii The Northglenn proposal involves obtaining raw water from Standley Lake and discharging an equal volume of effluent plus 10 percent to the Bull Canal . A more complete description of this proposal can be found in Exhibit 8. The Thornton proposal is to pump wastewater to Westminster's Big Dry Creek Plant for treatment and discharge to the Farmer's Highline Canal. In exchange, Thornton would receive an equal volume of irrigation water from Clear Creek to augment their domestic supplies. Details of both proposals are not available at this time, and therefore judgments on the impacts of either alternative would be questionable. However, as discussed in the next section, an additional wastewater management alterna- tive has now been included for consideration in the Lower South Platte Basin which would provide the opportunity for either successive use proposal to be implemented. REVISIONS TO THE ALTERNATIVES AND PHASE 1 DEPORT EVALUATION The process of presenting the Phase 1 Report to the various Federal, State and local agencies and to the public ha:, resulted irk the addition of another alternative to the original 13. A description of t!:e revised list of alterna fives is given below. -4- • Alternative 1 - Construction of an interceptor and a new wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) at approximately 164th Avenue and the South Platte River to treat the flow from the entire basin, including the South Adams County Water and Sanitation District (SACWSD) . • Alternative 2 - Construction of an interceptor and a new WWTP at approximately 164th Avenue and the South Platte River to treat the flow from the entire basin, including SACWSD. An equalization basin would also be constructed at approximately 100th Avenue and west of the South Platte River to smooth the flow variation from the Upper Thornton and North Washington Street Water and Sanitation District (NWSWSD) areas. Alternative 3 - Construction of an interceptor and a new WWTP at approximately 164th Avenue and the South Platte River to treat the flow from the entire basin except SACWSD. The existing WWTP at SACWSD would be expanded and upgraded to treat and discharge the flow from SACWSD. • Alternative 4 - Construction of an interceptor and a new WVVTP at approximately 164th Avenue and the South Platte River to treat the flow from Brighton, Lower Thornton, and First, Second, and Third Creeks. The existing WWTP at SACWSD would be expanded and upgraded to treat and discharge the flow from the SACWSD. Flow from Upper Thornton and the NWSWSD would be pumped by the existing Thornton--North Washinryfon Pump Station to the Central Plant for treatment and discharge. • Alternative 5 - Construction of an interceptor and a new pump station at approximately 128th Avenue and Riverdale Road to pump the flow from Lower Thornton directly to the Central Plant for treatment and discharge. A new WWTP would be constructed at approxi - mately 164th Avenue and the South Platte River to treat the flow from Brighton and First, Second, and Third Creeks. The existing VVWTP at SACWSD would be expanded and upgraded to treat and discharge the flow from SACWSD. Flow from Upper Thornton and the NWSWSD would be pumped by the existing Thornton-North Washington Pump Station to the Central Plant for treatment and discharge. • Alternative 6 - Construction of en interceptor and a new pump station at approximately 140th Avenue and the South Platte River to pump the flow from Lower Thornton and First, Second, and Third Creeks to the Central Plant for treatment and discharge. A new WWTP rr,•ould be constructed at approximately 164th Avenue and the Suuih Platte River to treat the flew from Brighton. The existing • WWTP at SACWSD would be uppfaded and expanded to treat and discharge the flow from SACWSD. Flow from Upper Thornton and the NINS':":SD would be pumped by the existing Thornton-North Washington Pump Station to the Central Plant fo,- treatment and discharge. • Alternative 7 - Construction of an intercept,-I' and a new WWTP at approximately 140th Avenue and the South Platte River to treat and -5- discharge flow from Lower Thornton and First, Second, and Third Creeks. A new WWTP would be constructed at approximately 164th Avenue and the South Platte River to treat flow from Brighton. The existing 1NWTP at SACWSD would be upgraded and expanded to treat and discharge the flow from SACWSD. Flow from Upper Thornton and the NWSWSD would be pumped by the existing Thornton-North Washington Pump Station to the Central Plant for treatment and discharge. • Alternative 8 - Construction of an interceptor and a new WWTP at approximately 140th Avenue and the South Platte River to treat and discharge the flow from Brighton, Lower Thornton, and First, Second, and Third Creeks. Flow from Brighton would be pumped to 140th Avenue from the existing Brighton WWTP site. The existing WWTP at SACWSD would be upgraded and expanded to treat and discharge the flow from SACWSD. Flow from Upper Thornton and the NWSWSD would be pumped by the existing Thornton-North Washington Pump Station to the Central Plant for treatment and discharge. Alternative 9 - Construction of an interceptor and land application system (infiltration/percolation basins) approximately between 136th and 160th Avenues along the South Platte River to treat the flow from the entire basin including SACWSD. Alternative 10 - Construction of an interceptor and land application system (infiltration/percolation basins) approximately between 136th and 150th Avenues. a!dng the South Platte River to trout the flow from Brighton, Lower Thornton, and First, Second, and Third Creeks. Flow from Br ighton would be pumped to 140th Avenue from the existing Brighton 1NWTP site. The existing WWTP at SACWSD would be upgraded and expanded to treat and discharge the flow from SACWSD. Flow from Upper Thornton and the NWSWSD would be pumped by the existing Thornton-- North Washington Pump Station to the Central Plant for treatment and discharge. • Alternative 11 -- Construction of an interceptor and land application system (infiltration/percolation basins) approximately between 136th and 150th Avenues along the South Picitc River to treat the flow from Lower Thornton rnd First, Second, and Third Creeks. A now WWTP would be constructed at approximately 164th Avenue and the South Plata River to treat flow from Prighton. The existing '1;"TP at SACWSD would be upgraded and expanded to treat and dig charge the flow from SACWSD. How from UppE'r -f horr,ton and th3 NV'SV.. U ' .tRi!d he pumped by the existing Thurntcn- North 1Nashinc;ton Pump S.:,tion to the Centrai Plant for treatment and discharge. • Aiternativto 12 - Com,tructiion of an interceptor an:; a new pump station at 140th Avenue and the South Platte' 1•.iver to pump to a land dppli':ltiou systen. (high--t ate in ivaiiori) . The system would • be locat'cc, et is :;its ri li".f'i of Parr L 3'..e anti eu.;t Cif flrig :on to treat th' i ow ire-v`;1 the' emirs basin. Plow from r-1:-ighton vesitild be pur.,p:,d to 14 th Avenue from the a;'istiog D rigiiuoil '1Yr'9k i 1l -•i e. -G- Alternative 13 - Construction of an interceptor and a new pump station at 140th Avenue and the South Platte River to pump to a land application system (high-rate irrigation) . The system would be located at a site north of Barr Lake and east of Brighton to treat the flow from Brighton, Lower Thornton, and First, Second, and Third Creeks. Flow from Brighton would be pumped to 140th Avenue from the existing Brighton WWTP site. The existing WWTP at SACWSD would be upgraded and expanded to treat and discharge the flow from SACWSD. Flow from Upper Thornton and the NWSWSD would be pumped by the existing Thornton-North Washington Pump Station to the Central Plant for treatment and discharge. Alternative 14 - Same as Alternative 5 except that the new pump station at approximately 128th Avenue and Riverdale Road would pump to the Big Dry Creek Treatment Plant (City of Westminster plant) . The additional alternative, Alternative 14, provides for the pumping of wastewater into the Big Dry Creek Basin for treatment and subsequent agricultural reuse. The agricultural reuse system requires discharging the effluent into the Farmer's Highline Canal and then an equal volume of clean raw water would be diverted into Standley Lake for subsequent domestic consumption. The alternative is very similar to Alternative 5 except that the wastewater is pumped west along 128th Avenue to Westminster's Big Dry Creek Plant rather than to the Central Plant. One other change to the original 13 alternatives is a modification to Alterna- tive 5. The location of the new pump station has been moved from 124th Avenue and the South Platte River to 125th Avenue and Riverdale Road. The new list of alternatives has been analyzed in the next section of this supplement according to the selection process described earlier. To make the analysis, modifications were made to the Phase 1 Report present worth calcula- tions and weight factors on Table 10 as discussed below. To provide the most precise costs attainable at this level of planning, the new list of alternatives was re-estimated including a more detailed analysis of construction requirements. The changes included a relative inflation factor for electrical energy consumption which assumes that energy costs will escalate at a greeter rate than other costs. Other chances included the additional costs for spcciali; ed sewer construction. The revised present worth costs of all the altern:rtiv es are shown on Table /a, which is a revision of -fable 7 in the Phase 1 Report. • -7- Table 7a PRESENT WORTH COSTS (REVISED) ALTERNATIVE PRESENT WORTH NUMBER (Millions of Dollars) 9 $18.0 10 20.4 14 24.4 4 25. 1 5 25.2 11 25.9 6 28.4 8 29.4 7 30.4 1 32.7 2 32.7 • 3 34. 1 13 34. 1 12 47. 1 Table 10 was revised based on the comments expressed at the various meetings and the written comments. The weight factors were revised as indicated previously. References to economic considerations on the comparative evaluation table were deleted for conformance with the selection methodology set up in this supplement. Public and agency sentiments were added. Also, the relative impact ratings were re-evaluated to ensure that they are as realistic as possible. The revised table is presented in the next section describing the results of the selection process. SELECTION PROCESS The following selection process is based on the engineering study leading to the Phase 1 Report, the public and special meetings, written comments and prudent engineering judgment. Step 1--Sci rcn►ng for Unreasonable Costs--N_uthin new has been learned regarding the elimination of Alte•-natives I , 2, 3, 7, 12, and 13 on the basis of their high present worth cults shovvn-n on Table 7a. Therefore only the remaining seven alternativcs•and the new Alternative 111 will be considered further. Step 2-Screening for Overriding Adverse lmpects-- None of the remaining alterna- tives appears to have any overriding adverse impacts. A few of the alternatives appear to conflict with plans for the development of parks in the Lower South Piatte Basin. ilowevt it is considered the- tip alternatives arc not idcntiiied in sufficient dctail to )seclude ii park ci,:vel prrient and tir,'refore any potenti„l conflicts co,•Id be mitity� ted without - dversoly c fTccting the costs - of +h • l+ of the al:� ' natives, it tcould �tl_t: be at t`il?'�:1 thut t'Ci l:::n _am�� alternatives - s; preclude the implementation of the proposed Northglenn cooperative wastewater management system, unless Northglenn elects to fund the whole system on their own. But, even if it may cost more, those alternatives could be adapted to permit the Northglenn proposal . One final consideration is that any alternative that precludes the City of Thornton from exchanging its effluent for potable water supplies could be considered as having an adverse impact. Step 3-Comparative Evaluation--Based on the foregoing discussions, the remaining alternatives were comparatively ranked on Table 10a. The arithmetic mean of the totals presented on Table 10a is 404. Therefore, Alternatives 8, 9, 10, and 11 are eliminated from further consideration, and Alternatives 4, 5, 6, and 14 are judged to be environmentally, socially and technically equal . Step 4-Screening for Lowest Present Worth--Of the remaining four alternatives, only Alternative 6 can be screened from further consideration. The remaining three alternatives (Alternatives 4, 5, and 14) have present worth values within 5 percent and must be further evaluated in the next step. • Step 5-Tie Breaking--To screen down to one alternative for recommendation to the District Board, the final three alternatives are evaluated for their positive benefits to society and the environment. The following are the benefits associated with Alternative 4: • Thornton will have the opportunity to obtain a more dependable and better quaiicy powi,ie water Supply. The City of Brighton and the South Adams County Water and Sanitation District will remain autonomous and control their own wastewater treatment facilities. All wastewater generated from a large portion of the basin will flow by gravity to a single point at the lower end for treatment at a savings in electrical energy consumption. • Problems normally associated with pumping of wa.sterf'ater such as construction phasing problems and hydrogen sulfide production which causes odor and corrosion problems wil! not occur. F, Integration of the Northglenn sy=t?m and the subsequent pumping of the effluent to the Bull Conal will not he precluded. a There will be an opportunity for the implementation oc Alternative 14. • Wastewater treatment in the Lower South Platte Ear.in can be completely consolidated in the future. Tlrc benefits of Alternative 5 appear to be the following: "I he Metro Sewage District, Crihy of DI ;ghton aryl S' uth Adorns Count,' ir1?r.rter and Sani Lai ion District WiIi remaaon autoilorr.ouc, ind control Their own L".'astc‘:rajr.?` -9- Table 10.i COW-\RISON OF ALTLRN\l IVLS - - - - %%EIGIIT EVALUATION FACIOI'S F ACl OR ALT. 4 Al T5 AI T 6 ALT, C ALl 9 ALT 10 ALT 1 t— AL1 '4 S(1) R(1) S R S R S R S NS RS N S ' R I - ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS —_ _ Net Energy Consumption 6 3 18 4 24 5 30 4 24 1 6 2 12 3 13 4 34 Chemical Consumption 6 3 16 3 18 3 18 3 18 1 6 7 12 3 3 3 13 ` Utilization of Existing Facilities 6 2 12 1 6 1 6 2 12 3 18 2 12 2 12 2 I 12 Reliability of Operation 7 3 21 5 35 5 35 4 28 1 7 2 14 4 28 5 ; 35 Ability to Upgrade 5 3 15 3 15 3 15 3 15 1 5 2 10 3 15 1 5 Ability to Expand 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 3 15 2 10 2 -0 2 ; 10 Effluent Quality 7 3 21 3 21 3 21 3 21 1 7 2 14 3 :1 3 1 21 — I IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS !?� Institutional 7 3 21 1 7 1 7 4 28 5 35 3 21 2 14 3 ! 21 I Financial 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Legal 10 2 20 1 10 1 10 3 20 5 50 4 40 4 -0 3 I 30 Public Sentiment 10 3 30 2 20 2 20 6 60 6 60 4 40 5 50 1 , 10 i Agency Sentiment 10 3 30 2 20 2 20 6 60 6 60 4 40 5 53 1 , 10 I ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ) Climatological Effects 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 I 2 3 6 2 4 2 4 1 ; 2 Air Quality 2 1 I 2 1 2 I 1 2 I 1 2 7 4 1 I 2 1 2 1 ' 2 Ground Water 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 3 27 2 I 18 2 3 2 18 Soil and Geology 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 i 7 3 21 2 ( 14 2 -4 1 ! 7 Il , Vegetation 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 I 2 3 6 2 I 4 2 4 1 ' 2 Wildlife 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 6 2 I 4 2 1 2 Hydrology/Water Quality 8 3 24 3 24 3 24 3 24 2 16 2 I 16 1 3 2 '6 Aquatic Environment h 3 12 4 16 5 20 3 12 1 4 2 I 8 7 3 3 12 I Vectors 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 3 15 2 10 7 1 ; 5 i Land Use 7 2 14 1 7 1 7 2 14 3 21 3 21 3 11 1 Health and Safety 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 3 24 2 16 2 '5 2 i 16 Odor 8 1 8 2 16 2 16 2 16 3 24 3 24 4 :2 :6 Visual Impacts 4 3 12 1 4 1 4 3 12 1 8 2 8 3 '2 1 4 ` Noise 5 2 10 2 10 2 10 2 10 1 5 1 5 2 "0 2 10 Socioeconomics 0 3 24 1 8 1 8 3 24 . 4 32 3 24 2 -5 1 8 I MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS Conformanec v iti,WQMP(,oafs 2 1 2 1 2 4 2 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 4 REUSE OEPOI:Ill .Fl-ILS s I 3 15 I t' 20 5 i 25 31 15 1 10 2 I 10 i 2 i 1 i 5 TOTAI S — 377 i 329 t 34h 499 151)2 417 469 3s, (1) S=S,or,, (7) R= 1':cightcd rank,.•,ncr, R- un , We_',I f,,alor The maximum discharge of effluent will occur higher in the basin. Although Alternative 14 could provide more benefits, it may not be implementable. Therefore, this alternative cannot be the recommended wastewater management system. Of the remaining alternatives, Alternative 4 would have_more benefits than Alternative 5 and provide greater flexibility for wastewater management in the basin. CONCLUSIONS It is concluded that-- • Alternatives 4, 5, and 14 are equally cost-effective wastewater management systems. • The implementability of Alternative 14 will be contingent upon the outcome of the ongoing Big Dry Creek Facility Plan and Phase 2 of this Facility Plan. Alternative 14 can easily be adapted to the Northglenn successive use proposal . • Alternative 4 is technically and environmentally the preferred system. n South Adorns County Water and Senitdtion Disu ict should Lorri.inue to operate facilities to treat the wastewaters originating in that district. n A new institutional arrangement will be needed to implement either Alternative 4 or 14. Alternative 5 will not require new institutional management. • The Metro Sewage District Thornton/North Washington syste.n will have adequate capacity until the year 1985. n The treatment facilities presently servicing the City of Brighten will be ineufficien# to meet applicable standards by 15/8. • The. `I loo: neon EaFt Lake pump station must Le upgraded as soon as ! �1 of t /steri selected. !-1pOSSI possible, regardless the s) J 1 It is recorrlt,lcndeo that-- The South County V./titer end SzIntation District continue their ,i!tleportdcntly of ti ti` r_`}rlI y elan. C. The detoil2d c'eri.rIptton, Ir!c! C:i!1:! a R.'r'edetiiC,n, of Altcrna'!Vu 11 b? revel; -)ecn. ofAlien ! I„' C .;ntir!ucu until i:3 deckion rr,cd,` os Mcticip- Se ®-ipp6sal ®i treo .QN. 1 ALAN L.CANTER, Chairman = — �' - " • DON ALLARD,Chairman Pro Tern 6450 YORK STREET FRED N THOMAS,Secretary BORIS S VOUKOVITCH,Treasurer DENVER, COLORADO 80229 WILLIAM E.KORBITZ,P E.,Manager TELEPHONE NUMBER. 289-5941 (Date) (Address) Dear • Transmitted with this letter are copies of the Phase 1 Report for the Lower South Platte Facility Plan being developed by the Metro Sewage District accord- ing to Federal regulations. This Phase 1 Report presents the major alternatives for wastewater management systems within the basin. The report is intended as a tool to be used in the selection of an implementable wastewater system. During the months of October and November, members of the Metro staff and CH2M- Hill personnel will be visiting numerous public agencies which should be in- volved in the selection process. Your agency has been or will be contacted in the immediate future to arrange such a meeting. This meeting is intended to review the material contained in the Phase 1 Report, to answer specific questions concerning the alternatives, and most importantly to receive comments and suggestions relative to the decision as to which alterna- tive is the best for the citizens of the Lower South Platte Basin. The meeting can be held with your staff only, or can be held with your governing body. If it is desired, more than one meeting can be held to suit your needs. In November, Metro will be holding a public meeting within the Lower South Platte Basin to solicit the views of the general public. Your agency is encouraged to be represented. More information on this public meeting will be forthcoming. Following these various meetings, the District Manager will probably recommend , a wastewater management system to the Metro Board of Directors. A public hearing will also be held at the District offices to accept more comments from affected persons or agencies. The recommendation and public hearing are planned for the December 21 Board meeting. It is intended that the Board of Directors will then select a system to be implemented. Completion of the Facility Plan, including a predesign of the selected system, will follow Board action. It is hoped that we can receive in writing your agency's official position on the alternatives by December 6, 1976. EXHIBIT B (Date) (Page) We look forward to meeting with you and discussing this important aspect of local government. Very truly yours, Ray McNeill , P.E. Planning Engineer RM:ds A copy of Exhibit 1 was sent to each of the following: Mr. Richard Gerstberger City of Thornton Mr. Robert Fleming Adams County Mr. Larry Ford South Adams County Water & Sanitation District Mr. Eric Eidsness Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments Mr. Richard Lundahl City of Northglenn Mr. Ronald Hellbusch City of Brighton Mr. David Pampu Denver Regional Council of Governments Mr. Jerome Zohn City and County of Denver Wastewater Management Division Mr. Ronald Schuyler Colorado Department of Health Water Quality Control Division Mr. William H. Hormberg U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mec'ropolitan Dspve.r ®istrh t 1 ALAN L.CANTER,Chairman - DON ALLARD,Chairman Pro Tern FRED N THOMAS,Secretary 6450 YORK STREET BORIS S VOUKOVITCH,Treasurer DENVER, COLORADO 80229 WILLIAM E.KORBITZ,P E.,Manager TELEPHONE NUMBER: 289-5941 (Date) (Address) Dear • Transmitted with this letter are copies of the Phase 1 Report for the Lower South Platte Facility Plan being developed by the Metro Sewage District accord- ing to Federal regulations. This Phase 1 Report presents the major alternatives for wastewater management systems within the basin. The report is intended as a tool to be used in the selection of an implementable wastewater system. In November, Metro will be holding a public meeting within the Lower South Platte Basin to solicit the views of the general public. Your agency is encouraged to attend. More information on this public meeting will be forthcoming. It is intended that the District Manager will recommend a wastewater management system to the Metro Board of Directors on December 21 . A public hearing will also be held on that date to accept more comments from affected persons or agen- cies. The Board of Directors can then decide on a system to be implemented. Completion of the Facility Plan, including a predesign of the selected system will follow Board action. It is hoped that we can receive in writing your agency's official position on the alternatives by December 6, 1976. If additional information is desired or if you would like to meet with Metro per- sonnel , please call . Very truly yours, Ray McNeill , P.E. Planning Engineer RM:ds Enclosures EXHIBIT 2 • A copy of Exhibit 2 was sent to each of the following: Mr. Scott Tucker Mr. Bruce Rippeteau, Archaeologist Urban Drainage and Flood Control District University of Colorado Mr. Lewis Short Mr. Evan Dildine, Technical Secretary Lakewood Board of Water and Sewer Commissioners Colorado Water Quality Control Comm. Mr. Kenneth Miller Colorado Department of Health Board of Water Commissioners Permit Section Air Pollution Control Division Mr. Sherman Warburton Tri-County District Health Department Mr. Wil Ulman - Colorado Land Use Commission Mr. Chuck Turner Corp. of Engineers Mr. William Shepherd Colorado Department of Highways Mrs. Lorie Young League of Women Voters of Denver Mr. Gary Broetzman Office of the Governor Mrs. Marlene Wiske League of Women Voters of Colorado Mr. Harris Sherman Colorado Department of Natural Resources Mrs. Nancy Miller League of Women Voters of Jefferson County Mr. Roger Hansen Rocky Mountain Center on Environment Honorable Joseph Shoemaker, Senator Platte River Development Couunittee Eco-Center Environmental Clearinghouse Sierra Club, Rocky Mountain Chapter Mr. Phil Schmuck Colorado Division of Planning Mrs. Beverly Fleming Department of Local Affairs Keep Colorado Beautiful The Honorable Lester Bauer, Mayor Mr. Robert Weaver Town of Federal Heights Colorado Council of Trout Unlimited Mr. James Heck Mr. Noral Crowder Commerce City Colorado Public Expenditures Council Gary Fortner, Planning Director Mr. Felix L. Sparks Weld County Water Conservation Board Mr. Henry Burbank, Jr. Mr. James Hartmann U.S. Department of Interior Historical Society of Colorado Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Buildings and Sites Mr. Fred Caruso Mr. Tom Fisher Colorado Water Congress Farmer's Reservoir and Irrigation Company 1 -1 0 1 /t. (O'4 //A d 1 ! 1 f i ) / ' L J A public meeting will be held to review alternatives for providing wastewater treatment to the Lower South Platte Basin for the next 25 years. The area of the Lower South Platte Basin includes the communities of Brighton,Northglenn,Thornton,Fcd3ral Heights,and Commerce City,as well as unincorporated areas of Adams County which are in tho drainage area of First, Second, and Third Creeks. All interested persons are invited to attend this public meeting. Thursday, November 18, 1976 7:30-9:.0 p.m. Seminar Floem (4th floor) Adams County Administrative Bui:c'ing 450 South 4th Avenue Brighton, Colorado Further information is available by contacting Ray McNeill, Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District No.1, 289-5941, 3100 'E 601:1 Avenue, Commerce City, Colorado 80022. EXHIBIT 3 • • 6{ 7 17 a;17 till' U,7 El; gert7 114E-Li , Three public meetings have been scheduled by the Eight alternative plans were studied by Metro consul- , Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District to dis- tants for the Clear Creek basin, which includes Arvada, cuss alternative plans for three wastewater treatment Crestview, Clear Creek Valley and Wheat Ridge. Es- projects in the suburban area. The first meeing, covering the Clear Creek basin al- timated costs for two alternatives found preferable by ternatives, is scheduled at 7:30 p.m. Thursday in the the engineering consultants range from $20.9 million to - Arvada Municipal Building. $25.1 million. • Another meeting is set for Nov. 17 at Aurora Central THE SAND CREEK basin, in addition to Aurora, High School to discuss alternatives being considered for the Sand Creek basin. includes portions of Denver east of Quebec Street, the Flails for the lower Suuth Platte basin wastewater Montbello area and dfincorporated porteins of Adams treatment area will be discussed at a meeting Nok. 18 and Arapahoe Counties, at the Adams County Administration Building in Bright- Eight alternatives were considered by Metro consul- on. Both the Aurora and Brighton meetings will begin tants for the Sand Creek basin. The four preferred al- at 7:30 p in. ternatives would cost from $18.2 mil ion to 820 9 million. RECENT ENGINEERING studies conducted for Four of 13 alternatives received a preferred rating in Metro indicate that more sewage will be generated in Metro studies of the Lower South Platte basin. which the three basins than present facilities can carry or includes Brighton. Northglenn, Thornton, Federal treat. Freights, Commerce City and portions of Adams County In accordance with regulations of the G.S. Environ- in the First, Second and Third Creeks drainage areas. mental Agency (EPA). Metro has developed several al- The four preferred plans for this basin would range in ternatne sewage treatment plans for the three basins. cost from$20.4 million to$26 6 million. At The three meetings, the public will be- briefed on al- The multi-minion-dollar plans for development of ternative plans and be given an opportunity to coin- wastewater collecton and treatment facltes n the three ment. The issues to be resolved include the type of fa- basins is part of the over-all expansion and improve- cilities that should be built and where they should be ment of Metro service begun three years ago to meet located. federal and state wastewater treatment standards. • • EXHIBIT 4 O 4- Q) a) rn m McM. C 0 .> ZCI, CU RS uw D cr) z m C0 � Z Q � W OQ o N ZC U tn W c Ja 5 cc W = I" y CI. p W V W ._ .°' ago E °' 4-' Z A/ V E ch -a D cn li ^ Q �, limmi 'let a) J V J Z J o c co •- a) Q = z c C � L U V a� ii Ow N co 'O O Q (:), E co U cn IL c Q Lcn c) cu c mil co • a ca O 15 (13 t Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1 3100 East 60th Avenue Commerce City,Colorado 80022 r z 0 I, o 0 m z J 2 W O 13 9` m 0 0 4 Z Z ism 0 O < s, \ W \ �S7 v o SZZ-2\l/-- S CO) WY 0V \ ° ce WILI -L_ W z NJ a Cr J O` ~ X IAJ > S ll__I 4 0 2 R 2 (Vi 0 0 C a, 0w WW > 5Z-I w_ /..-.�-. a imi a z -- W Z O a J`'�6 . 4 3 = TIa1i'0 y•7 C) J CD 1+-I r+ 1,J- -0m Cr-I r+ -In -h CD CU CO O G.m D 'O -0 O'y•Q'fD G r3 r+ m000- eacn�O :vxoJ- 7'-'m -, OCD � m3p7-p it 3m ,. _,' cCncD ,{ c � a) <Dmmmm3.9 a � y ° a ° a'{ y1,3 ,• &coo =* Jr+ � J � '+mo � �� . ..fa) (D CU 0 CO =CD J _-. r m J CD Cn w,..* CD CD 3 m 7 • a- 7.d 7 O C) r+ -•0 �' C n C --,J+ rm+ 0 C)) CD _ 50 7 CD O CD C ., '< CD C7 -0 um CD CD I CO 7 O O ' .J '< r+ •CU Cn CD CO J m Cn .i, ci aC) CO -0 r+ R.7 r+ coCD 0-u3 C2 d,Cr.—•d f7 CD = N) 7 7 CD 7 0 CC] D CD 7+. `< rn CCD CD r7+ N,< 0 Q'CD r+ �- p ,ti+(D' 7 P. co co< CD CD ° CD N J M D o a n p G`G -i, d g d r+ 1, O y.m fD H. o n+ 7 y � (D r°'J CD � �0' CD =rp+N r+ F+D � —C � ° O J � a`°� � < � � � N N co � '* tea) 0 I eq. � - CCDDO0))A. N0'� m 0CDac CD --i'C = 0 a—I,Qr°+ ca -I o `er° '* m � � °�' � � I -0 CD O Fi a cDD 0 O 3 -, Cn C7 J 1,_..G CS 7- • ,< O' 7 CD CU C cn CD 0--1 m 7 Cn' = G.3< -� m cum r+CO T a) N co cn-.`7D d 3 <',l. o �—I� - h 0.Cn•y Q o o.a m o•3 m m � � m �°) CD ,i co , 0 o . . cD , * 7 co30•jrvr*Q 0- co =DT O0 -ooUCDCD3 * 3n'a N hyv) CD �p —I. 75 I-=� 7- 7 7 � aC�i) 'G m o �o �� mop -''y'O o rt h j o, C cp 0 0 3 h� J 7 o C �c�D —a° ��c�D �3m =,0 0w � '+ -'+, m co CD CD vaco'< 0 `_ 3 * r+ �73 CDC 0 cD �niimm 0.o -,0-0m- I- O CU°CD' 7-+ ST-3 '...F j O �'"0 C'''- 0 - 00'1. C , rt CD o -o S N O-r,CCD CU D o y 7 7 cn a C1 a s r+ f,D a 7 Oo �, y to m co j 7'r+ 3'(D 5.3'0 MI 0 ' < CD CD CD :n CD r+ FT") cJ'CcD '.'F C CD .-1:r+,rm+ H. CD '••F -, "O Q ° a CD 'f1 CD '-+ CD CD °—' co `2 J J'y m -0 'O C.r+ °' CD .,= ,,,CD Cn fD O O CCD ° C 0 ri.•n C)) 0< m '< 7 CA.) 7• CD CD <.m -p CD CD CD CD CCDD < 7- 3 m 7 O 1,m 3 m C •p. 0 r+ < 7- n 0 K H. 'Cn.F H. '-+. C� 'o J Cc -, CO 0 CDy CD CD CU CD EL= ,-,.a) _ C') H C —•CD < r+ O CD 7"M-CD H-r+ ,, CD CD Co C 0 (n CD 0 CD C) a 1, a) 0 <•'.+D y'm+ 7"h CD O J C_D �� am 3 mtm 7'07 0� � co m � < 7 .na73 7 = 7- mac m c 0-1. 3: Cn -0 N cu 3 r+,- m 0 co O m c'- y'H. �' H.O •� —S.O c.3 may _ _ �. -O mr+ a 1,1, r+ m < r+ r+ 7 -I.-, 7 -, CO 0'C<D j r+ .) 3 < ., CD CC] r+ CD _"'1 a H r+'i. °< ,-+'i• — 00D '+ C-'i) Nom) m CD J ma) CT.)(4D O S O J n'm C7' J 7 CD a J J a CD 7 0 CD 7 r+ r+ 7"6 7"FD- 7'CD 6"7-CS CD m ,-+ r+ 7 a. .� 1,CD 1,CO H. —H. Cn' y a. CL CD a r+ Cn w '< CD CD CD cn CD ,' V) CD CD CO CD 0 °) 0-H" H a) -V0) 0a aU 0.3.= 30 HH-f,conc'.f -l�73n J '+ ''O7C) a?°cc7) ac) 3CD mq 7 -cp o fl. m I y m73 u+ O CD CCD CD O Cep 7'° am+ C ,'CD C CD O D O = d 3 CD O -s r+,-0 0 u) = < O -, 0 3 S O v N m 3 J 7 7 m ° r cn r+ J •'G . -, CD 7 r+ r+ Cn -0, •C) r+ ,.,* Cn CD �*' r+ X < •7 m Z r+ O Cn O _ =O r+ ,,,F CD J -�,m r+ S 7 r+,` _„D„ on, Z co 4. CL—I y a m -, m 'O CD O 3 0 p o y''` G m �� Q�� c3Do �� mOQ°c c7i3o _�mD*ic c"iCD �� ' <f° c'+D C * J 30 0 �.0 ," mC00-CD rm+ 7 r+• r+ J ° Cn rm+ C) J '_+. '+• '.+ <'CD ry+ rF, M.CD CD CD = 6 CC n cn 7 7 —CD x 7 N C m 000, 0 -0 o 3 C m -Q�CD m � cD �-ri'e � •'< <C � �� CD-' o � �CD" O7+ ill CD ,� 7.,'c4 Do 3 �c,) N 'p J rt ea r+"0 m O '..), z rt cD .c) a O C 7 CD 7 < a r Dim O CI CD 0 _. CD CD o � 3 o n) � 7+ 3 '-'-' p m � ° - J o ' 0 umi m � � CD � CD 0" c71 °? y 0- - °_+ O g m y o -h . cu x W h m ea 0 co a p - CAD 3 ,� 7 CD v°i J'a T C) O 3, y O - -, 0''< r+ r+ 3'r7+(n J•o J D�CO g 3 *• co 7-o J • O O SD -I m 3' --r r+.7 Cmn '+ -_�+,, •J. cn J ',!� CD CD m � O m x �CD � �_ 70m � a w X , o-O-M-C ''''n _• n) m 0-„Z 0-* D rng O CD co o co 0 ,yF < -O ' m d * ,-+).° < '< m •d 7 N 0) * a) 3 ,0 CD C 3 5 7. C cD y cD H. �• co ,� o<i y y'a _a O D CD cn CCDD m -1 r] CD _a 1:j CiD CD C13 a O CD r+ n 7 CD CD 3 -% T G 7 7 m• -0 J 3 co ''G Cn M. m ,y+ 7 r+ N 0 7C"7 -. < CAD H H 7 "0 (D ,mf a 3 CD ) co< Co Co cr y atc o QH. � OR'�* OZ- 0.0 . < -,� SO a�� G'7 G).� CD 3 oa) c. CD '++ J-7 n -, �� Ca -p 7 D �'7 O � J o y a3.a—j HCO) Q -t, CD CD 0 a O-p ,.y. M C51 MC d v) J r+ CD a r+ 3 CD -* 7 r+ CD S -t CO 7 'm+ D 707 �OO3D 0003-, o c) mCOO7ocn 9' TI •am c<D c � D, co 7 =� me c) C-� D� CD m °0o rt Q = c co ma 3 CD CO < ;) y ,-f' c3c-) co °+ m -17-c30 -1nc°) m °,rt) T7-rc+-0 DCDCDDCD I <' myH CD •o r+ —7 CD CD 'C I , J 'i cn a i J' ' CU CD a 7 7 . r+ C) O0 D —I 3 � � D 0 5.F41 o-c)'Ca0J•c m 0 Z 3 O'°) * C)- GH.. ry+ 7 a Cfl 7 —•o y a-O r+ ° y.,yi, CD cn.CD ° �.E�+ ° • -} la) n., c3 � � 77 "` Jm CDcm _ O o o r+ Co 4A D N V --I c ca c'+D J O'r+.< r+ CD y c)'fa m 7 H. m e rJ+ - J CD Z 70 m r+ m C) m i,m O '+ ,_+ 0 -' oQ' CD W7' D. < CL(0•- 7- ". CD+ o ', as, '- o_-0r�r3 0 7 0.° o DcD 7 O 7 J Eon) 3 c co .0. fD J-- <' '< CC CI) CD a ° r+ r+ a a 03 C)CD o� r.+ c 3 3. o a m 5m s o cD COO ,�+ 0 a cD 'D CD 0 r+ ., 0 0 m c<D m! •P. `-° Cr C' o r+ a O 70 _. O C tn 03 MA m 3 r+ p r+ CD ca-, 'o _•S a 'y.c) C 0 0 a H. H. -Z Z y CC) r+ 01 v) rm+ c 7 R•-, m O O m 7 7 r* n `C CD m -1 '..h r+ 0 0 m Cn CD •7 CD Cn CD CD 3 CD 7 r+ CD O - - C) m+ 0`ry+ ° • < 1i nT0 o W• CD �� 7-7 ° y'CD U) 0y .p' /�� 0-• CD r+ • J Svc _+ <.y' 3M. —1 cm) 0 .,p,.. 00 „, 7 CD (D ° •J'-°o"O C7 O. CD to C 1 CU CD ? cn J r+ID D CD rte'+ zn« o S� 3 < cc o_-s-0 cfly mmS a° QoocCo � -0y Z6oOr* 3 CD r+ CD o C- 3 (n a Cp 7 =•p r*N 0 CD v 7 r* J p y p O -F o S -0 rnm o' QDD ,A ' 3 • <'c'--_ cDmmm �_—cn J Z • 0U) C/)d r+ � ,{ " 77 O 0 - 7 ° •cD C1 S cr m.O A.•F,•r+ x-Cn a Q< ' S 1i 0 < 0 m r+ 7 p m CD 7-CD x m m °� a in , 7 •-i• —7- c 3 y, m "' 1'< ") 3'3 <'rt •7mc�nS° m 31, ri•'< 73mm .37 OCD � - z co 3 con y -.� 3 ` � c cn7 r o mcD a i,-3 -, a7m D m o J' CD m 0 ,< O r+ m m r+ m n c rrlC r+ H-p m 3• im Z < r+ '< ,�'+ O � CD Cp 3 ma0 7 ) 01:3 J .7' co 7-J < m H O p r+ 7-° J r+ 3'r+ ——1 7 DJ ° 7 CD Q r+ O 7 7 y O 7 7 H. y..CDo rt CD 3 < m Q 7 CD O - CO.C 1,n —I 7'p <. N c m CO m —.co O 7-0 Ui c) c) a J i, H -1 H. cD CO CD < V a m CO m a a m 7 m r+Cl ITI r+ O Cn ,-f - IT-1 "mo m a 7' CD m 0 o rt .CD ‘,14�- ;° o- o -0 ---7 cn 3 3 m oa N m Z J m+ � cn;+ n+,o'* 3 co o 6 n 5 r+ co W -, —a c. o . y. o ° y _1 a m —•r+ CD fa) O 2 O CD p O m _. _ ° a cn ryt S 7C"C) en H. r+ CD 0 7' 7�J CO ••••-.03- C CD =gm CD CD O = 3 cn 7• 0. J•Fa' co 1,O 'O CD O Cn fD ° <•x r+ to a�.J"J 'a 7 r•h Cr! 7"C m m ay � 3y � D cn - ° 7CD � D Jcn �CDa 'i, O3 cp m aco rC°+ m D. j''* cn-o cr -io 1= •hui v) �Oha 0 co cr CDCD < 7acnCDCDn CDCDCD �'7 CD 3.(. a r+ CD 7 CD LOWER SOUTH PLATTE PUBLIC MEETING Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1 QUESTIONNAIRE NO. 1 November 18, 1976 (26 completed or partially completed) Name (Optional) Address (Optional) (21 gave name and/or address) How did you learn about this meeting? (Check the box) Brochure 0 (7) Newspaper ❑ (12) Friend ❑ (2) Other (4) Have you read the Phase 1 Report? (Check one) Yes ❑ (9) No ❑ (15) Why did you come to this meeting? (Check all appropriate answers.) Concern for the South Platte River 0 (16) Concern for your neighborhood ❑ (18) Concern about taxes and costs ❑ (16) Desire for more information ❑ (16) Not sure ❑ (0) Other Rank the uses of the South Platte River in the order of importance to you. (Most important being ranked 1, second most important ranked 2, etc.) • (Irrigation water supply ranked Fishing highest with domestic water sup- Wading ply, industrial water supply and Swimming storm drainage also very impor- • Hiking tant. Storm Water Drainage Fishing and swimming generally not very important uses.) Visual Aesthetics Domestic Water Supply Industrial Water Supply Irrigation Water Supply _ Other NOTE: Figures in parenthesis ( ) and italics are the results from the public meeting: • EXHIBIT 6 LO:7.2^. 5T,_ _.. L' ..1C =. _ Metropolitan Denver Sew ace '^_^cowl District No. 1 QUFSTICN:;:IR% NO. 2 • November 18, 1976 (17 completed or partially completed) Name (Optional) . Address (Optional) (14 gave name and/or address) Considering the alternatives, rate the following factors from 10 to 1 in the order of importance to you (most important being ranked 10) . Most Least Important Important Cost 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (7.06) Energy and Chemical Consumption 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (5.63) • Water Quality 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (8.19) Land Use 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (6.93) Odor and Visual Impact 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (7.75) Water Rights 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (7.81) Stream Flow Augmentation 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 . (5.61) Health and Safety 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (7.71) Aquatic Life 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (3.50) Do you believe t'at wastewater treatment should be centralized if - c. ntra li at_orl i .^ea ....'1•_ cost? (Cc,.lsolic :.tier_ ma , =an a icss of local autonomy. ) (Check one) Yes LJ (8) No ❑ (12) - If yes, how much savings is necessary to justify centralization? (Check one) 10% ❑ (2) 20% O (4) 40 L•j (2) Based on personal preference, rate the alternatives as very acceptable, acceptable or unacceptable. (Check the boxes) • Very Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable • Alternative 1 O (0) O (4) ❑ (10) Alternative 2 O (0) O (4) 0 (10) Alternative 3 O (0) O (5) ❑ (9) Alternative 4 0 (4) ❑ (3) 0 (7) Alternative 5 O (7) 0 (6) 0 (2) Alteinative 6 ❑ (7) ❑ (8) 0 (1) • Alternative 7 O (0) O (5) ❑ (9) Alternative 8 ❑(0) O (6) 0 (8) Alternative 9 ❑(1) ❑ (4) ❑ (9) Alternative 10 ❑(2) 0 (5) O (9) Alternative it O(1) O (3) ❑(10) Alternative 12 0(0) O (0) 0(14) Alternative 13 0(0) 0 (0) ❑(14) . Which ch alternative do you think —ould be the best :,y stem for the Lower South Platte Bain? (Alt. 4 3 Alt. 6 5 Alt. 10 1 Alt. 5 5 Alt. 9 9) • If you ha,? to chi` _ 1,ot'.., '^ the f '1r 31 _ l..:1,' . - lain;rc irtr"" th•: n;-qle:i'f i dar) 11_ n < < 1 I ! ( ",l ...'I . ‘ %-,, ; r i E,g cf SIT 7 - -_i 1 o error in i,1t.v. 'i t r_ i 1t(_1 - L \ , Fl (Over) question.) Additional co=.ants on the altcrnativ2s or on t'ls rublic _ �et_n NOTE: Figures in parenthesis ( ) and italics are the results from the public meeting. • • • Li ® 7 l4 7 irjva..7Etitariffs A ';/A: .c: Za a (-): L.)1(;)//,-;:-7 73 tr,AP 2...----7 i.7 r--tr 7\,,r"]llu � ©r ' v 1 r?i ,,c ,, r ,,,:Th 1 ,_By JIM KIRKSEY "unique concept" in urban-rural water Thornton would be freed of its respon- Denver Post Staff Writer management. sibility to serve about 33,000 water users NORTIIGLENN — Northglenn and the "This is the first time in my experi- in Northglenn. That should mean, Be n- ence, and certainly the first time in the der added, that Thornton wouldn't nerd Farmers' Reservoir and Irrigation Co. (FRICO) entered into an agreement metropolitan area, that an urban area and the Standley Lake water it is attempting Thursday night to share FRICO's water a rural area are going to work together to ccndemn. in Standley Lake. so both can survive," Musick said. THE ONLY COST TO Northglenn for The agreement calls for water stored in Instead of losing their water to other using the farmers' water is for treating Standley Lake to be pumped directly to cities, he added, the farmers have joined it and augmenting it by 10 per cent, all Northglenn, where it would be treated for with Northglenn for joint use of the water at much less cost than if the city were domestic use. The city then would collect at a "cost much less for both parties and to purchase all the water it would need. the waste water and storm runoff, treat with greater benefits." Musick predicted that the city's pro- it and recycle it back to the FRICO THE CONTRACT IS subject to condem- posed system could be "more economi- shareholders for agricultural use. nation suits filed against the water in cal to operate than any other system in The agreement accompanied an an- question by Thornton and Westminster. the United States." nouncement by city officials of North- Thornton currently supplies- water to One other hurdle Northglenn must clear glenn's intent to create its own water Northglenn residents, much to the cha- before the plan can be realized is an and sewer system. grin of Northglenn officials, and there is estimated $20 million bond issue to build a long-standing and still-unresolved legal the water and sewer system. The issl2 THE AGREEMENT was lauded as "his- battle between the two cities over t h e will be put to a vote of the people within tonic" and "unique" by speakers at the ownership of portions of the Thornton six months, according to Bender. special meeting of the Northglenn City water and sewer system within North- In a statement prepared by Bender and Council. - glenn. read Thursday night by Northglenn May- John Musick Jr., an attorney who was Stan Bender, Northglenn city manager, or Al Thomas, it was noted that city - part of the city's study group that put the pointed out that with Northglenn creat- residents currently pay about $1.8 millica package together, called the pact a ing its own water and sewer system, a year to Thornton for water and sewer services. ACCORDING TO the statement, the cost rxxY uati;ava J of paying off the $20 million in bonds plus • operating the system would be S20-"w = less per year per household "than the /f .-:-.1:---...----:- _=-_= r •.h amount anticipated to be paid to Thorn- 4,-1.-...,-2 r r L ue :- __ -= r� ton." _ When the bonds are retired, Thomas ry„,?,5 said, the cost would drop even more and -"- _P7 "will amount to a reduction of about $f:3 __ per year per household. Kr�^ ou�sa Adolph Bohlender, president of FRICO, • rcX ;a.,�4 expressed his appreciation of the city's to,::mepn%Tx efforts. � d " r• s/Lc-t>o�µ�N Y„- �.,me Fecrat PYii;r'v.; ,..1:.L,:t,c'u PROPOSED PATH OF WATER FROM STANDLEY ANDLEY LAKE TO FARMERS' LAND Under plan, Northglenn would return 10 per cent more water than borrowed. EXHIBIT 8 LARIMER - WELD REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS �r �t PHONE (303) 667-3288 \t ROOM 201 _ 201 EAST 4th STREET LOVELAND, COLORADO 80537 November 9 , 1976 Mr. Ray McNeill, P.E. Planning Engineer Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1 3100 East 60th Avenue Commerce City, Colorado 80022 Dear Ray: I wish to express my appreciation to you and Rob Williams for visiting us in Loveland on Wednesday, November 3 , 1976 , to discuss your Lower South Platte Facility Plan Phase I report. Attached are our comments regarding that report. We hope you will find them useful , and we look forward to working with you in the future. Very truly yours , rF. A. Eidsness , Jr. Director, 208 Areawide Planning FAE:psj Enc. cc: Mr. Robert B. Williams Mr. Jack Hibbert 'l LARIMER - WELD REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS t•. �t_y� PHONE (303) 667-3288 ROOM 201 / 201 EAST 4th STREET LOVELAND. COLORADO 80537 REVIEW OF "LOWER SOUTH PLATTE FACILITY PLAN - PHASE 1 REPORT" FOR METROPOLITAN DENVER SEWAGE DISPOSAL DISTRICT NO. 1 SUMMARY The specific alternative selected by Metro Denver is of little concern to the Larimer-Weld region. However, it appears that the alternative will result in the discharge of an estimated 26 , 800 tons of salts annually and on undetermined quantity of nitrates and heavy metals to the South Platte River just upstream of the Weld County line by the year 2000 . A number of communities in Weld County are totally dependent on the alluvial aquifers of the South Platte Basin for water supply. In addition, a considerable amount of irrigated acreage is dependent on groundwater. Historical data indicates that the alluvial aquifers of the lower South Platte already exhibit excess salinity, particularly with regards to drinking water standards . A number of communities are suffering from excess nitrates in their drinking water. Furthermore , it would appear that there is a possibility that the Denver Metro dis- charge would use up the entire wasteload allocation of the lower South Platte River for ammonia. If this occurs , communities such as Fort Lupton would become located in a water quality limited seg- ment and ammonia removal would be required in the future. This would greatly increase the cost of wastewater treatment to Fort Lupton and possibly other communities. As a result of the review of the Facilities Plan, we have identified matters of concern to the Larimer-Weld region. These concerns are : 1. The impact of increased salinity , heavy metals , and nitrate loading on the groundwater quality which will affect the ability of communities in the region to meet drinking water standards imposed under the Safe Drinking Water Act; 2. The impact of increased salinity loading on future agricultural production; 3. The impacts of degrading water quality and including dischargers at Weld County and water quality limited segments , thus increasing their cost of treatment; 4. The impact of the alternative on air quality , including indirect impact such as promoted growth resulting from the implementation of an alternative. These critical considerations have not been addressed in the Denver Metro Facility Plan. Reivew of Facility Plan Page Two COMMENTS No comments are offered on the first three sections of the report which are entitled "Introduction, " Existing Facilities , " and "Population Wastewater Flows . " SECTION 4 - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS Under the heading of "DRCOG Water Quality Management Plan, " it is stated that, "The modeling (by DRCOG) identifies three potential problems which impact aesthetics and secondary contact recreation in the South Platte River. The three parameters of concern are phosphorous (F) , total nitrogen content (Total.-N) , and fecal conforms (coil) . " This is followed by a rather standard section which describes the impact of BOD, suspended and soluble solids , dissolved oxygen, chlorine, fecal coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorus on beneficial uses. The report then jumps to the concluding section entitled "Proposed Effluent Quality. " No rela- tionship is established between beneficial uses in the South Platte below the proposed point of discharge , i .e. , near Brighton, and effluent qualities proposed in the report. The report, which was prepared by CH2M-Hill, does state that the results of the "DRCOG Modeling Program have been discussed with both DRCOG staff as well as the technical consultant to DRCOG in 1n e ffori- to Psi_ahl i of the required, equired effl'.ont qualities for d :ch_`rge to the South Platte River. " it should be~noted that the DRCOG Technical Consultant is CH2M-Hill. In the section under "Proposed Effluent Quality , " the state- ment is made as follows : "At present the State Discharge Control System does not account for the dilution effect of the water in the receiving stream. As a result, tlae State is now studying the stream classifications with the objectiveof establishing in-stream water quality standards for municipal discharges. " This report, which was published in September of 1976 does not recognize the fact that waste load allocations were conducted in the initial DRCOG 3-C Water Quality Management Program, and in the Water Quality Management Plan for the South Platte River Basin . Both of these plans were adopted by the Water Quality Control Commission in November 1974 . Both of these plans established in--stream limitations on municipal discharges in accordance with PL 92-500 which was passed in 1972. Also under the section entitled "Proposed Effluent Qualities , " it is stated that "To achieve standards sot by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, any proposed facility in the South Platte Basin will have to produce an effluent with less than 20 mg/1 of BOD and suspended solids and less than 3 mg/1 of ammonia nitrogen. " There is no known basis for stating that: all proposed facilities in the South Platte Basin will have to moot these standards . It should be noted that these standards were , in some cases , established as a result of wasteload allocations conducted by DRCOG and the State of Colorado in the development of the Peter Quality Management Plan for the South Platte. However, these are net general rules . Dis- charge standards may be nrorc stringent or less stringent , depending on in-stream water quality impacts . Review of Facility Plan Page Three Although the initial statements indicate that nitrate is recognized to be a problem, there are no limitations placed on nitrates in Table 4 - "Proposed Effluent Quality for Discharge to the South Platte River. " The report recognizes that nitrate con- centrations in excess of 10 mg/1 (as nitrogen) in drinking waters have been shown to cause methemoglobinemia in infants less than three months old. The report does not recognize the fact that many communities along the Platte River in Weld County, which are depen- dent on groundwater for drinking supplies , suffer from excess con- centrations of nitrates in those supplies . The only limitation indicated is for ammonia nitrogen. It can be anticipated that any of the discharge schemes for the lower South Platte Basin will affect nitrate concentrations in both the South Platte River and the alluvial aquifers of the South Platte River in Weld County. No mitigative measures for this increase in concentration are indicated in the report. Regarding the limitation for ammonia nitrogen, a limit of 3 mg/1 or less is proposed. A 7-day, 10-year low flow at the Henderson Gage is 46 cfs . The proposed effluent discharge for the year 2000 is 27 mgd, or 41 cfs . This almost 1 to 1 dillution would result in ammonia nitrogen concentration in the stream of 1 . 5 mg/1 , or slight]y higher. This is the limit allowed by EPA and the State due to the fact that concentrations of ammonia in excess of ] . c mg/ are gene l l y aeeepte0 to be tr." 4 c *O f 4 c-h life Discharge by the proposed plant of 3 mg/1 would use up the entire wasteload allocation of the lower. South Platte area. Brighton would not be affected by this plan since it is incorporated into the discharge . However, Fort Lupton would be directly affected by this in-stream limitation. If the discharge at Fort Lupton , which is only a few miles downstream of the proposed discharge , resulted in violation of the stream standard of 1. 5 mg/1 , both the Denver Metro Plant and the Town of Fort Lupton would be in violation of "in-stream" water quality standards. Under existing interpretations of the dsfj ni_tion of "water qud_lity limited segments , " both Fort Lupton and the Denver Metro P] anb would be required to reduce dis- charges of ammonia nitrogen to the stream. Addition of niLrification facilities to the Torn of Fort Lupton would creat tremendous addi- tional enq)ense for the consLruction and operation of their treatment plant. The major question that arises is who is responsible for this expense , if it is incurred. In addition to the items mentioned above , it is quite possible that in-stream stair ards for residual chlorine would not be met with the proposed discharge limit at . 05 mg/1. The State has a] ready cs t eLL fished i n-stream limitations for municipal dlschnrcters in all streams in the State of Colorado. The proposed cfiluenL of the Denver Metro discharge in the Lower Platte river ref] c cted :: 11 the report do not reflect these in-stream ]_imitation:; . Review of Facility Plan Page Four SECTION 5 - ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS The report indicates that opportunities for industrial or domestic reuse cannot be identified within the planning period. If water rights limitations can be resolved, then urban irriga- tion (parks , golf courses) become a possibility for reuse. The question of urban reuse is left hanging and no positive or negative indication is provided. On the question of agricultural reuse, the report lists a number of structural and non-structural factors (page 27) which would influence the decision. It is concluded "because of the estimated time constraints and the high cost, an agricultural reuse system has not been considered any further in this facility plan. " There are a number of things which have not been considered, including the fact that the in-stream limitations for the discharge into the South Platte may call for much higher effluent qualities than indicated in Section 4 of the report. If that is the case , overcoming problems associated with agricultural reuse may be much cheaper than providing very advanced waste treatment techniques. Additional expenses could be incurred when the State of Colorado realizes that ammonia removal to protect fish life may not be effective without pH control. Undoubtedly, the Denver Metro dis- charge of the Lower South Platte unit will affect pH in the South Platte River. At 20 degrees C. , toxicity of ammonia to fish at a pH of 6 4s 51 mg/' and at a pH of 9 is . 0725 ma/1. In light of L these considerations , it is quite possible that both the structural and non-structural problems associated with agricultural reuse could be overcome economically. SECTION 6 - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Section 6 indicates that Alternatives 9 , 10 , and 11 are the most cost effective . Effluent Quality The report states that the total dissol_-ed solids content of wastewater is increased by about 10 percent in an infiltration/ percolation system. This implies that consumptive use of approximately 4 cfs for the year 2000 flow, or 3, 000-acre-feet per year. The report indicates that the acceptable limit for drinking water is 500 mg/1. It is a fact that most of the communities served by ground- water in South Weld County , and this includes practically all of the small communities, are presently in excess of the accepted drinking water limits . No consideration is given in the report to the long- term impacts of increased salinity resulting from the Denver Metro discharge . Legal • No consideration is given to the water rights implications resulting from consumptive use of 3 ,000 acre-feetper year by the infiltration/percolation method. This ponderous question should be considered during the facilities planning stage before it is raised by downstream water users . Review of Facility Plan Page Five Groundwater The report does not recognize the long-term implications of increased salinity, heavy metals , and nitrate loading on the alluvial aquifer of the South Platte Basin. As mentioned above, this long-term impact will have an effect on drinking water supplies , in several communities . Proposed EPA drinking water standards limit concentration of heavy metals in drinking water supplies . No reference is made to the impact of heavy metals under the long- term loading conditions proposed. The report indicates that "the potential build-up of heavy metals and salts in the soil profile of the infiltration/percola- tion basins presents a possibility of leaching to the groundwater. " The report does not reflect that inevitably practically all the heavy metals and salts discharged by the Denver Metro Plant will find their way into the alluvial groundwater basins of the South Platte. This will occur either through the fact that at certain times of the year the South Platte replenishes alluvial groundwater basins , or through the fact that at certain points on the Platte during the irrigation season the river is dried up entirely by diversions . These diversions are subsequently applied to the land as irrigation water. The proposed year 2000 discharge of 27 mgd will add 26 , 800 tono of salt anreaally to the Platte , and an undetermined quantity of heavy metals. We recognize that this extremely complex question has not been addressed in facilities plans developed in Colorado to date. How- ever, because of the magnitude of discharge and its potential impact on a basin already experiencing excess salinity and nitrates , these problems should be considered by the Denver Metro District. Vegetation/Wildlife It is stated that no significant impacts on native flora are anticipated. The reason for this is that the study area has "supported extensive agricultural activity for approximately 100 years. " This proponderance of irrigated agriculture makes one question why the agricultural reuse alternative was (1) eliminated in the initial phase of planning, and (2) was the most expensive alternative involved. It is possible that construction of a biolog- ical treatment plant was anticipated as part of the agricultural reuse system. If this is the case , the comparison between the agricultural reuse system and the infiltration/percolation system is biased by the fact that the infiltration/percolation system required only the construct of aerated lagoons . The intent of the paragraphy "IIydroloay/Water Quality" is unclear. The paragraph states that continued monitoring wn_ t1 he conducted by numerous agencies , that DT:COG will determine the most practical program for insuring protection of surface and ground- %Tater resources , and that tie exi sin j ever age annual flow of the South Platte P,ivor is approximately 5S percent Metro Denver effluent as measured at Oenderson . No cone n Ions are prrvidcd, Review of Facility Plant Page Six The eater quality impact of the proposed 27 mgd discharge can only be properly evaluated according to EPA regulations when . considered in the context of low flow conditions. Reference to average annual flows are meaningless from a regulatory standpoint in determining water quality impacts . Since the intent of PL 92-500 is to provide for fishable and swimmable waters were attainable , it would appear that a more intensive analysis of hydrology and water quality is called for before a decision can be made regarding an alternative. In addition , there should be some analysis of the attainability of the 1983 goals of PL 92-500 in this section of the Platte before the alternative can be selected. This might have a tremendous influence on the level of treatment required. Alternative Comparison Summary A scoreboard is presented for the alternatives . In general , we wish to offer no comment on the results of the scoreboard approach. This approach is a simplistic quantification of subjective information . We assume it was prepared to assist the lay person in understanding of the best alternatives. However, we would hope that the report or supplemental documents would document in detail the cos t-effect;ve analysis traditionally used in addition to the subjective evaluaticns . ) 10701 Melody Dr., Suite 313 • Northglenn, Colo. 80234 • (303) 451-8326 November 15, 1976 Mr. William Korbitz, P.E. Manager Metro Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1 3100 E. 60th Avenue Commerce City, Colorado 80022 Dear Bill: It was good talking to you last week and I at looking forward to receiving a copy of the paper presented in your session at Washington, D.C. " . . .Sludge treatment using. . • invertebrates" . As we discussed, Northglenn i s proceeding with a predesian report for facilities to y treat sewage effluent and most of the stor.� runoff and lawn irrigation return flows from within the City. This is part of the Northglenn City Council Land and Water Resources Management Plan and our agreement with the FaLnuers Irrigation and Reservoir Company. The Lower South Platte Facility Plan mentions that Agricultural reuse of Wastewater is perhaps the most feasible reuse alter- native for the Lower South Platte Basin because of the many existing irrigation ditches, The report went on to say, how- ever, that because of water rights problems, time problems, and high costs, an agricultural reuse system was not considered in the alternatives. . The City of Northglenn and the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company believe that agricultural reuse is the most cost effec- tive for Northglenn and the farmers because it is part: of a total water resources management plan. • Northglenn will therefore complete, using local funds, a pre- design rcnort for sewage treatment facilities required to handle our needs and to meet our commitments to the Far,lcrs Reservoir --1- and Irriga icn Cc::nan v. We e::pect this report to be completed by early February, but will be in regular contact with Metro Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1, the City of Westminster, the Denver Regional Ceuzcil of Governments and other affected . • parties to assure a coordinated es :ort. It is e':pected that our i'redesi gn report will be integrated into both the Lower South Platte and Big Dry Creek Facility Plans by addendum or • other appropriate means. If you have any questions or would like further clarification, please give me a call. Sincerely, & •,, ,,,9,--'R Richard P. Lundahl Director of Public Works RPL:ji ANNS COL1A,io? ✓ 6595 EAST 7OTH AVENUE COMMERCE CITY,COLORADO 80022 TELEPHONE 303 268-2646 November 9, 1976 Mr. Ray McNeill , P.E. Planning Engineer • Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1 3100 East 60th Avenue • Commerce City, Colorado 80022 Dear Mr. McNeill : During the November 1 , 1976 meeting at which we discussed your Lower South Platte Facility Plan Phase 1 Report, you requested that our District respond in writing to the alternatives presented in your report, as they affect our District. We have reviewed your report and are in agreement with the idea of maintaining and expanding our existing treatment works to treat our own wastewater throughout the planning period. Your report states that the four alternatives that appear to be most feasible at this time incorpor- ate this approach with regard to our wastewater. You have reached this conclusion from your basin-wide approach to the problem. Our own analysis of the problem, as contained in our Facilities Plan, shows that from our point of view, it is most economical for us to continue to treat and dispose of our wastewater at our existing plant site. We feel that this approach has environmental benefits as well , since it will make maximum use of existing resources and since we believe that the South Platte River will be better able to assimilate our discharge at its present location than at a downstream regional plant discharge. Although you find it to be lower in cost, we also have to question whether your Alternative No. 10, which provides for treatment of the total basin flow, including our District, in infiltration percolation basins located at 164th Avenue, would be acceptable to the people of the basin. It appears to us that another liability of this plan is the greater potential danger of groundwater contamination in the basin. This is a significant problem now. Also, if the communities of Westminster, Thornton and North- glenn do not contribute all of their future wastewater flow to your District, this would appear to make the total basin approach unfeasible. Mr. Raj/ McNeill , P.E. Page 2 November 9, 1976 . Regarding disposal of sludge from your planned facilities, we understand • that you intend to pump this material to a regional air drying and distributing area located approximately twenty-five miles east of the existing metro plant. We do not object to this approach, provided ade- • quate safeguards against nuisance conditions and public health hazards, including ground water contamination, are maintained. We are committed to implementing the recommendations presented in our Facility Plan and hope that with the completion of your plan, we may now proceed with this work as soon as possible. . Very truly yours, SOUTH ADAMS COUNTY WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT �2.--z�1 //G' _- �Lar4y--fL. Ford, Manager LLF:lb cc: Mr. Ron Schuyler, Colorado Department of Health Mr. William Bertram, Environmental Protection Agency 4 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF MEAL1H Division a70.f ,tA..gp of AIR POLLUTION CONTROL INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION TO Mr. Ken Webb DATE November 15, 1976 Water Quality and Engineering ' FROM: A. C. Bishard SUBJECT: Additional Comments on Clear Creek, Sand Creek, and Lower ,South Platte 201 Facilities Plans Per your request we have made an additional evaluation of the above mentioned documents. If any new waste treatment facilities are constructed which utilize an anaerobic digester, this :articular process has been found to be a major source of odors. We would recommend that appropriate air pollution control technology (i.e. chemical scrubber) be applied to this source to reduce the air quality impact to the greatest possible extent. Any proposed flow equalization facility is also a potential source of odorous emissions. We would recommend that such a process be designed and maintained to preclude the emission of malodorous compounds. The sludge disposal techniques by land application may also be a potential source of odorous emissions. This is especially true if untreated or partially treated sludge is disposed of in this manner. As was stated in our previous memo, our main concern is that whatever new waste treat- ment facilities are necessary to meet both present and future needs, that they be designed, constructed and operated sufficient to maintain continuous com- pli ance--- ance with Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation No. 2, a copy of which is attached. We have no further comments at this time. JSK:pm Attachment cc: Robert D. Siek t✓ Signas-u. e AD BUS-29 (10-29- 100) COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Division L4ixx&mfXXIC n of AIR POLLUTION CONTROL INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION TO Robert D. Siek DATE : October 18, 1976 SUBJECT: Clear Creek, Sand Creek, FROM: A. C. Bishard Lower South Platte Facility Plans The above mentioned document has been received and carefully reviewed by Division personnel. Our main concern is that whatever new wastewater treat- ment facilities are necessary to meet both present and future needs, that they be designed, constructed and operated sufficient to maintain continuous compliance with applicable emission standards. This is especially true for the emission of odorous compounds which is covered under Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation No. 2. We would also agree with the documents that a significant air quality impact would be the fugitive dust emissions during construction. If more than five acres of land is disturbed by grading, excavating, or other such activities, a fugitive dust emission permit is required from the Air Pollution Control Division. However, even though no permit is required, we would recommend that fugitive dust control plan be implemented to reduce these impacts to the greatest possible extent. We have no further comments at this time. JSK:pm 1 '9( 0 - / AD i,UL-29 (1^0--29. 100) L >1- ti . ,roF • • COLORADO DEPARTMENT or HEALTH 4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE • DENVER, COLORADO 80220 • PHONE 388-6111 Anthony Robbins, M.D., M.P.A. Executive Director November 16, 1976 Mr. Ray McNeill, P.E. Metro Denver Sewage Disposal District #1 6450 York Street Denver, Colorado 80229 Re: Comments on Phase I Facilities Plans for Loner South Platte, Sand Creek, and Clear Creek Dear Ray: Our planning section has submitted to me extensive comments on these plans and I am enclosing a copy of that :memorandum from Ken Webb. They will not be reiterated in this letter. From comments recieved from our district engineers, I would like to add a fow additional points. As fur as the Laaer South Platte plan is concerned, we agree that the South Adams County Water and Sanitation District facility should remain in operation. We also feel that Alternative #4 would be the best choice, based on the information provided. A major advantage is that new service areas can be served by gravity flow. With regard to the Sand Creek plan, we would like to emphasize that since Alternatives #1 and #6 do not allow Aurora to reuse their west slope water, they should be considered infeasible at this time. Reuse by Aurora should be a prerequisite for any plans considered. Thus, alternative #3 would be the best plan, with alternative #2 also being acceptable. As with Sand Creek, reuse of trans-mountain water should be of primary consideration in screening alternatives for Clear Creek. Since the number of entities that could be involved in reuse is far greater in Clear Creek than in Sand Creek, a satisfactory solution will obviously be more difficult to obtain. Such a solution will probably involve at least one (and possibly more) in-basin treater.:nt facilities. Thus, the various alternatives pre- sented which involve treatment within the basin are acceptable, based on the information provided. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, . FO. 'RECTOR, TER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION _ ames Daber Domestic Waste Consultant Technical Services and Grants Section JD/vg Enclosures cc: W. H. Hormberg, EPA Grants Dereld Lang Far]. Balkum 4, a; COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Water Quality Control Division MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Daber, Technical Services Section FROM: Ken Webb, Planning Section DATE: November 15, 1976 SUBJECT: Phase 1201 Facilities Plans (Lower Platte, Sand Creek, Clear Creek) . Comments on Phase I plans referred to above are as follows: Lower South Platte Facility Plan: I am somewhat disturbed by the manner in which the effluent standards are presented in this plan (Table 4, P. 23) , as well as the Sand Creek and Clear Creek plans. Ordinarily, effluent standards for treatment plants are derived by calculating the assimilative capacity of the stream in pounds (or other units of measurements) at critical flows and then relating this to the hydraulic flow of the plant . Since all three plans contain the same concentrations for various stream flow conditions and at various plant flows it would appear to me that the effluent limitations may - have been derived by describing what DRCOG or their consultants have determined as BPWTT and applying these values as effluent standards. In-so-far as I know, EPA has not described BPWTT for municipal wastewater treatment plants. I have discussed the above comment with Jack Hibbert of the DRCOG' s staff and he assures me that based on predictive modeling by the Hydro comp model that if the effluent standards contained in Table 4 are achieved that the water quality of the South Platte will meet the 1983 standards. Therefore, based on Jack' s assurances I will no longer belabor this point, but maybe the proposed effluent standards should be presented in a different manner, i .e. , presented in a way to emphasize levels of treatment to meet 1983 water quality goals rather than BPWTT. On page 22 a statement is made to th3 effect that the Division does not consider the dilution effects- of stream flow in writing discharge permits. This statement is false and should be removed from all three plans. We always consider stream flow in determining discharge permits and I don' t know where this idea originated. Sand Creek Facility Plan: Same comments as above apply to Phase I of this plan. In addition, we think alternatives 1 and 6 should have been eliminated from other than preliminary consideration because neither alternative provides for water reuse. Since Aurora does have the legal right to reuse their transmountain water, and have indicated they intend to do so, alternatives 1 and 6 are not viable and should not have been subject to cost-effective analysis. Clear Creek Facility Plan: An additional alternative should have been evaluated which would have provided for a treatment plant site location near Golden, unless a water trade-off scheme is available below the proposed Youngfield and 40th Street location. Even if this Memo to Jim Daber, Technical Services Section November 15, 1976 page 2 is available any water reuse scheme probably would require pumping back to Golden. On page 30 in the Table for present worth cost of alternatives it indicates alternative 8 is less than alternative 2, yet alternative 8 requires AWT otherwise they are essentially the same. I understand the difference is that alternative 8 considers some revenue from sale of effluent. I think this should be stated for sake of clarity in comparing the present worth costs of the alternatives. General Comments common to all three plans: The cover letter solicits comments on preferences of the various alternatives pre- sented. Since all alternatives presented are supposed to provide the same level of treatment we do not think the planning section should express a preference, but rather this should be a choice of the residents affected. The technical services section may have a preference from an operational and maintenance point of view. • Other policies which you may wish to consider before finalizing the draft plan are related to recent actions and decisions of the Water Quality Control Commission. It may soon become a policy of the Commission that land treatment schemes may not require full secondary treatment (as described by effluent standards) before being applied to the land. This could lower secondary treatment costs before final treat- ment in the cost effective analysis. The Commission is also evaluating the overall or long-term costs in meeting the 1985 goals of P. L. 92-500. In other words, the initial costs of meeting the '85 goals may appear to be more at this point in time but may be less in the "long-haul " than staged construction for meeting ' 77, '83, and then ' 85 goals. I would suggest Metro and DRCOG meet with the Commission at the earliest possible date after your public hearings to discuss these 201 plans as they will more or less dictate the direction of the Metro area 208 plan. K -i\neth U. Webb, P. E. , Chief Watr Quality Management Planning Section KWW: bis • • City of Brighton, Colorado Statement concerning Lower South Platte Waste Treatment Facility Plan at November 18, 1976 Public Meeting, Brighton, Colorado. • The City of Brighton has completed a Waste Treatment Study dated November 5, 1976 through its consulting engineers, Henningson, Durham, Richardson, Inc. of Denver. This report was coordinated with the Metro Denver District No. 1 study prepared by its consultant CH2M Hill, Inc. of Denver, the City' s engineering report was required by EPA as step one in the City and Region' s effort to provide adequate waste treatment capacity and water quality for future years . The City is concerned about proper waste treatment facilities for its projected growth area and surrounding region. Various alternate schemes were studied ranging from expanding treatment plant capacity for just Brighton' s growth area to serving the territory South of Brighton to and including the Thornton-North-. glenn communities. The City recognizes the need to look regionally beyona its present City limits for utility planning and is willing to do so. By the same token, we recognize an equal reality 5n following. reasonable guidelines in determining an appropriate area in which to plan for future utility service. Therefore, it is the City' s desire to pursue a course that addresses (1) the City' s current needs (2) the City' s projected growth area and regional populations _ and (3) the City' s size and capability of implementing a reasonable waste treatment management system and operation. Therefore, the City favors developing a new treatment plant with a 5.0 mgd capacity to serve Brighton and its 1981-2000 population of 25 ,000, and the first, second and third Creek basins . This approach is supported by the following considerations: 1. The service area considers -a regional boundary beyond the City limits that will experience growth and utility service. 2. The construction of a treatment facility at Brighton will result in less energy consumption and more efficiency thatn a pumping system which would be required under other alternatives studied. 3. The proposed service region does, by natural topography, p p g drain into the Brighton area. 4. The proposed 5.0 mgd plant in Brighton has been shown to be cost-effective; one of four management systems supported by -2- the Metro Denver District 1 Study; capable of serving a regional area beyond the City; and within the capabilities of operation and management of ,he City of Bri 6bton. 5 . Brighton is willing to Leccrne a lead agency in cooperation with Metro Denver District No. 1, for what would be designated as a second plait in the Lower South Platte Basin. This , then, at this time , is the City of Brighton' s views after study and review wa th our cru.sultant ' a report; and the Denver Metro District No. 1 staff uric engineers. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS JACK KINSTLINGER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR r �;sue SH 76 proposed pro j ec DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS W7 DISTRICT 6 E. N. HAASE R.R. J. BRASHER CHIEF ENGINEER N0< . DISTRICT ENGINEER s1NE N`,e STATE OF COLORADO . 2000 SOUTH HOLLY • DENVER, COLORADO 80222 • (303) 757.9252 November 24, 1976 Mr. Ray McNeill, P.E. Planning Engineer Metropolitan Dente Sewage Disposal District #1 3100 East 60th Avenue Commerce City, Colorado 80022 Dear Mr. McNeill: Thank you for coming to our offices and presenting your plan for proposed Clear Creek, Sand Creek and Lower South Platte River facilities that are being deve- loped by your organization. It is apparent that some of the proposed facilities will encroach within Hichwav T r _ ___ 1 _.,,_ •_. _ r•�_ will l b .:loot happy t� ct i 11.�'ll(,�UL•-\'1 c�y Pl. VULL✓uJ Lv\...�L-✓al.�♦ ��1, \.L11 ul. aa.✓.�... •a..t.�y �..i coordinate .....�—vz"- ties between our agencies during your and our construction periods. If you should desire information concerning proposed construction projects on Interstate Highway 76, or other proposed Highway projects, please contact Mr. Hugh Pape, District 06, Design Engineer, 7;7-9255. For coordination of installa- tion and permit issuance for facilities proposed within rights-of-way of exist- ing Highway right-of-way, please contact Mr. William S. Shepherd, Highway Main- tenance Superintendent, 757-9329. Our office is located at 2000 South Holly Street, Room 7.03, Denver, Colorado 80222. There my also be some Highway projects planned on roadways that are on the Urban System, which are not included on the State, Highway System. If there is any in- dication of involvement with such Urban Projects, or for other information con- cerning such Projects, please contact our District Urban Systems Engineer, Mr. Harry Sabin, 757-9210. As we mentioned to you at Cie time of your visit to our office, we cannot permit any installation within the Interstate Highways or Freeways that requires work- , ing from the main lanes or ramp of the freeway. . All crossings of highways shall be by method of tunnel liner or jacking beneath the Highway to prevent interfer- ence with Highway traffic and roadway damage. It nay be advisable to maintain close communication with our Design Section re- garding proposed installation along interstate Highway 76 in Jefferson and Adams County. Some encasement pipes may be places; across the I i_ghway during Highway eoasta action to accommodate pipe that your orgamiration may be planning to in- stall at a later date. PAGE 2 SH 76 proposed projec: TO: Mr. Ray McNeill, P.E. FROM: Mr. William S. Shepherd • We would appreciate receiving any construction plans that you develop at an early date so that we can review them and have sufficient time to present our comments. Please keep in mind that all work involving Interstate Highways will require approval of the Federal Highway Administration. It may require up to thirty (3O) days time to receive such approval. Where necessary, we must have four copies of your plans for submittal to different offices. - Please contact us at any time for additional information or assistance on this project. Very truly yours, R. J. BRASHER District Engineer r, l ) By \,0, r 1 ≤ A ;\ , , , �.�� X�.,,�,-, , J, SHEP;IFRD Maintenance Superintendent\ WSS/db cc: Mr. Wayne Capron Mr. R. J. Brasher/Mr. M. Harrison Mr. Hugh Pape Mr. Harry Sabin File (I-76-proposed project) RF �%µT United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION :_ ° ti•-� MID-CONTINENT REGION 7 1h1.0 MAILING ADDRESS STREET LOCATION • IN REPLY REFER TO. Post Office Box 25 381 603 Miller Court Denver Federal Center Lakewood,Colorado D6427 Denver,Colorado 80225 Telephone 234-2634 N • ta!C' Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1 6450 York Street Denver, Colorado 80229 Attention: Ray McNeill, P.E. Dear Ray: We have reviewed the Sand Creek, Clear Creek, and lower South Platte facility plans and offer the following comments: GENERAL • High acquisition and development costs and limited opportunities make multiple use of land a desirable goal. Experience has shown that significant outdoor recreation opportunities can be realized in association with wastewater (201) projects. Also, recognition and implementation of these multiple-use opportunities will maximize the use of public funds. Timing is a critical factor if optimum recreation benefits are to be achieved in association with 201 projects. Since this also requires close coordination with, not only the right agency, but also the right person within that agency we have listed the key recreation contact for each of the basins in our analysis. Sand Creek We are developing a recreation plan for the Sand Creek-Toll Gate stream corridor as a segment of the Corps of Engineers' Denver Metro study. This plan has identified recreation potentials along these drainages and determined the kinds of activities and numbers of facilities needed to fulfill existing as well as future recreation demand. A first copy of this effort is presented for your informaticn. Please note this draft has not been finalized nor has it been sent • to the Corps of Engineers for review; therefore, the information included is subject to future revision. The proposed interceptor right of way would make an excellent location fcr hiker-biker trails. The acquisition of this interceptor right of way could include surface rights for the trail. If these 4,0710tio rights can not be purchased by the sewage district, then perhaps they can be acquired by recreation depamaeuts in the cities of O �rJ m Aurora and Denier, either by direct purchase or reimbursement to jb yw'�,` the sewage district. ��78.19"16 s Efforts should be made to construct the trail concurrently with the interceptor line construction to significantly reduce the trail costs. We would be pleased to continue working with the district to achieve the necessary coordination._ To help in this coordination, we suggest John Dillavou, Planner, Parks and Recreation Department, 1805 Bryant Street, Denver, Colorado 80204 (Phone 297-3155) ; and Bruce Waldo, Director, Parks and Recreation Department, 9859 E. 16th Avenue, Aurora, Colorado 80012 (Phone 750-5000) . The new plant alternative could provide recreation benefits and potentials through several schemes: (1) Return of a steady water flow to the Sand Creek, which could increase recreation benefits for hiking, bicycling, and nature study. (2) Return of water flow to the proposed Corps of Engineers reservoir to help maintain a conservation pool. (3) The use of additional open space acreage for certain kinds of recreation around the plant site. (4) Construction of certain components of the plant underground and utilization of the surface area for park and recreation purposes. Clear Creek Fe sur*gest you r'oo,..dinate yo"r efforts on this drainage with the following: Ray Printz, Director Jefferson County Open Space 1801 19th Street Golden, Colorado 80401 (Phone: 279-0230) Richard Bredt, Director Parks and Recreation Department 7470 W. 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 (Phone: 420-2324) Jim Fisher, Director North Jeffco Metropolitan Park and Recreation District 9101 Ralston Road Arvada, Colorado 80002 (Phone: 424-7733) Dave Stoll, Acting Director Parks and Recreation Department 3031 W. 76th Avenue Westminster, Colorado 80030 (Phone: 429-1546) • Greg Mastriana, Director Ryland Hills Metropolitan Park and Recreation District 7125 Mariposa Street • Westminster, Colorado 80030 (Phone: 428-7488 Dave Tortirelli, Regional Park Director • Adams County Regional Park 9755 Henderson Road Adams City, Colorado 80022 (Phone: 659-3666) Either of the two alternatives could produce benefits for recreation. Alternative 1 could result in a trail location and alternative 2 could provide similar recreation opportunities as expressed for the proposed treatment plant for Sand Creek. The treatment plant location and design should be carefully examined, since it could be a desirable potential recreation site. Lower South Platte The alternatives that propose a new wastewater treatment plant at 164th Avenue may conflict with a very desirable potential recreation site, which we identified in our Denver Metro study efforts. We urge that you coordinate with the City of Brighton, Parks and Recreations DeparLment, Adams County Regional Parks, and Adams County Board of Commissioners to minimize any conflicts and possibly achieve dual use where compatible. Alternative 10, which proposes the infiltration/percolation basin site also is in conflict with a potential recreation site. Again, we urge that you coordinate with the local Park and Recreation agencies mentioned above. It appears there may be some compatibility between this alternative and potential recreation use. The construction of trails in the interceptor right of way would also be applicable in the Lower South Platte Basin. The need for coordination is well illustrated along the Platte where the interceptor now under construction has resulted in the 4 need to tear up a recently completed segment of trail. Original trail costs possibly could have been reduced if the trail and interceptor had been built at the same time. The South Platte Stream Corridor Recreation Plan under preparation • by the Bureau will be available in approximately six months. At that time, we will forward a draft for your review and comments. . We appreciate the opportunity to comment on your facility plans. If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. • Sincerely, . r, 7 /,2 41),(4/,/, . e I it,AAJZ-Pa ,.. . Hank Burback, Jr. Outdoor Recreation Planner Enclosure cc: Jack Hibbert, Denver Regional Council of Governments Y Denver Water Department N j ~ �'•� '99i•j 144 WEST COLFAX AVENUE o PHONE 222-5511 ® DENVER, COLORADO 80202 il V l December 8 , 1976 Mr. Ray McNeill , P . E . Planning Engineer Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District No . 1 3100 East 60th Ave . Commerce City, CO 80022 • Dear Ray: As requested in your letter of October 5 , 1976 , the Denver Water Department has reviewed the three Phase I facility plans which you enclosed . This review has centered around the pro- jects ' effects on the Department ' s water rights , abilities to implement successive use . and ability to account for trans- mountain return flow. Alternatives considered for the Sand Creek and Clear Creek plans are difficult to completly assess at this time although the in- filtration, percolation options could adversly affect the Depart- ment ' s water rights and ability to account for transmountain effluent . In addition, some of the alternatives considered for the lower South Platte basin might have an adverse impact on the Department ' s existing water rights , or on the ability to perform successive use of transmountain effluent . From a successive use standpoint , any action which separates part of the Denver Water Department ' s transmountain effluent from the bulk of the water and transports it lower on the Platte River could cause difficulty . Since the Department can reason- ably expect to serve potable water within the upper Thornton service area, the Bar Tiunk service area , the North Washington Street Water and Sanitation District area , and the Upper First Creek area, it is in the Department ' s best interest that dis- charges from these basins be treated at the central plant . Alternatives 4, 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , and 13 would accomplish this central treatment . Such action would allow progress of the Department ' s successive use program as now envisioned . An alternative which included treatment and discharge of trans- mountain return flow at a lower point on the South Platte River , would require extensive analysts of its effect on the Department ' s program. Mr . Ray McNeill , P . E . December 8 , 1976 Page 2 From a water rights standpoint , 'several of the Lower South Platte alternatives envision treating and discharging wastewater effluent at a point on the South Platte below several of the existing irri- gation ditch intakes . This action may have an adverse effect on the Department ' s water rights as compared with the alternatives which include treatment at the existing Metro Plant location. This would occur with alternatives 1 , 2 , 3 , 9, and 12 . Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the District ' s Phase I facility plans . We would appreciate the opportunity to review the final selected alternatives in more detail and provide a more extensive analysis of effects on the Department ' s water rights and successive use plans . Sincerely, Stephen W. Work Reclamation Engineer _ SWW/em CSC' Yu� C—A•. COUNOk OAF Oc DENVER REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 1776 SOUTH JACKSON STREET . DENVER. COLORADO 80210 . 758-5166 December 9, 1976 Mr. Ray McNeill MDSDD #1 3100 East 60th Avenue • Commerce City, Colorado 80022 • Dear Ray: We have reviewed your Phase I reports of September 1976, for the three facility planning areas. These areas include Clear Creek, Sand Creek and the Lower South Platte. Our review concentrated on how your 201's relate to the ongoing 208 Program at the DRCOG. The proposed effluent qualities used in the facilities planning study are con- sistent with the quality requirements being evaluated in the 208 Program. As you know, it is difficult to set specific standards given the present state of change regarding the standards that are to be used. However, with respect to point sources such as you are discussing in your facility plans, it appears that low flow conditions are the periods of the year for which the wasteload allocations will be determined . Your proposed effluent qualities are consistent with the existing stream classification system in the study areas . You should be aware, however, that the Water Quality Control Commission may adopt stand- ards which would significantly impact the proposed effluent qualities presented in the reports. The qualities you have selected for your study are consistent with the development of an aquatic habitat but may not be satisfactory when considering other beneficial uses such as a potable raw water supply. It appears that you have done an appropriate job in making your 201 studies consistent with the 208 studies with respect to population and land use plan- ning. We have no objections to the population and land use projections used in your reports. However, there have been some changes to the regional popu- lation distributions affecting your planning areas since you began your 201 study. These changes appear to be minor and should not materially affect your study. I have asked Jack Hibbert to provide you with these changes . In addition, you should include in your final report the necessary documentation to indicate specifically where there may be population differences with the local commu- nities that are involved and how the facilities will be impacted with respect to both cost, scheduling and sizing of facilities by using one population projection or another. COUNCIL OFFICERS DON Dc DECKER JAMES J NOLAN I t C/. ,,.ar BETH JCNK'NS Strrrinrl-Trrautrrr ROBERT D FARLEY E.rcu(ttt U.tt.Lv EXECUTIVE COMMITTE JOHN P ML'RPHV• ROBERT F CLE MCNT•• WILLIAM H Mf NIf HOLE, JR CHARLES A PITTS JOHN G CAMPDCLL DON OE DECKER Ruth/rr C r.ton C u,,,.',. nrr Jtllrr,,,I Cui,,ri C u tuuttu Ilt'r Ut nitr %Pt,/,r .IIt(thtn C t•tnI/C I,I.uu, ,uurr AJarr t C,.unit C r.nlnrrrunnrr I tt.rl. t J c tit c auncrhnan °Chi,ralltr ••EI,t /hJt,n„I Mr. Ray McNeill Page Two December 9 , 1976 Generally, it is our feeling your environmental analysis of the alternatives is difficult to interpret because of the extensive quantification of factors generally considered to be non-quantifiable. This type of an approach has a benefit in that it does insure a categorization of the issues but it can be misleading if interpreted literally. Also, in order to obtain an accurate assessment you should include all alternatives in your evaluation and not initially preclude some simply on the basis of cost. This is especially true when considering the weighting factors in your evaluation table. Economic considerations represent only about ten percent of the total points available. The following points regard specific aspects of your Phase I planning by study area . Clear Creek We recognize the difficulty in making a decision regarding the alternatives in this basin. However, it is felt that the Comparison of Alternatives (Table 10) does not satisfactorily address the two major issues in the Clear Creek Basin. These are the two items you include under miscellaneous considerations dealing with Golden's water rights problem and flaw augmentation to address both environ- mental and water rights concerns . Probably the two most important issues that need to be evaluated in any water quality planning study in the Clear Creek Basin are the Golden water rights and flow augmentation, and you have assigned these concerns only a five percent weight in the entire decision making process . All of our meetings , both during and before 208 planning, have shown these to be among the most important issues that must be resolved . These items were also discussed extensively at your own public meeting held in Arvada on the Phase I report. It is important to consider two items in evaluating Clear Creek alternatives. The first is that Golden likely will eventually construct a plant on Clear Creek. Therefore, your decision should be between either a WWTP on Clear Creek or a WWTP and a parallel interceptor because paralleling your existing interceptor may not eliminate the need for a WWTP on Clear Creek. A high quality effluent on Clear Creek will benefit not only the stream but also the water users in the area . The effluent requirements must consider the West- minster water supply in this instance . Some of the alternatives that you proposed , but did not compare , should resolve the Westminster concern. However, the specifics of the effluent qualities would need to be closely coordinated with Westminster to insure the protection of the City's water supply both in short and long term. Mr. Ray McNeill Page Three December 9 , 1976 Sand Creek Your evaluation of the Sand Creek situation is significant because it appears to show that final selection of an alternative does not depend on resolving the differences between areawide and local population projections . Therefore, by examining Table 11 , the selected alternative would be the same in either case. DRCOG will be working with the City of Aurora to resolve any population dif- ficulties, however, until those are resolved you should carry both projections through the facilities planning process . As with the Clear Creek study, you appear to assign the most significant factor a weight that influences decisions by only three percent. This factor is the reuse possibilities in Table 11 . We would recommend this be given much more serious consideration in your final report. Aurora is the key influence in this basin and any decision should be in conformity with their reuse planning. At this time, we recommend that at a minimum your final Phase II report include a WWTP at Aurora for reuse purposes. Lower South Platte It appears you have done a satisfactory analysis of the alternatives in this report. We, however, request that final alternative selection adequately evaluate the potential impact upon that alternative of the successive use proposals being developed by Northglenn and Thornton. If one or both materialize, what would be the impact upon your facilities ? We recognize the difficulty involved in resolving the water quality problems in your study basins. It is our hope that these comments will assist in achieving an early completion of the 201 studies. The DRCOG staff stands ready to provide any further assistance you may require. Sincerely, /02,46"). 00,;=:4714-"--- David A. Pampu Assistant Director for Planning ss ET20PoL1TA ,OE.NVrE2 SE►•IAG -------- -- — — !Z_l0 -z , — — --- — --Q1sPos .r71sT,elc.T_1S/o.�— ----- -- -- — — — — — — -- --- ---' -- — _ - — la_4 So__YORlc __S TR -- -- — — —— - ------ ----L Eiwj r Co Lo1G.a tl a .e?0 219 — — --- -- ——— '-- ----- PHAzz__r_ - - ---__-- —CE/ 77_1: YI.≥'IJ -- ----- --___--CLEAR_ Cizzeic re. So ?LA?T _ _-- FIRS- QG� (EL T1-14 _7:/%e€ /7i-ix SA__.G -/fir... N5__ �.eUv;/%crc -- — _— —__--BorR' Of-J 4ci iri Z_ k/,Th! 4 2,1irtioOL__—_—_ -- -�--A _ J!.5 Irlr_Per.2sovaL }'€EG,1nic, _ TiimaT_ IN /L9asr- -- -- -----lt rs__A— Vale -- L,czare_g, _ Cosr_ 2 Z17 LA -02 Ala _ ReA1,1.-_SOiv<Fir L----- -- __---- -----_!�/uD_ 127y n -SEL,e ,l v__,AGIZEEr,:Ev r_ _Wirlr_-!/E _ -51Jm1r,9-/ZY A41.2_ _COAIG Lvslvi7 S-_O`-- _ -__-_ -- _— _ ___- �,Coc.P p£2 L_22 ()Ciao A-(.._ O/c /}iE_ N114?O Ipf_IvT.GL 1NGLNCET / 4 niYl�l f -- Mn . /D Z, AJo _ EE64, 5-r % - — - --- - - - - - - - /h! if;ap r AI _alesCribad - r — SO✓1�__1JQlle Pi! ,y.,5?ni �rr�J �,eo/_r1� c ek guG L.1-1 _ape) brelcg ica/__re.sPanses h_rmp/e T/an_ 1 fle �rlt�-enT O1 - - - - pvo po,-„e v.y APL -1 Z-SO0 ai-to e /✓C.741a/ i7e e aP.-e S a r/7!s_lrr�j�/PYi r^ri 7rt/' - - _1eyms - a aasoc[a/ _ soc1 IaIgoals• - - - — - -- - — -- Ha 1 r Al'e 1�/ l i-r t l�►e__a inrnQn, ar_ _�-r;e_a-ssoua.o soce a� 4oa�5 .St�c.n_tfslecr2n LOM/ !?Lo.o�,Ca. yfa�,1, -C f • r - - ap-(.1 e5 !l a rc -e�r7io�yy;^er. ar-e present-1, c4441/1-e.-1 H7 f'L Morin s'irecetrs. Fop e ,,.� v / 1 J I� ) fr _ __-- -- -- _-- ---6/reG,nnc/ /^arJ2e/er ire)pfa men 1n 1JcIer r� li.44 a.a39e La.,�f/32a1 L�14,dOf�ir.'a'� i 4-es��esa_ IUNpr• _Sod ela! ;oats . l�e1` �cNreve/%r4r -!s -essedia Alt, Pree/uolzd lr� -- ( J(/� i/ � 1 1L C __ mo0JrllcO4l0NS pYpvL% i O�JB ✓;"/J 41 1}J i .-e tJJr4e , (.!Sc�: 07 i„-L S�YoOw a`ra? 2r.:oc,a!eel 1 r � t (� / r . f __ __ — _ _ QY� etu /-he nak„ra G/1�N,-G -1.1L6rlGs of t . i;/an , /Pirr:,. �puc., /r��J*ortor�?,: ? a .1r _ ---- 1'�( rlt 4uafilj to 'Lk Sou l _/"-a.7e b 1903 /4rAel. (4s Spec,.tea PI_ - . 1 r r -- -- _ _—_- --- -'Y SGt I jr: 7�w 1p he / Uho� nT v�r /.c�4 COStS._ "' --rrom_�ll 7rt, 11 :iau r,tm 44:4:4' - -4'L fvr-4, 4 Lcai4 e�?4 C 11Vt lYlUe� kNfN po!!zy �upu�r� �e �OrJro� ? ?-k-rileo Jr)-er'r.S Y�I }{� J1 I 1t � 1� �i 1 - - plar-e, 1rcr� welt- or m4lo_r1 al^-a Y-p ky,a;rrifa Y1 IL �9.�Ot61s sow)), Ph Ife.. -1 c 15, PI; fr I 1 CoP' linuowe;e_ OT CZCILpIVI y?UY!�[t•1 QL!1Vl-Ie- . _--- — __-- - -- /k G�,�/�rza _ 7 �o AIOT FEEL r ,a At__11�lcsr _t,�rEs} ---- - - - _--- -_?,ESPOAIZ."/.E3LY---tOl l4lv� _A 1.1-1_ /1.4__Tl-w.t et Si ,Ai_ 4 Ai _ oiL Oe £!s_ PI--4P)-77 __-- _-- _ -- _-----_-1. T J/-t0UL0 USf Fv/<71a!a _ £o )G_CUrJnr. _ To _Ui'- --- __ __— ---—_ _--TN,eU __6 oo.o .7 z(-olv'/7x2y__T 12`4"r TSAi , -Q.04 _ THE-. 52.4,06E_ .R. Us6 PR 476 2.e.a 2 kJ*-- - r IF_ AlecLS LE7 Ti1.£ .8.5.oPL E l7-;E l%5-7-22,c r YOTE JN__t - ,/JO 45...5, 14- Co,Z -- - - - - - - W T, -- - ---- - - ---- - —- --- ---- - - idg_ GeNegAL_ _ L r_ 7r O!1 Aron . _ c�.Qist�J_ C1zg.£x. .15_ _,A .t2lzx/,vre_4r Nor—;3E Is__ A1oT-- /I?. o 'Lz o _4-r_174-Tree.), T/1ril /NE _S JG- ----- - - C,2a PL.d/JT 1101->cr),er 4 Eg-st. Lo,go,60 U,)m Lc A 1.1.2 1s i'oRefw oiv !As -- 74.4+;41_ Pi_zo r_,---f�lt�!_ /Nlj _ St4-).o C2 PLA,JT SNoU,cri C - -- - - - Mkt._ rig. re,TAIL 1LoL,s /v _%f11f fAA.no CP_Er_x f3.Gzs/,J. - - -- --- --- - 0n 7KFLoc,e;= S��'T�' J-% �r� - IHY_ L.0c.n -- 124.x/if Duct £-ur_ P4/37 .2,zr.2 _ - — — 121qc-F LILY T o klyn/fi,.) .4R! ,c PI-4)v.J A,IlcE fir, _ de T_ •`,rr 1/"Hc, _ 12£p,J::,ta,r,C - ,�,P£f Pc.6h.-004 _ It _fe rc `-- _-- -__---- _To- 5!RVE _1•l T/2o i Is /4"£127,'s,ez Pcti.JT /32A,JT (Z- Lc?' - -- --- - - - wEs7 - OF _RI VA -/1r+LL Look.. xr. 4-7 Lt 5_ J1.)5f.G PzWA"r -- - - — 60L,rr)J 4, .„J, T. _1c _A/o_i L-Q,J (,a 9).1 B',,2,,4ardlc.2- _6uuP-l. n;1c-r /_ ,L4,,,r - - - - - IA!-01),_h /-Ft 9I2 A - _12vn/ O F Sswilz L11,£ A/ :re-c. 15 ieF,9 JJ?(D - -- To stp_vE 7-M" 5 O,e- TY.t Xp_ 0,e Trite !ow£!`. �o�_g ~T6- - . - To__ Po / Cos" lam,U O -FP Pi c— r ,=Fp 7 F_ i'• '?O: TO Imo'):.C A - f,-) —t T3 ;.-y'iJi,1,-), 1�_ '),-1F/�:k. . .L W0OLY) L1gr To r r - - - - 0W a-1 4,3c ;-2.27.4 J:tit::: �'_T;J sa.l r ...�•J7 L ri4sh, ?J - - -- E"Tr-c O B U c, T;x• Z1u tD OA)E TO S E,ja i I H E /L 31.: 1✓r,n1.S t.2 ,174.Z. 7_/.)GL • LA Tile- - -- - - ,Pr..�'r,E!7-cvLLY -- _ 1) I) 7-2 fP, 7-7 � ! J e ar:Gs Jr /L/,'`i) /7ou 2 orb -'h F'hone (303) t '7 7177 (, fr?d .P.��- -vT;.,-�' 'I 289-5801 Ea.A ii 1Y: " '11t� t! L '. i1 1 4 8992 N. WASHINGTON SF., THORNT0N, COLO. SU':i • December 15, 1976 Mr. William E. Korbitz, Manager Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1 6450 York Street Denver, Colorado 80229 Dear Bill: Enclosed are motions pertaining to the Lower South Platte 201 Facility Plan and the Clear Creek 201 Facility Plan, passed by the Thornton Utilities Board at their regular meeting of December 9, 1976. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Richard L. Gerstberger, P.E. Director of Utility Operations /sk cc: Mr. Ray McNeill Mr. Cary Palmer ) I y METROPOLITAN DENVER SEWAGE DISPOSAL DISTRICT NO. 1 '• LOWER SOUTH PLATTE 201 FACILITY PLAN The Metropolitan Denver Sewage District is studying the feasible alter- natives for wastewater treatment in the Lower South Platte Basin and has presented to the Thornton Utilities Board a preliminary report entitled, "Lower South Platte Basin 201 Facility Plan." As a result of the preliminary study, four alternatives were selected from the thirteen original alternatives under consideration. The first alternative (Alternative No. 4) proposes the con- struction of a new wastewater treatment plant near 164th to treat the flows from most of the basin. Alternatives Nos. 5 and 6 propose the construction of a local sewage treatment plant at 164th Avenue and a pump station at either 124th Avenue or 140th Avenue which will pump to the Metro central plant. Alternative No. 10 proposes the construction of infiltration/percolation basins near 150th Avenue to treat most of the flows from the basin. While Thornton can be adequately served by any of the proposed alterna- tives, maximum utilization of our raw water resources must also be a considera- tion. Due to Thornton's location, the City may be able to cooperate with Westminster in a water exchange program. NOW, THEREFORE, THE UTILITIES BOARD OF THE CITY OF THORNTON MAKES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Metropolitan Denver Sewage District examine an additional alternative not previously considered; that of pumping the lower Thornton flows the short distance to the Big Dry Basin. MOVED by Mr. Milne, SECONDED by Mr. Vigil, and APPROVED by unanimous vote of the Thornton Utilities Board at their regular meeting of December 9, 1976. CITY OF THORNTON, COLORADO Chairman, ilities Board ATTEST: s f Secretary Hello