The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About791169.tiff WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLANNING REPORT NO. I EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR GREELEY, COLORADO AUGUST, 1979 VOLUME I MAIN REPORT A Professional Corporation + Engineers Architects Planners MI X 2021 Clubhouse Drive Greeley,Colorado 80631 g i t % • • WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLANNING REPORT NO. I EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR GREELEY, COLORADO AUGUST, 1979 79 1 CIV 0124 , h ARIX, A Professional Corporation ENGINEERS-ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS Greeley, Colorado +` 1 . TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER TITLE Page I. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 1 PROJECT APPROACH AND SCHEDULE 2 THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 4 II. PROJECT PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS GENERAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 6 Land Application Methods 6 Slow Rate Method 7 Rapid Infiltration Method 8 Overland Flow Method 9 Irrigation Methods 9 Ridge and Furrow Irrigation 9 Surface Flooding Irrigation 10 Sprinkler Irrigation 11 Other Area Treatment Methods 12 Irrigation of Farmland Through Existing Ditch Systems 12 Treatment and Discharge 13 SELECTION OF GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF STUDY 13 EVALUATION OF THE STUDY AREA 14 Soils 14 Geology 18 Topography 19 Cultural Resources 19 Water Rights 21 Land Ownership 21 Land Use 22 Management Alternatives 22 III. DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES - ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS 29 General 29 Sewer Outfalls 29 Pretreatment 30 Pumping 31 Transmission 31 Preliminary Treatment 32 Storage 33 Final Treatment and Disposal 34 Land Application with Center Pivot Sprinklers 34 Treatment and Direct Discharge 36 Land Application with Crop Irrigation by Overland Flow 37 Rapid Infiltration/Percolation Basins 37 Land Application Through Existing Ditch Systems 37 • TABLE OF CONTENTS • (CONTINUED) CHAPTER TITLE PAGE IV. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS INTRODUCTION 57 CONSTRUCTION COSTS 59 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 61 EQUIVALENT ANNUAL COSTS 64 SYSTEM MANAGEABILITY 66 PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH 67 IMPLEMENTATION 69 FORECLOSURE OF FUTURE OPTIONS 70 CULTURAL RESOURCES 71 LAND AVAILABILITY 71 WATER RIGHTS 72 Treatment and Discharge at the Delta Site 72 Treatment and Discharge to Crow Creek 73 Land Application with Crop Production 73 WATER QUALITY 79 Description of Existing Water Quality in the Area 79 Chemical Characteristics 79 Biological Characteristics 81 Existing Classification 83 Description of Alternative Water Quality Discharges 85 4-Day Lagoon with 160-Day Storage and Filtration 85 24-Day Lagoon with Filtration 87 Delta Site Activated Bio-Filter Mechanical Plant 89 Land Application Return to Groundwater 91 Description of Treatment Alternatives Impacts 92 Soil Impacts 92 Water Quality Impacts 95 INTANGIBLE BENEFITS 99 EXTERNAL DISECONOMY 99 FLOODPLAIN 99 AIR QUALITY 99 • ii • � TABLES Table Number Title Page 1 Infiltration Test Results 23 2 Land Application with Pivot Sprinklers - High Construction Cost and Total Project Present Worth Alternative 73 3 Land Application with Pivot Sprinklers - Low Construction Cost and Total Project Present Worth Alternative 74 4 Land Application with Pivot Sprinklers - High Operation and Maintenance Alternative 75 5 Land Application with Pivot Sprinklers - Low Operation and Maintenance Alternative 76 6 Treatment at Delta Site - High Construction Cost and Total Project Present Worth and Operation and Maintenance Alternative 77 7 Treatment at Delta Site - Low Construction Cost and Total Project Present Worth and Operation and Maintenance Alternative 78 8 Treatment and Discharge to Crow Creek - High Construction Cost and Total Project Present Worth Alternative 79 9 Treatment and Discharge to Crow Creek - Low Construction Cost and Total Project Present Worth Alternative 80 10 Treatment and Discharge to Crow Creek - High Operation and Maintenance Alternative 81 11 Treatment and Discharge to Crow Creek - Low Operation and Maintenance Alternative 82 TABLES (continued) • Table Number Title Page 12 Treatment and Discharge to Ogilvy Ditch - High Construction Cost and Total Project Present Worth Alternative 83 13 Treatment and Discharge to Ogilvy Ditch - Low Construction Cost and Total Project Present Worth Alternative 84 14 Treatment and Discharge to Ogilvy Ditch - High Operation and Maintenance Alternative 85 15 Treatment and Discharge to Ogilvy Ditch - Low Operation and Maintenance Alternative 86 16 Water Quality of the Cache La Poudre 116 17 Water Quality of the South Platte River 117 18 Water Quality of the Cache La Poudre Above First Avenue Treatment Plant 118 19 Agricultural Site Surface and Groundwater Quality 119 20 Average Groundwater Quality From Alluvial Aquifers 120 21 Water Quality Standards Summary 121 22 Colorado Water Quality Criteria 1978 122 .r 23 Agricultural Site Infiltration Rate Analysis 132 24 • Interpretation of Soil Chemical Tests 133 25 Suggested Maximum Application of Trace Elements to Soils Without Further Investigation 134 26 Wastewater Trace Elements Versus Crop Requirements 136 • 27 Water Quality Impacts of Land Application With Crop Irrigation Using Pivot Sprinklers 137 TABLES (continued) • Table Number Title Page 28 Water Quality Impacts of Treatment at Delta Site With Discharge to the South Platte 138 29 Water Quality Impacts of Treatment by 4-Day Lagoon with 160-Day Storage and Filtration and Discharge to Crow Creek 139 30 Water Quality Impacts of Treatment by 24-Day Lagoon and Filtration and Dis- charge to Crow Creek 140 31 Water Quality Impacts of Treatment by 4-Day Lagoon with 160-Day Storage and Filtration and Discharge to Ogilvy Ditch 141 32 Water Quality Impacts of Treatment by 24-Day Lagoon and Filtration and Dis- charge to Ogilvy Ditch 142 33 Salinity and Nitrate Guidelines for Livestock 143 EXHIBITS • Exhibit Number Title Page 1 Study Area Map 24 2 Soil Series See Pocket 3 Soil Test Boring Sites 26 4 Infiltration Test Sites 27 5 Land Ownership and Existing Land Use See Pocket 6 Outfall System - North Gravity Line 38 to Delta Site 7 Outfall System - North Gravity. . .Profile 39 8 Outfall System - South Line 40 With Pumping to Delta Site 9 Outfall System - South Line.. .Profile 41 10 Outfall System - West Line with 42 Pumping to First Avenue 11 Outfall System - West Line. . .Profile 43 12 Pretreatment/Pumping - Screening and Pumping 44 13 Pretreatment/Pumping - Screening 45 with Grit Removal and Pumping 14 Transmission - From First Avenue 46 , 15 Transmission - From Delta Site 47 16 Transmission - Pipeline Profiles 48 & 49 17 Preliminary Treatment - 24 Day Aeration Lagoons 50 18 Preliminary Treatment - 4 Day Aeration Lagoons 51 19 Potential Reservoir Sites 52 20 Storage - Dual Cell Storage Reservoir 53 21 Final Treatment and Disposal - Center Pivot 54 & 55 Sprinkler Irrigation System 22 Final Treatment and Disposal - Discharge 56 Lines to Crow Creek and Ogilvy Ditch EXHIBITS (cont) • Exhibit Number Title Page 23 Agricultural Soil Test Sites 144 24 Comparison of Nitrogen (N) Uptake by Corn with Various Application Schemes 145 25 Agricultural Site Groundwater Profile Schematic 146 26 Hydrologic Schematic of the Greeley Area 147 • APPENDICES • APPENDIX TITLE A SOIL TEST BORING LOGS B WATER RIGHTS C CONTACTS WITH AFFECTED INTERESTS D DESIGN CRITERIA E CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES F OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES G ALTERNATIVE COST CALCULATIONS H COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PLANNING GUIDANCE FOR LAND APPLICATION SYSTEMS I CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT J WASTEWATER FLOW AND QUALITY DATA FROM THE EXISTING FIRST AVENUE TREATMENT PLANT K AGRICULTURAL SOIL ANALYSES • • 1 I • CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION - Background & Purpose - Project Approach and Schedule - The Decision Making Process and Project Implementation • 1 r CHAPTER I • INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND PURPOSE Initial planning for the upgrading and expansion of Greeley's Wastewater Treatment facilities was begun in 1972. The engineering firm of Wright- McLaughlin Engineers was retained to prepare a Facility Plan which would identify alternative long term solutions for the treatment and disposal of Greeley's wastewater. This study was completed in 1975. After completion of this study, the Greeley Water Board recommended that the City Council proceed with the design and construction of a new "mechanical" treatment plant located at the "Delta" site east of the city. The plan also called for the rehabili- tation of the existing First Avenue Plant which would continue in operation until approximately 1990. A great deal of controversy surrounded the adoption of this plan. Organ- ized opposition, consisting of residents and land owners living in east Greeley and the Delta site areas, aggressively opposed the plan to construct a wastewater treatment plant in that location. The Environmental _Protection Agency, partially as a result of this opposition, required the City of Greeley to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment of the proposed plant along •h with a complete Environmental Impact Statement. Ultimately, the locally adopted plan was accepted by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency. However, certain area residents continued to actively oppose the project. Complete information regarding the initial Facility Planning Process and the Environmental Impact Statement is contained within the following documents • which are on file at the administrative offices of the City of Greeley, the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency. - 1 - ' Facilities Plan Report, Sanitary Sewage System for the Greeley Region Weld County: Colorado • " Part One, Basic Information and Analysis " Part Two, Alternative Plan Formulation, Master Plan Initial Program " Part Three, Public Participation and Supplemental Information ' Final Environmental Impact Statement Greeley Region Wastewater Management Program After receiving approval to proceed with the plan to upgrade First Avenue and construct the First Phase of a new plant in the Delta area, an application for funding assistance for design of the facilities was submitted to the Water Quality Control Commission and EPA. This application was approved and the City then retained the firm of CH2M Hill, Inc. to complete the design of the project. During preliminary design, new construction cost estimates were prepared which indicated that the total construction cost of the proposed facilities would be in the range of 23 to 26 million dollars. The adoption of the original plan was based upon estimates of construction costs in the range of eight to nine million dollars. This fact, along with a new national emphasis on land treatment and "non-mechanical" treatment systems, caused the Greeley Staff, Water Board, and City Council to re-evaluate the desirability of proceeding with the proposed plan. As a result of this re-evaluation, the City decided to study several additional alternatives which had not been considered in the original Facility Plan. A request for grant assistance to undertake the additional studies was submitted to and approved by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission and the Environmental Protection. Agency in early 1979. This document presents information relating to the new alterna- tives now being considered. PROJECT APPROACH AND SCHEDULE O The planning process associated with the preparation of the original Facility Plan resulted in the resolution of many issues related to the planning - 2 - T of future wastewater treatment facilities to serve the community. Analysis of • factors such as population, land use, waste characteristics, service areas, infiltration, etc. is unaffected by the reconsideration of the method of treatment and ultimate disposal of the treated wastewater. Consequently„ this additional study is limited to only an evaluation of methods of treatment and disposal of wastewater not evaluated in the original Facility Plan. The newly developed alternatives must be compared to the originally adopted alternative and a decision made whether to proceed with the original plan or to follow a different course of action. The basic approach was to first develop a "shopping list" of potentially feasible methods of wastewater treatment and disposal, evaluate each of the potential solutions, and finally select a course of action to follow in the future. The general time of completion of the final facility plan is summar- ized as follows: ITEM APPROX. DATES Conceptual Development of Potential Alternatives April 9 - April 30, 1979 Selection of Those Alternatives to be Completely Evaluated May 3 - May 7, 1979 Design and Analysis of Alternatives May 7 - July 23, 1979 Selection of a Course of Action to Follow July 23 - October 15, 1979 Preparation of Final Facility Plan and Application for Additional Funding for Design October 15 - October 30, 1979 In addition to those activities cited above, the Environmental Protection Agency has stated that the original Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be revised to consider the environmental effects of any newly developed alternatives. To comply with this requirement, the City of Greeley will retain the services of an Environmental Consulting firm which will complete its work according to the following schedule: • - 3 - ITEM APPROX. DATES • Preliminary Investigation and Project Planning Aug. 1 - Aug. 14, 1979 Data Gathering Aug. 14 - Sept. 14, 1979 Analysis of Impacts Aug. 14 - Oct. 1, 1979 Draft EIS Completion Oct. 1, 1979 Final EIS Completion Feb. 1, 1980 THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION The implementation of any plan will affect many individuals and interests ranging from those directly affected such as property owners to those indirectly affected such as local businessmen, environmental interests, etc. Because so many individuals and groups are affected in one way or another, it is extremely important that all parties have the opportunity to express their concerns/opinions and that this information be made available to those indi- viduals who must make the ultimate decision. The initial Facility Planning and Environmental Impact processes provided the opportunity for substantial input from individuals and/or affected in- terests through public hearings, meetings and formally organized advisory groups. In addition to the re-evaluation of the treatment aspects of the plan, every attempt will be made to gather the opinions, concerns and ideas which the affected public may have regarding this project. This information will be documented and considered much in the same way as other data related to the alternates under study. Therefore, it is very important that all information be available prior to the time decisions must be made by the various public officials responsible for the projects ultimate completion. After the various treatment alternates were identified, each was then subjected to a thorough technical analysis, the results of which are contained • within this document. Simultaneously, numerous individuals, organizations, and agencies were contacted to inform them of the present work and to receive - 4 - • their comments regarding the project. After adequate time has elapsed for • the review of this document, additional public meetings as well as a Public Hearing will be held to hear the views of all interested parties. In addition, the Environmental Consultant, as part of the requirements of the EIS process will hold other public meetings and hearings. After review of the technical analysis, public input, and environmental analysis, the Greeley Water Board will recommend to the City Council a future course of action. Following adoption of a plan at the local level, the plan must then be submitted to the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission for their approval. Finally, the Environmental Protection Agency must also approve the plan before design and construction can proceed. Throughout this process, numerous other local, state and federal agencies will be reviewing the plan and submitting comments to the agencies having decision making responsibilities. a •h • - 5 - T r • CHAPTER II PROJECT PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS - General Project Alternatives Land Application Methods Slow Rate Method Rapid Infiltration Method Overland Flow Method Irrigation Methods Ridge and Furrow Irrigation Surface Flooding Irrigation Sprinkler Irrigation Other Area Treatment Methods Irrigation of Farmland Through Existing Ditch Systems Treatment and Discharge - Selection of Geographic Areas of Study - Evaluation of the Study Area Soils Geology Topography Cultural Resources Water Rights • Land Ownership Land Use Management Alternatives 1 i . CHAPTER II • PROJECT PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS GENERAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES There are many different types of systems in operation which provide for the treatment and disposal of wastewater. Many of these systems were considered in the initial planning effort undertaken earlier and consequently were not re-evaluated as part of this work. The major emphasis of this study was to analyze those systems which were not considered in great detail in the original effort and to compare these new alternatives to the originally adopted plan which consisted of construction of the new "Delta" Plant and renovation of the existing First Avenue Facility. The following descriptions of several different methods of land applica- tion waste treatment systems were initially considered to be potentially desirable, long term solutions to the waste disposal needs of the City of Greeley. These descriptions are presented to aid in the evaluation of the character- istics of the Study Area which follows the descriptions. • Land Application Methods There are a wide variety of methods of land application of municipal waste- water. All these methods involve the recovery and beneficial reuse of wastewater nutrients and other elements through agriculture, silviculture, or aquaculture practices. Through these practices, advanced levels of wastewater treatment as well as reclamation and reuse of water resources, recharge of groundwater aquifers, reclamation of marginal land, and production of revenues through the sale of crops can be realized. The principal methods of land application are: - 6 - o Slow Rate • ' Rapid Infiltration ▪ Overland Flow Two other less widely used land application methods, wetlands and subsurface, are used for specialized conditions and were not considered to be applicable for use at Greeley. Slow Rate Method The most common method of treatment by land application is the slow rate/irrigation method. In this method, the wastewater is treated as it flows through the soil and precolates to the groundwater. There generally is no surface runoff because the wastewater is "lost" to plant uptake, to the air by evapotranspiration, and to the groundwater by percolation. However, in certain situations underdrains may be installed to collect the portion of the irrigation water not consumed by the crops. In addition to the treatment of the wastewater, other objectives of the slow rate method can be: optimization of crop yields, maximization of effluent application, and landscape irrigation. Wastewater application rates differ for each of these purposes. Optimization of crop yields limits the effluent application rate to only that needed by the crop. Maximization of the effluent application allows higher loading rates than that required for crop growth and generally because of the higher water tolerance requirement means a lower economic value crop. However, if soil conditions permit, water, in excess of the minimum crop requirement may be applied to the crop to provide sufficient nutrients for crop growth. When soil conditions or a lack of subsurface drainage prevent high application rates, supplemental nutrients (fertilizers) may be applied. Landscape irriga- tion application rates are controlled by the condition of the turf irrigated • and higher treatment requirements needed for public health considerations. Wastewater application techniques employed in the slow rate method are spraying, - 7 - T 1 ridge and furrow, and flooding. Suitable site characteristics cover a wide • range but the most preferable are: a slope of less than 20 percent on culti- vated' land (40 percent on noncultivated land), loamy, well-drained uniform soils, and a minimum depth to groundwater of 4-5 feet. Rapid Infiltration Method In this method, most of the applied wastewater precolates through the soil; is treated by natural physical, chemical , and biological processes; and the treated effluent eventually reaches the groundwater. Most of the remainder is lost through evaporation. There is little or no consumptive use by plants and less evaporation in proportion to surface area than in the slow rate method. In addition to the treatment of the wastewater, other objectives of the rapid infiltration method can be: groundwater recharge, recovery of renovated water with subsequent reuse or discharge, recharge of surface streams by interception of groundwater, and temporary storage of renovated water in the aquifer. Wastewater application techniques employed in the rapid infiltration method are spreading in basins and spraying. The high-rate spray systems normally require hydrophytic or water-tolerant grasses to protect the soil surface and to preclude runoff. Important site characteristics include: well drained soils and a depth to groundwater of at least ten feet. Rapid infiltration is usually achieved in basins which are constantly flooded 4. throughout the application'period at a relatively uniform depth. Design of these basins depends on topography, basin shape, possible groundwater mound problems, hydraulic loading rate, and management flexibility. The basin surface may consist of either bare soil or vegetation. Advantages of vegeta- tion are maintenance of infiltration rates, removal of suspended soilds by filtration, further nutrient removal if the vegetation is harvested, and possible denitrification. Disadvantages are increased maintenance, lower • - 8 - a r depth of application, and shorter periods of flooding to allow vegetation • growth. Overland Flow Method In overland flow land application, wastewater is applied over the upper reaches of sloped terraces and allowed to flow down the vegetated surface. A high percentage of the treated water is collected as runoff at the bottom of the slope while the remainder is lost to percolation and evapotranspiration. The wastewater is renovated by physical , chemical and biological means as it flows in a thin film down the vegetated, relatively impermeable slope. The primary objective of overland flow is wastewater treatment and to a minor extent production of forage grasses. Spraying is the application technique most commonly used for overland flow systems but flooding has also been utilized. Important criteria for site selection are a sloping terrain of 2-4 percent with soils of minimal infiltration capacity. Soils with good drainage characteristics are best suited for other land application methods. Irrigation Methods The two feasible land application methods at Greeley, slow rate and rapid infiltration, have limited consideration of irrigation methods to ridge and furrow, flooding, and spraying. These irrigation methods are described below and evaluated for their applicability in the Study Area. Ridge and Furrow Irrigation Ridge and furrow irrigation consists of running irrigation water in small channels (furrows) bordered by raised beds (ridges) upon which crops are grown. Furrows may be straight, zigzag, graded or small basins. A similar irrigation method is corrugations, which consists of furrows excavated from the surface without creating raised beds. Furrow irrigation can be utilized on all row • crops and all soils except very sandy types with high intake rates. Uniform - 9 - 1 f water distribution throughout a field with this method requires much time and • experience to eliminate runoff. Irrigation efficiency and labor requirements are moderate. Factors of importance for the design of ridge and furrow irrigation are water application rate and furrow stream size, length, slope, and spacing. The most common distribution system for ridge and furrow irriga- tion consists of open ditches with siphon pipes or a gated surface piping system. Ridge and furrow irrigation is not generally applicable to the Study Area because of high soil intake rates. The high intake rates cause the upper ends of the furrows to receive more water than the downstream ends which in turn tends to concentrate salts in the downstream ends of the fields. In addition, because the water moves laterally from the furrows to the crops in the ridges, the applied salts will tend to concentrate around the crops to the detriment of yields. Surface Flooding Irrigation Surface flooding irrigation consists of directing water in a sheet flow along border strips or cultivated strips of land bordered by small levees. The border strips can be straight or contoured, have a limited cross slope, and may be level or graded in the direction of flow. This method is particu- larly suited to close-growing crops such as grasses that can tolerate periodic inundation at the ground surface. Achieving uniform water distribution with minimal runoff with this method requires a good deal of skill and experience. Important design factors include soil intake characteristics, border strip lengths and slopes, surface roughness, application rate, and border widths. The distribution systems for surface flooding irrigation are basically the same as for ridge and furrow irrigation. However, when a piping system is used, it is designed to have a single outlet midway between the borders to • provide uniform distribution across the strip. - 10 - Surface flooding is not well suited to the Study Area because of the • varying, non-uniform slopes. Extensive grading would be required to prepare the area for cultivation and the cost would be prohibitive. In addition, there is the problem of uniform water distribution and its labor requirement. Sprinkler Irrigation Sprinklers are devices that apply water above the ground as a spray resembling rainfall . The spray is developed by the water flowing under pressure through small orifices or nozzles. Sprinklers stretch available water supplies and help alleviate the problem of the high cost of farm labor. Sprinkler systems have also been used to achieve significant crop yields on rough terrain, shallow soils or soils having characteristics that discourage surface irrigation methods. The important design considerations for sprinkler system selection include water requirements, soil characteristics, crop demands, labor availability, and capital investment. Sprinkler systems are classified in three categories: handmove, mechanical move, and solid set. Installation costs for these systems increase in the order they are listed and labor costs decline in the order listed. Typical ranges for this labor requirement are presented below: System Labor (hrs/acre/irrigation) Handmove 0.7 -1.0 Mechanical .Move Side Roll 0.3 -0.6 Side Move 0.2 -0.5 End-Tow 0.2 -0.4 Traveller 0.2 -0.4 Center Pivot 0.05-0.3 • Solid Set (Permanent) 0.1 -0.2 - 11 - Handmove systems are not suitable for tall crops because of difficulties • in moving across rows of crops. Therefore, because corn will be considered for growth in the land application system (it is currently grown in the area), handmove systems are not desirable. In addition, these systems would require' extensive labor because of their application to small acreages (40 acres or less) . Although permanent solid set systems have the lowest labor requirement, they have the highest installation cost, present obstacles for cultivation and tilling, and require careful installation to reduce the chance for damage by vehicle traffic and by freezing. The labor requirement is only slightly less than that for the center pivot system while the installation cost is several times greater. Therefore the use of permanent solid set systems was not considered advantageous. The center pivot sprinkler system consists of a single sprinkler lateral which moves in a circle about a fixed pivot structure. Water is supplied to the lateral at the pivot . The lateral is supported by towers which are kept in line by an alignment system which automatically shuts down the sprinkler before the lateral can be damaged by being out of line. The lateral is usually moved by hydraulic water or electric motor drives mounted on each support structure. Slope differentials of up to 30 percent can be negotiated. Because of its low labor requirement, better efficiency, and history of limited operation and maintenance problems, the mechanical move center pivot appears to be the best suited sprinkler system for the land application system. Other Area Treatment Methods Irrigation of Farmland Through Existing Ditch Systems A system for ultimate disposal of the wastewater in this manner is very • similar to the other land application methods previously described. The only - 12 - • major difference is in the method of distributing the irrigation water after • storage. Under this concept, water from the reservoir would be piped to any existing irrigation ditch within the area which would accept the water for use on presently irrigated farmlands. Treatment and Discharge The original facility plan considered numerous treatment and discharge alternatives. Since the time of completion of this work a great deal of experience has been gained nationwide in the operation and maintenance of newly constructed conventional treatment facilities. Experience has indicated that over one half of all conventional mechanical treatment systems are not operating to design standard. Additionally, construction and operation costs of these facilities have been found to far exceed originally estimated amounts. For these reasons, a new national emphasis has been placed on the develop- ment of treatment systems which are considered "alternative" to mechanical plants. For these same reasons, it is necessary that consideration be given to evaluating the alternative of constructing a non-mechanical facility with direct discharge for the purposes of comparison to the "Delta Alternative". SELECTION OF GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF STUDY The first step in the development of specific alternatives is to identify a general area which is suitable for the types of systems under consideration. Basic factors which must be taken into account when considering land application systems include the following: - Distance from the area served - Soil conditions - Topography - Land Use • - Water Rights - 13 - - Geology • - Environmental Effects - Land Values A general study of the Greeley area using the above criteria resulted in' the selection of the area identified in Exhibit 1 as the best location for the various alternative systems under study. However, during the detailed evalua- tion of the area, revisions were made to the study area boundary as also indicated on Exhibit 1. , EVALUATION OF THE STUDY AREA Soils Soil conditions within the study area were found to be very well suited for crop production. Exhibit 2 identifies the soil associations within the area and these associations are discussed briefly later. Appendix A presents the findings of a general 15 test hole survey and a detailed 62 test hole drilling program within the area. The locations of these borings are shown in Exhibit 3. The locations of 30 infiltration tests are shown in Exhibit 4. The results of these infiltration tests are shown in Table 1. Of the soil types found within the area, those which are the most amenable to land treatment systems are the Valent sands, Vona loamy sand, and Vona sandy loam. A predominant feature of these soil types is their uniformity over very large areas. The uniformity is such that it would be possible to locate a large system within a single soil type (Valent Sand) . A brief discussion of each of the soil types is provided below. References to the map numbers presented in Exhibit 2 have been indicated for each soil type. 1. SCS 72-AB, 72-X, Valent Sand, 0 to 9 Percent Slope (Number 69 and 70 respectively) . • The soils in this classification appear to be ideal for a number of land treatment alternatives. Some of the characteristics which lend themselves to this application include a highly permeable soil , and relatively large tracts - 14 - X I of land with little or no variability in soil types. Erosion problems can be • overcome with proper agronomic practices. These soils constitute a major portion of the study area under consideration. SCS 51-B, 51-C, 51-D, Vona Loamy Sand, 0 to 9 Percent Slope (Number 72, 73, and 74 respectively) Characteristics of this soil classification are similar to those of the adjacent areas. Suitability of these soils to land treatment systems is ideal . 51B-B (11B-B), Vona Sandy Loam, 1 to 3 Percent Slope (Number 76) These soils, similarly, appear to be appropriate due to favorable character- istics of permeability and irrigated agriculture potential . SCS 23-B Altvan Loam, 1 to 3 Percent Slope (Number 2) Soils in this classification cover only a limited number of acres within the survey area and were not considered adequate for most alternates in land treatment when encompassing neighbor soil types. SCS 28B-AB, 34 and 34U Aquolls and Aquents, Gravelly Substratum, and Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded (Number 3 and 4 respectively) Soils in these classifications are not applicable for land treatment due to the fact that they are poorly drained, are subject to flooding and/or their proximity to nearby surface waters. SCS 29-AB, 29B-AB, Bankard Sandy Loam, 0 to 3 Percent Slope (Number 10) Due to location, which subject soils of this type to flooding, these soils are not suitable to land application of wastes. SCS X30-A, X30-B, Colombo Clay Loam, 0 to 3 Percent Slope (Number 19 and 20 respectively) Soils of this type encompass an extremely small area within the study area, and neighboring soil types are not suitable for land treatment. SCS 17M-A, 17M-B, Dacono Clay Loam, 0 to 3 Percent Slope (Number 21 and 22 0 respectively) - 15 - 1 r This class of soils covers widely scattered areas in and near the survey • area. Although this soil type is amenable to irrigated crop land, low permea- bility and a shallow surface layer followed by a gravelly substratum make soils of this type unfavorable. SCS 5-A, 56-B, Fort Collins Loam, 0 to 3 Percent Slope (Number 23 and 24 respectively) Moderate permeability and limited area make this classification unsatis- factory for wastewater application. SCS 30A, 30-B, Haverson Loam, 0 to 3 Percent Slope (Number 25 and 26 respectively) These soils have moderate permeability making them unfavorable for irrigation but due to the geographic location and elevations, these soils may be favorable as potential sites for the storage area if adequately lined. SCS X53-A, X53-B, Kim Loam, 0 to 3 Percent Slope (Number 31 and 32 respectively) . Soils of this classification are moderately permeable. Some substantial areas do exist near the study area and may accept some limited forms of irrigation. SCS 49-AB, Loup-Boel Loamy Sands, 0 to 3 Percent Slope (Number 35) Soils of this group have rapid permeability but are poorly drained due to depressional topography. Some potential for storage exists if care is taken in design of the facility. SCS 53M-CD, Nelson Fine Sandy Loam, 3 to 9 Percent Slope (Number 38) Limited area, runoff potential, and erosion hazard eliminate applicability of this soil type. SCS 17A-A, 17-A, 17-B, Nunn Loam, 0 to 1 Percent Slope and Nunn Clay Loam • 0 to 3 Percent Slope (Number 39, 41 and 42 respectively) Moderately slow permeability will almost exclusively rule out utilizing - 16 - soils of this type for wastewater irrigation. Location and topography are • unfavorable for storage area. SCS 55-A, 55-B (21B-B), Olney Fine Sandy Loam, 0 to 3 Percent Slope (Number 46 and 47 respectively) Urbanization of these soils and moderate permeability limit applicability of this class to land application systems. SCS X-74-AB, Osgood Sand, 0 to 3 Percent Slopes (Number 40) Moderately rapid permeability and isolation from growth centers are plusses for wastewater irrigation. Under proper agronomic practices, danger of range-land blowout is limited. Several land application alternatives are possible. SCS 53-B, 53-C, 53-D, Otero Sandy Loam, 1 to 9 Percent Slopes (Number 51, 52 and 53 respectively) Urbanization of the Otero soils limit their use for land treatment even though these soils have a high permeability. SCS X1-A, X1-B, Paoli Loam, 0 to 3 Percent Slope (Number 54 and 55 respectively) Moderate permeability and geographic location relative to surface water systems limit the potential of soils in this classification to land treatment systems. SCS 60CD, Terry Fine Sandy Loam, 3 to 9 Percent Slope (Number 63) Limited area considered here. Moderately rapid permeability favorable for land treatment. Substratum of sandstone must be considered. SCS 43-B, Thedalund Loam, 1 to 3 Percent Slope (Number 64) Moderate permeability and limited area surrounded by other unfavorable soils limit consideration of soils in this classification. SCS 80-E-4, Ustec Torriorthents, Moderately Steep • Due to the extreme slopes of 9 to 25 percent and the geographic location, - 17 - the possibility of utilizing these soils type areas is negated for land • application of wastes. Geology Within the boundary of the Study Area, there are two major geologic formations - the South Platte River floodplain alluvium, and the Dune Sand area north of the river. Subsurface geology is a consequence of sediment deposition, the Rocky Mountain uplift, stream erosion, and deposition of large alluvial fans. The formations which have evolved since the Paleozoic Era include Pierre Shale, Fox Hills sandstone, Laramie Formation, and the Dawson Formation. The surface geology of the area, alluvium and Dune Sand, creates sufficient overburden on the subsurface formations so that the surface geology is the only concern for the options considered in this report. South Platte River alluvium consists of unconsolidated rock particles of various sizes. These particles accumulated during recent geologic time. Three specific types of alluvium can be identified in the area: - Water deposited clay and silt found in floodplains - Water deposited sand and gravel found in stream channels and valleys - River terrace deposits of sands, gravels, silts, and clays The principal concerns with alluvial material are its flooding potential, high groundwater, and erosion on areas located near the cutbank of the river channel. For disposal of treated wastewater, this material is not favorable. Dune sand consists of unconsolidated, very fine to medium grained sand with some fine silt and clay. It was deposited in recent time by the wind and forms low, crest-like hills. Dune sand is very susceptible to wind and water erosion on steep, unprotected slopes. However, this erosion can be controlled by the planting of vegetation. Flooding and high groundwater are IIInot major concerns with dune sand. Although highly porous, the dune sand is - 18 - :7 1 generally located above the permanent water table and serves as a groundwater • recharge area. - Topography Topography of the area is an important consideration for evaluation of the land application alternatives for several reasons. For alternatives which use center pivot sprinklers for irrigation, the slope of the area must be flat enough to allow for rotation of the sprinkler units. In addition, because winter storage reservoirs are also required, topography is important from the standpoint of having areas suitable for the construction of these reserviors for a reasonable cost. The topography of the Study Area is shown on each exhibit. Ground slopes within the area are generally flat enough to allow for the operation of center pivot sprinklers. In addition, several sites exist which are well suited for the construction of treatment and storage facilities. Cultural Resources There are no sites, either prehistoric or historic, that are currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places within Study Area boundaries. One prehistoric site listed with the Office of the State Archaeologist of Colorado occurs with the Study Area boundaries. Located in Section 4, Township 5 North, Range 63 West, site 5 WL183 is listed as a campsite of unknown age, cultural affiliation and significance. The site will require further evalua- tion before its significance and eligibility for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places can be evaluated. Numerous historic sites (predating 1930 in origin) have been recorded in the South Platte corridor, long recognized as a popular route of travel . Included in the historic listings for this area are the routes of the Long • Expedition (1820), the First Fremont Expedition (1842), the Overland Stage - 19 - 4 r Express (1859) , and Holladay's Overland Express (1862). Also included are the • Dodge, Platte River and Trappers' Trails, and the Union Pacific and Colorado Central Railroads. The Colorado Historical Society was consulted regarding impact to these sites and will consider disturbance of the routes to constitute adverse effect only if tangible remains of the use of the corridor (campsites, stage stations, etc.) are encountered during pedestrian survey. Additional historic sites include: - The grave of the first permanent settler of Weld County (ca.1840) T5N, R63W, Section 18 - Twin Buttes Campground T5N, R63W, Section 34 - Hardin (1906) T5N, R63W, Section 34 - Kuner (1908) T5N, R63W, Section 25 Any proposed impact to these sites will have to be evaluated on a site specific basis. It was preliminarily suggested that these sites be avoided. The lack of recorded prehistoric sites in the Study Area probably reflects a lack of intensive examination rather than an absence of aboriginal remains. Intensive examinations of portions of T4N, R61W, and R62W (Narrows Archaeological and Historic District) and T8N and T9N, R59W, R6OW and R61W (Keota Project) have resulted in the discovery of numerous sites ranging in age from 10,000 B.C. to A.D. 1800. Brief examination of the locations of these sites and previous experience in the South Platte drainage (Sterling 201) suggests that the slightly elevated bluffs north of the South Platte floodplain may contain the highest density of prehistoric cultural resources. Additional areas of interest will be blowouts, areas of unstabilized sand, and ancient stream channels and terrace remnants. It is possible that any or all such areas will contain significant sites that will require avoidance by or • mitigation of the adverse effects of, proposed impact. - 20 - Additional historic sites will most probably be discovered on or directly • adjacent to the South Platte floodplain. Such things as homesteads, ditches, campsites, stage stops, etc. may be encountered. Significance will depend upon such criteria as site age, functon, integrity, etc. The Colorado Historical Society will be consulted regarding any proposed impact to these sites. Except for the historic towns, grave site and campground listed above, there are no currently recorded cultural resources that will require, on the basis of information recorded to date, avoidance in facility planning. Pedestrian survey may result in the discovery of significant historic or prehistoric sites, but it is most probable that avoidance and/or mitigation of any proposed adverse impact will allow for project completion. Water Rights Because of the complex nature of water rights laws in Colorado, it is impossible to briefly outline this issue here. The reader is directed to the water rights discussion in Chapter IV - Evaluation of Alternate Systems and Appendix B for a detailed discussion. Land Ownership Exhibit 5 identifies the land owners of all property within the Study Area. Because it is generally desirable to work within areas which do not .« involve great numbers of property owners, the Study Area was found to be desirable from a land ownership point of view. Most landowners within the Study Area were contacted to discuss the project and gather their views on the possibility of developing a project of this type. Summaries of their attitudes and concerns are presented in Appendix C of this report. When reviewing this information, it must be kept in mind that the information presented may not accurately reflect the opinions of • - 21 - ! r these individuals since "what is said" is not always "what is heard" and • unintentional misinterpretations are always possible. Land Use The area under study is generally being used almost exclusively for agricultural purposes. Exhibit 5 delineates the various types of present uses including gravel pits, pasture, irrigated and dry land farms, and depicts the location of all residences located within the area. Management Alternatives Management alternatives relate to factors dealing with facility ownership and definition of operation responsibilities. Numerous possibilities exist, with the following table summarizing the more obvious possibilities which should be considered. OWNERSHIP OPERATIONS Pretreatment Pretreatment Farming ' Facilities Farm Lands Facilities Operations 1. City City City City 2. City Present Owners City Contractor 3. City Lease City Landowner • 4. City Lease with Purchase City Tenant Option Obviously, many other possibilities exist, but those identified above appear to be the most logical possibilities to consider at this time. • - 22 - 7 i TABLE I . INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS TEST SITE NUMBER INFILTRATION RATE INCHES/HOUR 1 15.79 2 23.06 3 4.36 4 14.84 5 9.13 6 15.99 7 14.44 8 8.84 9 8.71 10 8.89 11 5.68 12 3.45 13 13.31 14 7.60 15 10.16 16 4.20 17 5.05 18 8.90 19 5.23 20 6.68 21 4.33 22 15.34 23 19.60 24 12.58 25 26.17 26 9.86 27 11.03 28 9.09 • - 23 - v I. . 11 �' iii ) I' , , , (j/I 4 i t, b r t3 ,e ., • 1 t. a • li—r '"'"N i-,... _ _, \ ti It, •.t ,J r t rte.' \ k I.�'` ,...IG' !;/ 1 11`);'�� f ,,,,ity ; //\4,. -1.„..___..4.,'‹..',- ''NV-7 -7,' i, \\I(Iiii6c , ,. \ ( _ ,, 4- ;) '`‘,, . // 1 / „ .; ,,,, s Foy - *. I - ■ ,'■ =''A F J.,,i-'- / k•• • / / 'y r ,��, ilk; ..;�Lyi!!!if■'1 a� ( /3' // J '' t - k w �'a'ML:�'IiM�'fw 'al��■a.•-��r t cam.�:_��a,p"- -�--�- l v, „asi!#iiih^i1`Ci��K- i T } -r. „ �'rfYrT�� ilili�f�f�i'C"'� G i f` + / , • �a1 �L' R.+wbii�lii Zr` ` .L. ,/ \ a , / fff W •It ' gC►Ikti k�e��W��■��;r' r 4 �'".`z 9 ", ,r ..../' Y'a 1 .�� '�`iVh IFkwl.,�. .' - ,'--- 1 1 l'T -� _,_, ��L'2 JJ. _S$'ll' i"t'itIrL,,'i'k i i ,, ' - t f I / , '^ f/ . 1 ' ..' L ' / - ' ' 14 / , ,, -,, ....s'' ' 1 .. -... / •,47A•�. \ • ''t - a � f = i 7 . c`�,. 1, u r> , / r` s ,i,. • �T' t'^ 4 /, ' / 7 A • e t a �' .,i� l/A-'..� • i a` 1 .i CJa i / f' • / ,j'j�y/ r'.rr ffffff - i. zs ' r ,t y17_ .t I 'h!, ,;;: .� -I }, _ s �� > irk' -/ " n •�.. _ fa i,y�• ,r . 11 I 4r .�, •7- - ` Vii' 1N iqY rPw nf' s ors • -., ,,,,,. ,- i L t,• V /''''-'' \‘',.'4:•1'.'-.,,44:.,C‘ "•`-' ; ,..:,"4 N- -- /LY' ,- 7 '-') ..' ''1 , 7.''''''.. ly ir '' A" - N / r e — � y} i=-�- ,,- I' „ .Vim, J� / sat ,.,.,rt _•2,/,---a::....-j'•� k tE �♦ .., _ .. v. J,c'1, �.1}a -f, ,\ - _,1 III ' -- �,- EXHIBIT I ' /t i AREA STUDY MAP %iii li , , ,__, nl i - is I I - I •c,- a ,l ii - RrYr. a , , I f s , ) i 1' ' v \e U 74 ,+ ''''\ \ 2 it 3 \,,,)' I )1' , . 14• \' /"O 4746 - -�4 14 _ 6:y _ - • .-• 16° ! � �f=�\V.rtl�Nl / ' •j5° / ,( r/ t i. '.\'I _4 ` 'm I+ j / j # 4779 „-t- 1 1 2.H 22 2 ), ., . . �' -"\, ,I!I\ , I 11 ', rs I'f - )2,3' ',, ' :(' 1' ' ' '\' : 24' , ` , 17 �11 Mgr 4636 i CD N .I II I / / J/ N I of r i -i f}1 - , M ' 'ao N Ft 2 2 5 ( 1 I ( J •.. \� J �� 1 ' --N, / I / , I / N }T 11 ,' Gill p ��2289, \\)( 1, // ' \ \ '' ' ' ,I1/ ;R '� . EM _ \ "� N4.35 1.1 rccf 4, W` ( o C) N X 4,4 cow \ \ \ 6 NB+veo.Laic YI \ 41 ; \ \I 1 1 4637 II \ �• _ I ,k 0 ,11 N467� AI 6 / II \ `, \, III ,•,,,,_ `O✓\52 I. I, -a,,,, 1 e + 47.3.? �; *, ‘ ..\\N,.. S' , , _ # \ r . /- .,/- , 66'3 = -�� • - u x4y/4 \ } N \ I N , � 0 $• �; 1 H4610 1 I '-'-'1:6.6. = — j' v • DETAIL&? �f ILLIWG PROGRAM "• + qD °:.L ,, - _• INITIAL R I jG P'OGR AM r N a -,v. • -,„,--i, . 161,00.:: , a 11.. ,,, \ • n I3 °� � � TH�� 463 ,• = N46DC lJYye • 1` •657 FORK 1, VV EXHIBIT 3 , ,i 'N, ,,,, 00, SOIL TEST BORING SITES k4644 ` u96_-_ _-,T I_3 Cv ` \ i - G�{�e .,. \ _ sat�F-r2)1 __✓''_'+__ _.� - t• ----- r\', r- 2) ---' --_-__) ,, I , i .,.. , I . \ T' 0 ) \-.., ,_) j / ,_,--, ) i ) ij ', .1 1 O / / I �, 2,\4 \\ � 13 i ,, ; 7L2L- (-N-);> ° 6 \:-.' .)\ C-YZ- ‘‘ \-'- )' •• 4746 tIM 4'14 6 9 —• � M�.. �� ____ _ //( 477 • . ,i qq;y,�_75. — --/- r, ,'. /if-5.., ,_, ,,,, f __,,,./______ ly ; 0 IF - / D / r '-II J /- 57 / it JI \-• 22 I 2 J�T� � vJ II r -it 'If ' -r ,' ,,/1 ,.j- - r' °N I� \ ) C• -- \ _'\ ., - (-j C-\ ) �\ • 0 696 i _46B/ \ / i 111 J )f v f f\f/ N , -_., ) I/ 9 \ / J 2 ... I t d'�'F'26 I IQ `\(((J,/-7 I jj f f.. ,:?, :l - . ,, , , \,__,r _f - ' 48>i.'.- '-2 - _1 , c>9 \ 648 M • 4.381 L ' \ I ` \ O _ / \ °4 N o =_-- -- 34 .. 35 T• �\ �\\\ \I 1�l!\� \ C\I o Nr. .)�aw / `— ` 0 6 YN 4637 / wb 1�� ♦ `) \ ,\\ / `6 /, (�\\ fit: . \ ( ..„....., ,J �, '0625 -k=;, •. \ \ ^�/ ( \\ M° °� 4650 -yI�` ��l ✓�1 / \ \ ' f`.J I 1 1`� Q _ \ �_: , - ....-, . ,4623 I V' os•s y,. °• I .•• . 2 \ \d „ 2 O 00'**til 0 ,'"----, .--_ , ,I , I N / -----..„ -' NI5P ,,,, n" --/� N 1610 1; � \ �\ \\_, - I. N I -----) gg ,\ „ „46,6_, -- — _V \,:r.46// ).,__ • }, N ° 1I • I ` }`- • l ' ( •660 N1O° i• 11 6 -"s6se _ x'.650 0610*�z_�— , }1 46 4$% I I EXHIBIT 4 \9 ecru r/./ 6oarr ` I 6'0 .600 /�� INFILTRATION TEST SITES i ` 6n CHAPTER III DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES Alternative System Descriptions General Sewer Outfalls Pretreatment Pumping Transmission Preliminary Treatment Storage Final Treatment and Disposal Land Application with Center Pivot Sprinklers Treatment and Direct Discharge •^ Land Application with Crop Irrigation by Overland Flow Rapid Infiltration/Percolation Basins Land Application Through Existing Ditch • Systems Ili r CHAPTER III • DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS General To facilitate the description and evaluation of the various alternatives under consideration, the total system has been divided into the following components: - Sewer Outfalls - Pretreatment - Pumping - Transmission - Preliminary Treatment - Storage - Final Treatment and Disposal Several alternatives have been developed for many of these components. Each of the alternatives can be considered independently and then combined to provide a complete system for overall evaluation. Complete design criteria can be found in Appendix D to this report with only general alternative descriptions following. r Sewer Outfalls For any type of treatment it is first necessary to collect the raw wastewater at a common point for treatment at that location or for pumping to another location. In the original "Delta" plan, a gravity outfall line was to be constructed to carry the wastewater from the First Avenue Plant to the Delta site. Additionally, a major trunk line known as the Southeast Interceptor was planned for the north side of the South Platte River. This trunk line was to carry flows originating in the southeast part of the city and would connect - 29 - to the line going to the Delta site from First Avenue. Only part of • this line has been constructed to date. A re-evaluation of these proposed lines was undertaken and several new routing possibilities shown in Exhibits 6, 8 and 10 have been identified: Profiles of these routes are presented in Exhibits 7, 9 and 11 respectively. The first alternative would be to collect the entire flow near the First Avenue Plant for pumping to the Study Area. The second alternative assumes that the raw wastewater would either be treated at the Delta Site or pumped from this location to a new facility located within the Study Area of this report. If all waters are accumulated at the Delta site for either treatment or pumping, two preliminary outfall line routings have been identified. The north routing would be entirely by gravity flow. The northerly routing would pass through an area which is presently planned to be used as a large recrea- tional lake after gravel has been extracted. If an outfall line were con- structed through this area it would interfere with the recreational lake proposed. The southerly line would require a lift station at a location south of the First Avenue plant with gravity flow to the Delta Site. The southerly routing which requires pumping was considered in order to avoid those areas designated for future sand and gravel extraction. Either of these options would require extending the Southeast Interceptor to connect to the main outfall lines where shown. If the wastes were to be collected at First Avenue for pumping, a larger lift station would be required in the vicinity of the existing lift station at the end of the Southeast Interceptor. From the lift station, the waste would flow by gravity to a common point near the First Avenue plant. • Pretreatment After collection of the raw wastewater at a common location, some form of - 30 - pretreatment is advisable before pumping. The minimum treatment required is the removal of solid materials which are too large to pass through the pumps. This material is normally removed from the wastewater by using mechanical bar screens. In addition, to reduce pump wear, grit removal can also be undertaken. Besides reduced pump wear, grit removal can also allow the use of different pipeline design criteria because the flow velocity does not need to be as high when grit has been removed. Pre-treatment consisting of only bar screens and bar screens with grit removal was analyzed including not only the capital and operating costs for the treatment units but also the effect on capital and operating costs of the pumping and transmission facilities. Typical layouts for each of these pre- treatment systems are shown on Exhibits 12 and 13 respectively. These units would be located either in the vicinity of the First Avenue plant or at the Delta Site. Pumping All alternatives other than treatment at the Delta site require the pumping of the wastewater to the Study Area. Consideration was given to pumping from either First Avenue or from the Delta site. The pump station is basically the same regardless of the location. However, the horsepower requirement will vary depending upon which transmission line alternative is selected. Preliminary layouts for the pumping facilities have been shown with the pretreatment buildings presented earlier. Transmission The proposed routing of the force main to the most desirable location for the treatment and storage facilities is shown on Exhibit 14 and 15. A profile of these routes is presented in Exhibit 16. However, other routes could be selected. Two alternatives are being considered; a single line or a • dual pipeline system could be used to carry the entire flow from either First - 31 - Avenue or the Delta site. While the cost for two lines would obviously be • higher, the use of two lines does offer the advantage of increased total system reliability which justifies its initial consideration. Preliminary Treatment Preliminary treatment is defined as the treatment necessary before storage to prevent the storage reservoir from developing undesirable odors or appearance. Preliminary treatment to a desired level can be accomplished by a variety of treatment processes including both mechanical and non-mechanical methods. The simplest system from the standpoint of construction, operation, and maintenance, is the use of mechanically aerated lagoons and it is this type of system which is being considered. Two variations of this system were analyzed; a conventional lagoon with 24 days detention time and a smaller 4 day detention time system. A conventionally designed aerated lagoon as presented in Exhibit 7 generally consists of two or more earthen basins with a combined capacity equal to the total flow of wastewater for approximately 24 to 30 days. The liquid within the basins is mechanically aerated with either floating aerators or by the dispersion of compressed air through subsurface diffusers. Settleable solids are allowed to accumulate over very long periods of time (up to 20 years) before removal is required. The organic portion of the solids decom- q. poses through anaerobic processes, consequently the volume of stabilized sludge accumulates at a very slow rate. For a design flow of twelve million gallons per day, the water surface area required is approximately 68 acres with a depth of 14 feet. Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) reduction within this system would be in the range of 85 to 90 percent. A variation of the above described system was also studied. The storage • cells for this system as presented in Exhibit 18 are much smaller and provide for a total detention time of approximately four days instead of the 24 day - 32 - • period. This reduction in size substantially reduces the amount of aeration • needed but does require that accumulated sludge be removed much more frequently. Construction costs are reduced because of the smaller size of the lagoon. However, because the basins must be lined with either concrete or soil cement to allow equipment to periodically remove the accumulated sludge, costs are not reduced proportionately to the detention time reduction. Either system was designed to provide the required treatment necessary for effluent suitable for long term storage and subsequent irrigation use. Storage A storage reservoir serves two basic purposes in a Land Application System. First, it permits the accumulation of partially treated wastewater during winter months when it cannot be used for irrigation. Secondly, addi- tional treatment occurs within the reservoir through natural biological processes resulting in an effluent equal to or exceeding that from conventional secondary treatment systems. Several potential sites for storage reservoirs initially identified within the Study Area are shown on Exhibit 19. A preliminary analysis indi- cated that on the basis of construction cost, volume requirements, and proximity to the most desirable application areas, the reservoir should be located within Section 31. The topography of this area is well suited for the econom- ical construction of the reservoir and the required capacity could be easily obtained. A reservoir with either a single cell or two cells was considered. A typical layout for the two cell reservoir is shown in Exhibit 20. A single cell reservoir would be constructed by removing the dike between the two cells. Drainage from areas upstream from the reservoir would be routed around the reservoir to avoid construction of large spillways that would be otherwise • necessary to pass storms flows caused by heavy precipitation upstream. Some - 33 - . I lining of the reservoir bottom is required to insure that all seepage from the • reservoir is intercepted by the ditch surrounding the reservoir on the down- stream sides. In addition, the success of this capture will be determined by downstream monitoring wells and though unlikely, pumps could be added to return the groundwater to the reservoir. Erosion protection would be provided along all areas where embankments are constructed. For the two cell system, both dam faces would be stabilized to prevent erosion. The maximum storage available at this site without flooding of Section 30 is approximately 5,700 Ac-Ft. Assuming a five foot freeboard allowance is provided, the reservoir would have a working capacity of 4,635 Ac-Ft. The proposed dam would have a top elevation of 4,640 and if filled to overflowing would retain 8,800 Ac-Ft. Final Treatment and Disposal Five different methods of final treatment and disposal were intially given consideration. Two were eliminated due to conditions found within the Study Area. The remaining three were evaluated and remain under consideration. Discussions pertaining to each of the five methods follow. Land Application With Center Pivot Sprinklers After storage, the wastewater would be pumped through a pipe distribution network to numerous centerhpivot sprinklers for irrigation use. Climatological conditions would allow for.application during approximately thirty weeks of the year. However, °approximately ten weeks must be allowed for agricultural operations such as ground preparation, planting, harvesting, and equipment downtime. During the remaining twenty weeks, water may be applied at rates ranging up to an estimated 4 inches per week. Assuming an overall application of 2-1/2 inches per week or 50 inches total water applied per year, an area of • 3,000 acres would be placed under crop production. Using a higher applicaton rate of 4 inches per week would require approximately 1,870 acres be placed under crop production. Leaving an allowance for incomplete corner coverage - 34 - for center pivot sprinklers of approximately 27%, the total agricultural area • to be developed would be 3,800 and 2,370 acres respectively. A preliminary layout of the agricultural area assuming a 2-1/2 inches per week application rate is presented in Exhibit 21. The actual application rate is dependent upon several factors. Application of water to meet the nitrogen needs of the crop without the use of supplemental fertilizers would require approximately 4 inches per week. This amount exceeds the water required for crop growth and would result in percolation of water beneath the crop root zone. An analysis of crop water requirements is • presented in Appendix B. Since bedrock was found to be rather shallow (5-30 feet) in the Study Area, drain tile would be necessary to remove the excess water to prevent flooding of the root zone. For the purposes of determining capital costs, a conservative approach was taken using the lower application • rate which required the largest area for crop production. Installation of underdrains is also planned to collect any excess water leaving the crop root zone. This flow would discharge at the groundwater pump station where it can either flow to Crow Creek by gravity or be pumped back into the reservoir. During discharge, the water quality would be monitored. The quality of this discharge is expected to be very high and should be better than that normally found in area rivers. Crops grown under irrigation in the Midwest include winter wheat, soybeans, corn, and alfalfa. Specialty crops grown in the Greeley vicinity which could be considered are sugar beets, and malt barley. However, these two specialty crops are not likely choices due to their limited markets. Several thousand acres of malt barley would completely flood that market and would allow no versatility of options for selling the grain. The sugar beet situation is • presently less than desirable due to equipment costs, low market values, and questions regarding the desirability of irrigating with wastewater any crop grown for human consumption. - 35 - Alfalfa is processed by several different methods including bale produc- • tion and dehydration for pellets. The method of production having the least capital cost would be dehydration. Four cuttings equivalent to six tons per acre on a dry basis may be expected annually with good management. Hard winter wheat is grown under irrigation in the Greeley area with farmers trying for high yields of 60-70 bushels per acre in order to meet production costs. Actual production levels could be expected to fall in the range of 50 bushels per acre. This crop could be grown using the proposed system. Corn for grain or silage shows the best potential because of high local demand, low machinery and labor costs, and versatility with repsect to soil and environmental concerns. The value of silage or high moisture corn is generally in line with corn grain on a per-acre basis. Top farmers in the area try to reach the 150 bushels per acre production level . However, ini- tially, a yield goal of perhaps 125 bushels per acre may be more realistic. With 2700-2800 growing degree days available for the crop, 120-day corn is commonly raised. Under heavy irrigation, the season will be prolonged, but it may well be possible to dry 100-105 day corn grain in the field and save dryer energy. Some combination of silage and grain could offer a constant flow of corn to the local feedlots from the end of August into November. For the purpose of evaluating costs and revenues, it has been assumed that corn would be the crop produced. Treatment and Direct Discharge Two alternatives involving only treatment and directed discharge were considered. The "Delta" plant alternative with direct discharge to the South Platte river remains under consideration. Details regarding this plan can be found in the original Facility Plan Environmental Impact Statement. Updated • capital and 0 & M cost estimates for this alternative have been prepared and are included with this document. - 36 - I I A new treatment and discharge alternative has been developed for considera- • tion. After pumping the raw wastes to the Study Area, the wastewater would be first treated by aeration for twenty four days. Following aeration, the water would be chlorinated and discharged to Crow Creek. During periods when suspended solids exceeded the maximum allowable amounts, the water would be filtered through micro-strainers prior to discharge. The routing of this discharge line is presented in Exhibit 22. Land Application With Crop Irrigation by Overland Flow Land application of wastewater by overland flow was found to be impractical and was not given further consideration. Topography of the Study Area is such that extensive land leveling would be required with the resulting costs far exceeding those for a center pivot system. High soil infiltration rates also preclude this concept from further consideration in this particular area. Rapid Infiltration/Percolation Basins Final treatment and disposal of the wastewater by applying the wastewater at a very high rate to small areas is practical only when a great depth of soil or sand and gravel exists over bedrock. Soil borings indicate that adequate overburden over bedrock does not exist within the area of study. Consequently, further consideration of this alternative was not undertaken. Land Application Through Existing Ditch Systems This alternative differs from treatment and direct discharge only in the location in which the treated waste is discharged. Rather than discharging directly to Crow Creek after treatment, the water would be piped to the Ogilvie Ditch for subsequent use as irrigation water by present users of the ditch system. The routing of this discharge line is presented in Exhibit 22. • - 37 - , \I -Cri---1 ----i, LI \r,,,, . • el: 0. 4.. CO ` A ''\ • o W • • ' - /�i �,d W 1 •i ; ,• . �1� cg a • . .C / r: ' 6 o 1� 1...= • .-1W I:, 41..... 1 1 . k ` O1. o a !/ ..! �\ _ ,• mil Q° 1.. • I iitt 11 r .6° a �r ;•% (D. I(�'v/f// y\ezlz ll se / d I = . 30 �;c = `�r�' \/" .f p �. I Vol5 v' W F. ul' cc CI i •411 li 4° \9%, 'IT y V� ' ' St 1��a 01.5 q_'-_•�d •e�• Q �� \\ Z lf 1 ' — 1... ah ofe .{ l'_u 1' ___-1 -- ..,a • .I —'e r.' _ - e..'k_ —_m' •...=.',. ti°__ 11, `1•-bpi • -., , ' _ ` Jr) r _ ._ _ , •-•*--- lc°.:;„•1 '-•- 1_1' ,/ , , I�, y - —o r 9 c —a' ` r a A —_,_..L. 1 • ill r 4640 • 4630 / 4620 4610 _ 4600 0 13 14 15 16 17 18 NOTE: STATIONING IS 1000' INTERVALS. / MANHOLES NOT SHOWN BECAUSE OF SCALE. . • 10 EXHIBIT 7 OUTFALL SYSTEM - NORTH GRAVITY PROFILE ''-ri/—Th) ic:- ' 1 n• i . A 1\ I— • . i 1 ' ‘ , ° O w 0 t1i M� it `� p '• O P.---/\\ z • c- ♦*t. �o o c:•0 // i 4r U)F �; a W a. • tij 0 S C —� O • CD I411 IG ,I.5 0.1> :..\. .---.\�. Oyyir I bbaa �. \$ • \\o m • / 1' °> N • 1- Q. � `� JIliF� _- ° �:: ; � w c.:,..._",.............,,,,,,,,..:\ ca i, ir.---,..7,7:::i i .,O_,,._,-___ Ic ..e.," .X09~ �,� I �,�'� o •• ' °' �,.. o-,/ \`g W 1, \HW di • . r cV",_---..:.., .1. . p7 • -.- •• -. i �1 la W ° 1 �O O•••a4l:� ,- ,\ W il j, o ii2 t.I (n Wi W •-1-A i ' '' '''i -----.-----411. `� �_= , am — ': f a 1 II'. � •�{ P f�- '•_- �� -_ 1=-•11_"4_..' i •`1�11 ... -_ ri - 3°`�? a _•,•L ° .. . '- -�—_-� • __I . ,' 10 ..- r 7. - -..!„,,. , ler ii- •- _• -SA '•'r,II'♦�♦♦ ' `.•_ - `� SI` .� --I•'♦ + " I _ I •• ., • h •1 III YI 1 — fs r -- I 4650 _ • 4640 - - 1 \ , \ I \ 4630 4620 scpEW PIMP STATION 4610 _� 46000 14 15 16 17 18 I9 NOTE: STATIONING IS 1000' INTERVALS. MANHOLES NOT SHOWN BECAUSE OF SCALE. • EXHIBIT 9 OUTFALL SYSTEM - SOUTH LINE PROFILE ,...______ ...., „,......_,/ _ ,_, L.r. ( ....... __ ,,, vc:......,,,,,,, . / , f e .2. A• 1\iel' . ?Al / . 1 %. • 1_ ...., _-, 11 --,..... •• ® I.-. 41 • • • • I 3� ,l�r • j f Z • rN. iLl 1 y� '� .') cp ) .� �' •e J W O 1- • , i•• • : • 4 1 ID ,,, I „NH , D \CD Tr ‘ )11:: k_ _ ,, . 2 D a e '1 w ut \ j I e�I .17 •' G�/l1 �� $I U v / ill A\ �y/\ Cr :, . 1:Ft",-.=0,.1 i; t'•....r-.-- 1 ii • G _ IC./: rtp-61 .,-. '-,t,,,-,,dam,.= -. ---- _ •• 741 • ._:2.,.. ' '•=-F=_ •'�� 41 ' V:: I I.:* \' -.-' '5 I ' — M, wH ` • �� cif; '.6 .:. ".`.XN, v- fi X Q a.?:and �— C I, V~"`Ef . —' 1—"` to W : Ct W • _.6.o_I� ..� T O "p: •. `<�0 1 Z•4.ti F— D x a " '• ' '1.o O• J I.•:-t__,J.,, __:III_r,,,i -, .s.,____„, I II" •' h, ♦1 .4 .•r• -L'• > lib ~1 aIw '( ,.7 1,�.1t1�''� 1 il I.,--\ 4 `).._.\"----:.\\__ J • 11 l' I VJ r —' •- -� /_ , . .'• . ' r,l t _ -.l -__��- _ aka/^� , �,� ¢A I:. �:. { iT.t+~: '- • , `', 1•-r . ,. ' I 1 r� !� - - ,,,.....—.......z....--........ _ _ --_...--_ —_.r --"....-.......3*-- F.. +� .. •-' � ° - _ T- - - - - - _ -i Y �._i 1 '-t • 4650 � 7 / -----____ ,---- 4640 / ________---Z, 4630 ;HOWN 4620 0 I 2 12 13 14 15 :HONING IS 1000' INTERVALS. VHOLES NOT SHOWN BECAUSE SCALE. • EXHIBIT II OUTFALL SYSTEM - WEST LINE PROFILE ! 0 II @ $. i }_1 PLATFORM_'- ELEV. -J 4600.00 FLOOR ■ ■ �'�-�'s'"� ELEV. 4584.15 -s_a •= -- - ' ---NI P \ ♦ II I I \\ LkI ,/ \ LL/ • i®r''1 01 MECHANICAL BAR SCREEN GROELEV. E ND LV 0 CHUTE 4 4612.00 0 03 HOPPER 04 PARSHALL FLUME 05 SAMPLER INVERT ® CONTROL STRUCTURE ELEV. 4597.00 0 WETWELL FLOOR ELEV. 4613.00 ® CONSTANT SPEED PUMP 09 VARIBLE SPEED PUMP ql O'' 2 ® GENERATOR --- - O CONTROLS ® OFFICE ollo -I - EXHIBIT 12 PRETREATMENT/ PUMPING SCREENING AND PUMPING • r.....—..r rl a• �I ' FLOOR ELEV. q4584.15 u b 14 .`. ` 10 q T -- I O 4-O 13 =_II MANHOLE II ----== r� P 1 ---- 12 I }�■ O L —______ .z.-. \ L 0 III Xq .1 I I I O) -rte .u.u�� _1 I i■s� - ❑ cl I —4— I I I PLATFORMTLLLrr I I / . i ELEV. _ I I4600.00 I IIIIIIlIlllll 11111111111 III I i I I -- K5).,.... ,;:).__) I 1� d . . 1--r—r— . . MECHANICAL ll I ® BAR SCREEN 02 PARSHALL FLUME _iuuno• 03 SAMPLING UNIT muu-- 0 GRIT COLLECTOR 0 GRIT PUMP _ [I CU I 2 O GRIT CYCLONE © 1OI )") O CONVEYOR SECOND FIRST ® HOPPER FLOOR FLOOR I I ELEV. ELEV. I = INVERT O OFFICE 4629.00 - 4613.00 L ELEV. 0 GENERATOR I 4597.00 0 CONTROLSIF I I Q CONTROL STRUCTURE FIRST FLOOR © WET WELL SECOND FLOOR ® VARIABLE SPEED PUMPS 15 CONSTANT SPEED PUMPS i EXHIBIT 13 PRETREATMENT/ PUMPING SCREENING WITH GRIT REMOVAL AND PUMPING R 1 V _ . ,J rl .,,....0,- ' J c. .;J / ► I Lame' _ School `a FOAL,_ _ — a�3a a ,, ° :M (:).--•: .' � eisMcz I •.6, 6653 �� OBarneenll° I I. •� // - � 19 - 1 21 I 2 22 I•j •• I` O r" /1' 24 we* 14t7 Weiu I e • eett — + - - '6'3 .mss 2s II I' ,\ '\ 27 w. P 2625 wen 30 i n\I 1 ,1o° I l , �� \rI / • P L C'. E A ^a, rR - N II T z)\ , , \ M 1.. .$-\ti=- - -I - -• .u_°°.- - cschoot. /NI.,•• acza r4635 1 ' - s ` �� IV E A ME welt@ X E Xe % r 33 •A° 34 P' 35 I 3( O 36 we°� 31 '� I I rll p r f JI VI A L L ' E Y W (c-1-4, A Fs �\`1' / ,--) ) .,=,D \\..-, ' a f ' S 1\ i ), --..) _:ff]'so3.r +r ,,,Ili' 'w 1/ J ' s•A' 1 �Ii-v _0\-,`1-��_.•-© 41. ::<,-, -F I Rai.-,--ArVi-if:7\i::::"---i'';''T';'\' '-'1". - ' _ PtlMF #SIG 4 - - - . ______ °_'� I , , - , \c '. •� l .: STATION aa,3� • <au., - - - LII • ••N ..rat tear, t , t •a6tvv .- • O, . o `� ,'\ I'r \ °• .y •. a6ar „ i/t.:, r9 sag a•---\\- r., � \ \ -,- • �.•e - �sJ' r - .,'I. aaosJ \/ p,� -�..7 •\ /J A' v a6 2\\:11I ill .\ ° = ; astir - •••••. _ __l . -_Elm.,• • _ Ilr\ nws°� ".\---.N. .i" B, •�isee rigs l 1 .grai Y /�//p}�rT F: wa° -'\ l �.Szo—r- �� • I .z°/ + ,\ J,Qa - l5 J� �. yep,� il oM `' '-�' i - \ ?, / ,, - N . • '/ - -I 21 ,ra-�° 22 as -A� O I ''I.- ,v 24/ I I --e-?:3 �'� EXHIBIT 14 )$• �r © TRANSMISSION RI ,j _ _ _ i.L.A�bo \ FROM FIRST AVENUE ' -- =- I . , J a l Y >d.«e °�. . u. 4 {Wile,4+.11661 . •Yfg" el.,1 _ ;• �. 9e600l ram II • =- .4 / / Pr Cr -ans3 Barneev111e + \..... 1 / • 21 . I 22 -/l ,/\) n 19 r.• O°�=I 71M 23 I �• , O / 24 wan .ctsa ix., r i I ' I . / d. (rya q°IP A )' Via,- la • �� _• - j„, d1 - 4= _ 27 _ — x, - ,_.__,•. _ 25 we�' 30 -I I /� 26 ' P L I E A S Arts.] YT l• 4 I • .Y . -- - � e.- '. - •- - __ aaza _- --..'''`,°., Its' .464 I Y ' ` we 9 N^ P 4 \ I ' ^. RE A TM E N `-~,°- �C: a� a , �� 3.3' n ` 'IT I 34 I 35 IFEK) I° , 36 1 `w� 31 'I .- f V i A L L E V Y j \ ` p /1 / 1 O I (. ,( �c•<. - ' ' .,'etc °- I (t.,l'`".,` cm 0 Teozo V I r /� <H. I> T4 '---'7'r— -Z 1 ("P( .', - ------ 4-2.. .:1; I 71- f0/n�.F r 'ly\ r �C • 1, ,):f \ D E LTA► 4 I wbaa F . • -'7 k A. f 1 i( F/i•''•;',•:: 9 - G. PUMP;�N,�_-.,� - •; � �� , l \ I�i r" .n,_ _ •,.,.�•,•� STA 1 °IO` '•�aisa• • . . /-1=,•12 q 7 I J,i 1 I\ \ C ' l. ...,'\:\‘, , s ; .,., . (_)\\I . , .• 13 '-'1%,_--- 1-- "------------) \-=^I �� -�_- / ' .see 1- 1 - - - 1- •I ,.arc. • J a.y 4, `;, . I I * a w ' 23, -Y EXHIBIT 15 Ik- per~ © TRANSMISSION re I v$ - :.- - - - - - _ �` f-�PLAh,),n - - FROM DELTA SITE_ r- K ffrn,. O 0 4640 4620 \ 4600 ;Ion ui ler-Icr FROM Y a o>0 iii ,ow n a cc 0)0 in 0 150 w rto o= 4620 a a 4600 \ / DELTA SI 4580 NOTE:STATIONING FOF Lu W PIPELINE FROM DE Ct .4 w w' FROM 0+00 TO 4( w wF- ZW • 0 co V 0 5 15 260 EXHIBIT 16 TRANSMISSION PIPELINE PROFILES I ... 1 , . i , (.. -;"--;T T \ T\ j T.i\S/ / __ - �.i.,/ • I J \ \ \ 1?) t Y 7/7/ -- tj\ \ \ . \ \ \ // 25 -----"::-- \ \ \ \ 4,,......,,„//////v z ,..., ,7, III ' /// H Z 1 cn i ////1 / Zo i I // w O / 9/ j \ / 7/ / / / / 2 0 D--- \ .1 1 / / / / W ( I / ' / F.\ _ f4 3 � \ �.� �. l� I x a � 1,r, , \ O �,W � Iiwzw \ \Ir /0a \cc \ ii \ J I�� lii J } W 4 cc 0 Lu w �. \ \o lz l i a 1 ,__ \ li, 1 \ ()1,,5 16.1Tr I 1 r\ \2Lu\ \ i\ ,,,_ 1 \ , \ \LLt\, 1-.14 . \ -ii\- \ , 0 1 , \7_,(elf T \j 1 \ . \ k \k\ 10 II \ -\\ \ \\ -.. "‘Lfilti i7j "-Lii \ \\ \ \ \ oidti\ e \� \\ II \\ WP \ \ \ \ . i L ',r ,.p. . I \11 \11\ -J Cil$111 i \ *-1? I No 1 \\ 1111 3 i W IN \ -e---a W ji> a d5m \ �\ \ U X W _ \\ Q w� w �� oI Q0 \ \ �` Z Z \ I Zi NO m JZ �ll�tl� i W U)Z J H �Q ?\Ow JLC \ Wa ' 0 •O O I °o J>-H ' ' _ / �W -J F- V� F QW} I Mm \ JQ~ i ) H 00 -t - i COUNTY ROAD 61 t- ` _,F----_ I 11 — ...-:::....:/-/:::-:7:-.::::),,.-..- -.. ..-...... :: :..... :......:....../......: .:............i... .:::::.:::4;.:::::/ . ...-:-...-:.::::.:7.-.:::.::-:::N.::1::-.1:.:::::/- fill / / :47:::::::k`...:-./'.7: 7: 170'''"41.::43- • - . tt' / 4' • ....::.:::.::::-:.:.::::::./ z,;/7. . .4..; ;: - .7// 43° / ::•::::.:.1:Y•:::/.:,„7/ ... .:.-- ... .- --S7-.1- :--- /// ::::::•::/..:::::.:::. 1.. ./. ...:...;4,---L----,2- -=.-_----_:- 7/\� �� \ � (MAXIMUM 1t�ESERVdI�t/'(// / scams: i"=aoo' ..... � � . I . ..flW4IER SIIR,FAG � l l .:::.::::.::::::::::::::.:::;g»..))) .1. 11 I \ \ \\ \\\\10 II .::::.::::::::.::::.:::::)/// / .1.- : \ \ \\ \\I 1 1 / ::::*::::.::.f.::::.:::.::.////: • . '.1.114, j ' T i \\\ \ IIIII / / ""/!: f� /'�.;/ I � o./lg. � , JI I F XED PLATFORM o� ►- i � S�RFACE AERATORS 6 ' .�'� / 7ELy/ / J / / TL) lij.::...: °:.13:" 'r T 1EFFLNT ELOGG 7 f I //// /. / ,(/ /il 1/1 / 1. ;II ' ' • / / so I , il ( HI ; i ( ) I 1-STORAGEI- .. \‘‘,\\\\ J RS RVOIR —./ I\ \ / El�'7 i ji. �I � IIi ��PS / 1;:::::::::\.::::\�11 ) ) E31 ` 1 I I i I IINFLU`ENT FLOW/ � ,,�I ��r%�1\A � 1 ,_ �METERI _ ai sz �)1��,: 'Il rl( \\�,\` 1./1 / j I/' // ///// / � I / SECTION/166 '';`�• �•,�, I I �CON TR0L _LAB AND ''f/i7/ �j / // I CORNER • MAINTENANCE6LDG� // / / ' . //24 ' \\ � \`11-:; �J��j�//////// / ////r/ �/�II I I 5oY�"�JFLS1EfITFORCMAIN \/ P / ii (ffr:-,- N\N \/ // ‘�`IC� \\\_,,7 /7 / ( ( ( \� EXHIBIT 18 • // �� ) )\ \\ \ \� �\\1 � PRELIMINARY TREATMENT 4 DAY AERATION LAGOONS ' Icy J." -�- = i ` ,j,, '' � � `' / ,f ,l',, -� •jr - r I % J 1 I 1 ,- J , suE r �4 'C , � r r �J ` I q r -t.,,--,-, j "'7`;'i +/ --I/ r ^r J i'7....--j_,_ :,r- , ___:,.. ...--'` L l'.-_---'--:.-,: —t''''' ' -;,' : ' ' i ,', t , . ,....._rc....N ---',\- -- , c• ie .174,1 36 • L •I-,' _ , `l III «1 - �� {ry T. - ,/l� cJ .!L ",t . - o� ' r' -- .i 'wi � 'tl +'• •�� ■ii��P! } i , »►i '� t r..��y��t��■t • t..., ,,,. , ,s .�� iA t7 1w171!q ti�Iasi > ,q J�w . it liel.�s.'f 1��•�.-��rf.,, r. . fei _'- °, •.(c\ /c��\ --�,, - ,• ,_ , ..„___. ,..„.. , ,. , , ,,, .„._.,..,▪ .;;�,+;tea .w► . 1L:2.�■ — V'I'.., - ��i 4 ° r., . f .Y s .„,,,--<":"...., � -••� k--��.� `� •. - .^�i!Q ,.�n�`r�"\+�i\i�'II`"1»'i7i� I..:. �, -.4,1 C �,�_, r "t y q, l trw.. 4, {::1---J, '�i��L_� 1 r1N 1`+' ♦1�,-yq�L F' O` F `llh�1\11°`11 ..r. 1 11 , /• e'' ��rbl Pit��'']► � ItL FTi ..- t -` ;_" y -, _, ). - f-,- •,J,� ..".-,�, \ ,� - .L -4., ;r*,..,.'II\L• ! .' 4 IAlq"\. " 1,- 1.--''II 'if I �. ;t Y:''J. '"' •*`^ i_,..•y °-,.; %fir- '• f Y1}• a1s� , .- A I*_ - /, 1, , ,/- ,-"------'-r-,„„-\_,..^ Y ^ t\,-- .� ,10.---••-10-.-7-.....+-?:`.:- � ....., .,, es, '.,• SI .-V,, 11••4 ' Ff `X yr tl�J/ \` a" In - ti ��;, c�_, V--- r"- >. .,,,M" • ',II ,(l - .. , �' t ' 0 ,A1, /` =", / -.— EXHIBIT 19 a . > a ~ POTENTIAL RESERVOIR SITES '1 . I � ' � . • // ( 4635 _ / -1- - - ( -- - - -- i\4 • . 7(...v........ir.;:it=z--- -'=-. --,--.----___1-- _-t-4-----.:_:_::-....j:'t.._:__-L----17.7... / i'.1';',////".---: \\ 6' .. .r. 1' •-, �J 1 A -. t \\t ot ji' \ 1 \1I11 \ ,, \�\� • A CELL �t0. II lit} \1J \`` J POOL STAGE 4G35,\\\\ -3\ -_ t } / INTERCEPTI N & I I i ( MAX. STAGE 4640\�� ---I DIVERSION ITCH I�� ;` I I \,>:---------,'-(( / / ( `--' / 11116-‘r-:-:-..,./ I ) / (' l I I \ // /712.'1\ Alf 'l : ) I �y i t DIKE TCt EE ELIMINATED % 7iii -'." / �_ f 1 '/; FOR SINGLE CELL % ✓ V ,� r % /• �. �i !;!' 200/' 3P Wad 1�\ _ —.- _ -;----------;--- _- 2... /� I ' J/Y CELL N0. 2 _• '-/> .� POOL STAGE 46 a;,,r, is• (/ 0 p �} s '' v-- MAX.,STA.GE.-4 40 / ,•;,�' 1 v. • ' .1" ;". '' e ( c i'\\ .!,,,if ii /.-:,; i , ) , :i..,- i 4 1 ; i !I / I\1I ' I / /146; •' ii ' It \ \\ \�`\ \\\ l l ` ' �° I I 1 i ) ,/.... \ ,:� •a \ \ 1 \ \\�1%i 1IS / i, II ,,..j.N. ---" ........ , /1 n GROUND WATER ...> I• O II LIFT DTATION 1 1 J \ �/ c II \t \ II 230' SPILL AY f!i'r `'- ..•••--��`) 1 ,/ I1 00,:-... ,.-,.-7: l 4 II 4 ow� , -,, , II •••... / 111) \P51 J� , il 4 a. .4k 0 „i„ ic) s,.. ;I .....___ .___• 77,45 • I...., ., ,„ .8 • EXHIBIT 20 TYPICAL RESERVOIR LAYOUT Pie4g: \11.61( % ())ii 1 \- ,i ° N \ \.‘" :\\I -i1-1 -1 ‘lj I r,,c, 0 / \( \ i ° (rfPICAL) 1 : !� .9,. 17 18 � * " '. .I16 ` 1 r' 24 J \� 0 0 ,� v SCR c,� � —, .''��, i T P ° \•° � ��° �./�! O C ,'I / /4. -- S ,, --- 19 .79 ; H., (2.. School .Io00 :'6r" 1000 2066 0 4000 r r 21 C (f \ ! f l °-1,t I`SCALE IN FEET .� `� o \I r. ' 1 -. .L — , . , , . , i ,�), _ f \. , , x,i--i ii-, Nr.0 , c r-/- I : 'v) i UN�ERDRAINS „ : �� s r '. T/I40c•CRES ' P J I', O f \30 ° , (TYPICAL) ; ' 7 J 6 / Yf `. . 7..� _ .,., '� 'c CENTER ,PIVOT. - --,(' ' °' ' `-'. r' IRRIGATORS --P ,..pi , �' ) ..,1 : �, - 75--ACRES-TOTAL \J/ '� • `' '1 // , .') -'� ice/ ) \ �l ° J .IRESERVOIR - �� r\ J �i a '''''' '....::97.4-7;9:- '.5\c) \\ C4' a I r-r 125 ACRES °-- t •. \ \/ \\-N/ --,••• • ) \ RED - - P I r----';':\ 1. a :-4.- • I f -'‘s 4,,,Lc......,/ i Jr, •\', ,..-',.‘,..:- '•• • —N-r'l\C : or?' ,it! , .. , 3k)) \\ 4\..H. ^1 • • . <; ..,,0..m _�, -.. .r. .•' IR .1 ATI0N PUMP.;S, ATION I O ., ` o'\ ©rs' �; /� J ' •\ (\ \ (-•,'fie ,-r,. V ,0 4' '� .DRAIN TOY,GROUND 1NATERC,� )�. , , , ,' ,\ , ,n \ .... �, PuMP ST TIOI t ' { 7 `�" {e EXHIBIT 21 • v ' q ,-.,, ,) ,,,; ,, ( ,.. ' ,0, ` ' FINAL TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL • 0 ( ,\_ ,„, , /,,, o� r•,, ego CENTER PIVOT off, .. t SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SYSTEM _1`,_ \, ,`fin,\`�t\7.il .I... ,,. ..,, ,p,..1_____ �___ ,: ...ica'r ••�-__1 1 ., ,Twr. c�_ V_.Y._ - 1 7. \� \. ant°.�° 0 • • • -4:1-1' II / ri 12'-0" 1 HEADER •7-36"D.I.P. PIT 7 i j /241D.I.P. I -+on . cY. r1 �r ---717 o 0 cn a 18 VERT. • c9 w r TURBINE " tD 0 W z H ' O PUMPS r� M 3 w a w -PUMP CONTROL a I- LI LI / PANELS (ISOLATED I� 3 Cl) 0 IF NECESSARY) d " L ' SUMP - 25' DEEPD gg I /I 9' x 6' FINE SCREEN k‘1\ WITH HOIST j \ \ ice , l \ 5. 34' - 0" 1/ '\- 48" R. C. P. FROM RESERVOIR EXHIBIT 21 DETAIL FINAL TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL • CENTER PIVOT SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SYSTEM PUMPING STATION 'v, -' - -. - - - ',.2::: : -, - - - tia L - - _{- ,- - .. — ° _ LJ _� 0462 • • I - I 21 22 ✓1 I 23 °\ 19 f..,,, )\e'', _-1; I • • I r , 1 \O' I ' - - - _ - aM - - ^ - - - '4619 4444 r ... ly 1 ..4-: mo : - 0, 7 I I a ,27 /,,. _ r�4, _ • _ 26 cl 25 w , 30 ° I P L ; E A 5 A N .T - Vfit T ' '_ - I - - _ _ 1„n.. ,'.n. -. 24 DAY t 06N M .I,, I \ w.fl ( ,, i 34 35 ,� O 36 w.ca 31 •I ' VI A L L E V , , //\t 04, 0 /� (n o ife\, �` (((��r \ l/.�//ll _ x'11 ; „ . ,.c -1 _ �__ _ _ _ D - _ ',` �J ' �/ �"�� !I ` .war-_, I, • _ 1 I till \ ,� �l�t CF�-X S� I°a IN �_ —ty�l \ , 1� \ OWLET,Lft 1i / .t _ ,,,.,f i -' ',,,,,,,)•..,-* j I ` , i• - OJ/,�F 1 \, __ �_ r ' i�- '-_.. Z-'o S VRAO • •} Ir. , ` t -' ♦I 1 " sw: C:\ ,,,•- X14 ll al.i,. • 13 18,., k/,F - s=__ sae ,„..1ns.. ♦alas`/1 ze• • el ~' 23 EXHIBIT 22 ;` ' FINAL TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL ►.,, - Auba''r`h_ • DISCHARGE LINES TO 1 - ,1 CROW CREEK AND OGILVY DITCH • CHAPTER IV EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS - Introduction - Construction Costs - Operation and Maintenance Costs - Equivalent Annual Costs - System Manageability - Protection of Public Health - Implementation - Foreclosure of Future Options - Cultural Resources - Land Availability - Water Rights Treatment and Discharge at the Delta Site Treatment and Discharge to Crow Creek Land Application with Crop Production - Water Quality Description of Existing Water Quality in the Area Chemical Characteristics Biological Characteristics •* Existing Classification Description of Alternative Water Quality Discharges 4-Day Lagoon with 160-Day Storage and • Filtration 24-Day Lagoon with Filtration Delta Site Activated Bio-Filter Mechanical Plant Land Application Return to Groundwater Description of Treatment Alternatives Impacts Soil Impact Water Quality Impacts - Intangible Benefits III - External Diseconomy - Floodplain - Air Quality r • CHAPTER IV EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS INTRODUCTION Numerous factors must be considered in the evaluation and final selection of a complete wastewater treatment system to serve the future needs of the City of Greeley. The following items were evaluated as they apply to either the total system or components making up the complete system. Capital Costs Operation and Maintenance Costs Equivalent Annual Cost Water Rights System Manageability Water Quality Protection of Public Health Intangible Benefits Implementation External Diseconomy Foreclosure of Future Options Floodplain Cultural Resources Air Quality Land Availability As previously described, there are four complete systems under study: - Land Application with Crop Irrigation Using Center Pivot Sprinklers - Treatment at the Delta Site with Discharge to the South Platte - Treatment and Discharge to Crow Creek - Treatment and Discharge to the Ogilvy Ditch Each of these systems is made up of up to seven distinct component parts, each of which has several alternatives which should be considered. The com- ponents and their alternatives are identified as follows: OUTFALL SYSTEM North Gravity Line to Delta Site • South Line with Pumping to Delta Site West Line with Pumping to First Avenue - 57 - PRETREATMENT • • Screening Screening with Grit Removal PUMPING Pump Station Used with Single Pipeline Transmission Alternative Pump Station Use with Dual Pipeline Transmission Alternative TRANSMISSION Single Pipeline from First Avenue Dual Pipeline from First Avenue Single Pipeline from Delta Site Dual Pipeline from Delta Site PRELIMINARY TREATMENT 24 day Aeration Lagoons 4 day Aeration Lagoons STORAGE Single Cell Storage Reservoir Dual Cell Storage Reservoir FINAL TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL Center Pivot Sprinkler Irrigation System Chlorination, Filtration, and Disposal to Crow Creek or the Ogilvy Ditch Treatment at the "Delta" Site with discharge to the South Platte Obviously numerous combinations of the alternative components can be combined to complete many of the previously described overall systems and in fact 86 alternatives were developed for cost calculations. In order to present the analysis of these components in a format which can be readily understood, each of the previously mentioned evaluation factors will be • discussed as they apply to the components which are combined to provide a complete system. - 58 - r CONSTRUCTION COSTS • Detailed capital cost estimates of each component were prepared and are included in the Appendix E to this report. These estimates are based upon present day costs and include a 25% allowance for engineering, adminstration and contingencies. Reference should be made to the detailed cost breakdowns in the appendix for the specific items that are included in the cost estimate. Costs for land and water rights are not included in the construction cost summaries. CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY TOTAL ESTIMATEDI SYSTEM COMPONENT ESTIMATED COST, $ LOCAL SHARE, $ Outfall System North Gravity Line to Delta Site 5,740,500 1,435,125 South Line with Pumping to Delta Site 6,632,400 1,658,100 West Line with Pumping to First Avenue 2,815,500 703,875 Pretreatment Screening 459,400 114,850 Screening with Grit Removal 955,000 238,750 Pumping* , Pumping with one transrpi'ssion line 1,993,000 498,250 with dual transmission line 1,771,000 442,750 * Pump station costs are similar at First Avenue and Delta Sites 1 75 percent Federal funding is assumed for all components. If an al- ternative (Land Application) system is found to have an equivalent annual cost within 115 percent of the least cost alternative, EPA may choose to fund the components of that system from preliminary treatment through disposal in an amount of 85 percent. • - 59 - TOTAL ESTIMATED1 • SYSTEM COMPONENT ESTIMATED COST, $ LOCAL SHARE, $ Transmission Single Pipeline from Delta Site 4,486,000 1,121,500 from First Avenue 6,110,000 1,527,500 Dual Pipeline from Delta Site 6,775,000 1,693,750 from First Avenue 9,324,000 2,331,000 Preliminary Treatment 24 Day Aerated Lagoon 4,509,000 1,127,250 4 Day Aerated Lagoon 4,443,000 1,110,750 Storage Single Cell Storage Reservoir 4,319,000 1,079,750 Dual Cell Storage Reservoir 5,748,000 1,437,000 Final Treatment and Disposal Pivot Sprinkler Irrigation System 11,401,600 2,850,400 Chlorination 127,000 31,750 Filtration 4,676,000 1,169,000 Outfall to Crow Creek from Storage Reservoir 420,000 105,000 from 24-Day Lagoons 565,000 141,250 Outfall to Ogilvy Ditch from Storage Reservoir 2,108,000 527,000 from 24-Day Lagoons 1,726,000 431,500 "Delta" Treatment Plant 18,091,750 4,522,950 Construction costs for complete systems can be determined by selecting • the necessary components which would make up the complete system, chosing a - 60 - component alternative, and summing the cost of these items. Since numerous IIcombinations are possible, only the highest and lowest construction cost totals for each system have been tabulated. The cost calculations for these systems are presented in Tables 2 through 15. The remainder of the 86 alterna- tives are presented in Appendix G. CONSTRUCTION COST, $ SYSTEM HIGH LOW Land Application with Crop Irrigation using Pivot Sprinklers 37,296,400 32,037,100 Treatment at Delta Site with Discharge to the South Platte 24,724,150 23,832,250 Treatment and Discharge to Crow Creek 31,117,800 21,750,500 Treatment and Discharge to the Ogilvy Ditch 32,805,800 22,911,500 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Detailed estimates of operation and maintenance costs for each component of the system were prepared and are presented in Appendix F. A summary of these costs is presented below. The costs have been calculated based upon the estimated cost at the mid-point in time of the project based upon current prices, and then calculating the present worth of a twenty year series of payments in that amount. Estimates assuming an inflation rate of 7% are also included for comparative purposes. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE SYSTEM COMPONENT PRESENT WORTH, $ WITHOUT INFLATION WITH INFLATION Outfall System 0 North Gravity Line to Delta Site 120,900 213,100 South Line with Pumping to Delta Site 505,100 890,400 West Line with Pumping to First Avenue 155,100 273,400 - 61 - SYSTEM COMPONENT PRESENT WORTH, $ • WITHOUT INFLATION WITH INFLATION PreTreatment Screening 212,700 374,900 Screening with Grit Removal 437,500 771,200 Pumping * Pumping with one transmission line 1,060,500 1,869,400 Pumping with dual transmission line 898,900 1,584,600 * Pump station costs similar at First Avenue and Delta Sites Transmission Single Pipeline from Delta Site 135,500 238,900 from First Avenue 190,500 335,800 Dual Pipeline from Delta Site 164,700 290,400 from First Avenue 230,200 405,800 Preliminary Treatment 24 Day Aerated Lagoon 3,649,000 6,432,300 4 Day Aerated Lagoon 3,293,800 5,806,200 Storage Single Cell Storage Reservoir 127,100 224,000 Dual Cell Storage Reservoir 148,500 261,800 Final Treatment and Disposal Pivot Sprinkler Irrigation System 5,717,900 10,079,300 Chlorination 265,300 467,700 Filtration 593,400 1,046,000 • - 62 - • SYSTEM COMPONENT PRESENT WORTH, $ . • WITHOUT INFLATION WITH INFLATION Outfall to Crow Creek from Storage Reservoir 27,000 47,600 from 24-Day Lagoons 42,700 75,300 Outfall to Ogilvy Ditch from Storage Reservoir 94,400 166,400 from 24-Day Lagoons 112,300 198,000 "Delta" Treatment Plant 5,894,000 10,390,000 Operation and Maintenance Costs for complete systems can also be deter- mined by selecting the necessary components which would make up a complete system, chosing the component alternate desired and summing the costs asso- ciated with each item. Totals for high and low values are summarized as follows with the cost calculations presented in Tables 2 through 15. The remainder of the 86 alternatives are presented in Appendix G. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, $ WITHOUT INFLATION WITH INFLATION SYSTEM HIGH LOW HIGH LOW Land Application with Crop Irrigation using Pivot Sprinklers 485,600 (632,400)* 856,100 (1,114,700)* Treatment at Delta Site with Discharge to the South Platte 6,399,100 6,014,900 11,280,400 10,603,000 Treatment and Discharge to Crow Creek 6,821,800 5,703,800 12,025,300 10,054,500 • Treatment and Discharge to the Ogilvy Ditch 6,889,200 5,771,200 12,144,100 10,173,300 * ( ) Revenue - 63 - EQUIVALENT ANNUAL COSTS • Equivalent annual costs have been calculated for each component under . analysis. Equivalent annual cost can be defined as the Capital Cost amortized over a twenty year period at a given interest rate plus the average annual operation and maintenance cost over the life of the project. Operation and Maintenance costs are based upon current values and do not take inflation into account. For analysis purposes, equivalent annual cost to the City of Greeley have been calculated. This calculation takes into account only the City's share of the total Capital cost. EQUIVALENT ANNUAL COST, $/yr EAC EAC COMPONENT TOTAL PROJECT GREELEY Outfall System North Gravity Line to Delta Site 547,900 145,500 South Line with Pumping to Delta Site 667,200 202,200 West Line with Pumping to First Avenue 277,700 65,800 PreTreatment Screening 62,800 30,600 Screening with Grit Removal 130,200 63,200 Pumping* Pumping with one transmission line 285,400 145,700 with dual transmission line 249,600 125,400 * Pump station costs similar at First Avenue and Delta Sites Transmission Single Pipeline from Delta Site 432,000 117,500 from First Avenue 589,000 160,600 - 64 - • EAC EAC COMPONENT TOTAL PROJECT GREELEY Dual Pipeline from Delta Site 648,700 173,700 from First Avenue 893,100 239,400 Preliminary Treatment 24 Day Aerated Lagoon 762,600 446,500 4 Day Aerated Lagoon 723,200 411,700 Storage Single Cell Storage Reservoir 415,600 112,800 Dual Cell Storage Reservoir 551,200 148,200 Final Treatment and Disposal Pivot Sprinkler Irrigation System 556,300 (243,000)* Chlorination 36,700 27,800 Filtration 492,600 164,700 Outfall to Crow Creek from Storage Reservoir 41,800 12,300 from 24-Day Lagoons 56,800 - 17,200 Outfall to Ogilvy Ditch from Storage Reservoir 205,900 58,100 from 24-Day Lagoons 171,800 50,800 "Delta" Treatment Plant 2,242,000 973,800 * ( ) Revenue A summary for the high and low values is shown below: SYSTEM EAC TOTAL PROJECT EAC GREELEY HIGH LOW HIGH LOW • Land Application with Crop Irrigation using Pivot Sprinklers 3,498,400 2,977,400 883,600 716,800 - 65 - • SYSTEM EAC TOTAL PROJECT EAC GREELEY HIGH LOW HIGH LOW Treatment at Delta Site with Discharge to the South Platte 2,909,200 2,789,900 1,176,000 1,119,300 Treatment and Discharge to Crow Creek 3,513,200 2,631,000 1,331,400 1,091,500 Treatment and Discharge to the Ogilvy Ditch 3,677,300 2,746,000 1,377,200 1,125,100 SYSTEM MANAGEABILITY System manageability is defined as the level or degree of effort and control which the City and regulatory agencies (Division of Water Resources, CDH, and EPA) must exercise to sustain effective operation of any alternative. In general it is recognized that as the number of management agencies, indivi- duals, or organizations increase, the more difficult the system is to manage. For example, if the City of Greeley were to own and operate a system in its entirety, system manageability would be greatly simplified as compared to having portions of the system either owned or operated by private individuals or organizations. This is not to say that this would be undesirable, but rather only that management could be more difficult. •h System manageability. is not a factor for the following components: outfall system, pre-treatment, pumping, transmission, preliminary treatment, and storage. It is assumed that in all cases,the City would own and operate these parts of a total system. For complete systems involving treatment and direct discharge, manageability is also not a concern assuming the City would own and operate the entire facility. • For the land application alternative, the City could either own and operate the farm, own and contract the operation, lease, lease with a purchase - 66 - option, or simply contract with present landowners for use of the effluent for irrigation purposes. This is a major issue which must be resolved during the evaluation and selection phase of the project and is highly dependent upon the desires of present landowners in the area. PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH All of the system alternatives proposed will provide for adequate protec- tion of public health. Treatment and direct discharge is a commonly accepted practice and the systems proposed were designed to meet current water quality requirements in every respect. Experience with land application system is much more limited as it is a relatively new concept for treatment. Because it is relatively new, the public is generally very concerned about the possible health effects, both short and long term, relating to the operation of these types of systems. Application of wastewater on land can affect the soil, groundwater, air and wildlife to some extent depending upon management practices. Based upon data from existing systems utilizing slow rate irrigation, there is an indica- tion of only minimal impact on soils and groundwater from trace elements such as heavy metals, total dissolved solids, and nitrates. Heavy metals are partially utilized as micronutrients for crop growth with excess amounts generally held in the upper layers of the soil mantel. Nitrates are utilized for crop growth and can be easily controlled by establishing proper applica- tion rates consistent with crop uptake rates. Further public health considerations include the survival of pathogens in sprayed aerosol droplets, in the soil, and on vegetation. Aerosols, or small droplets of liquid which become airborne, are generated in a number of ways. Aeration of wastewater trickling filters, nonsubmerged outfalls, and irriga- • tion of treated wastewaters all have a potential for generating aerosols which have a potential for carrying enteric viruses. Although aerosols can travel - 67 - long distances in air under ideal conditions, proper design of aeration • and irrigation equipment can minimize impact on public health. Similarly, other design factors such as location of treatment systems, buffer zones, and use of windbreaks also have an impact on the signifi- cance of aerosols in land treatment systems. Survival of pathogenic organisms in soil can vary from a period of hours to months depending upon certain physical conditions such as soil moisture, temperature, and organism type. A recent study per- formed at Roswell , New Mexico, on a slow-rate system which has been in operation for 33 years, showed that no indicator viruses or total and fecal coliform bacteria have penetrated the soils and entered the groundwater on that site. The same study also showed that no traces of indicator viruses were found in or on the tissue of plants grown in the effluent irrigated lands near Roswell . It is generally accepted that most bacteria and viruses are removed after passage through a few feet of soil by both studies of existing sites and laboratory experiments. Therefore, the movement of bacteria and viruses with the percolating water is not likely to cause a threat to public health. Proper design and management of the system, again, is an important factor in the successful operation of any system and a key to the protection of the public well-being. The land application site will specifically meet public health concerns in its design and operation/management practices. As indi- cated in Exhibit 21, the site is located well away from general public contact. Farms to the west of the site will be separated from the site by 100-200 foot buffer areas and by the planting of windbreaks to • - 68 - prevent contact with windblown spray. During final design the use of small burms will also be investigated. The area to the east of the site is not anticipated to need these extensive measures because of the limited population in that area. However, adequate buffer areas based on determinations of prevailing winds will be provided. The site will be fenced and posted with large signs indicating the presence of a wastewater renovation facility. All water piping on the treatment site will be clearly tagged as to its source and any potential contact with the renovated water will be further restricted through the use of different fittings for potable and non-potable connections and by using locking valves and outlets on wastewater piping. Reclaimed water lines will be separated as far as practical from any domestic water lines which may be provided for on-site use. Actual operational experience gained from the renovation operation at Muskegon, Michigan will be utilized during initial operation of the site to preclude the possibility of odors and other nusiance conditions where flies, mosquitoes and other pests may develop. IMPLEMENTATION The amount of time required to implement any of the proposed plans is dependent upon a variety of factors, the most significant of which is the receipt of approvals to proceed from the Water Quality Control Commission, Colorado Department of Health, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Since approval has been given for the "Delta" Plant and First Avenue Modifications it would appear that this alterna- tive would be the least difficult and time consuming to implement. The time required to implement each of the other system alterna- • tives will be very similar. Each would require the same process be - 69 - 1 followed to obtain the necessary approvals from the appropriate • regulatory agencies. However, the Land Application Alternate may be more difficult to implement due to the relative "newness" of the concept and because a very large amount of land is required for the system. In addition, this alternate would require the development of a plan of augmentation to insure that no existing water rights are adversly affected by the project. To illustrate the added require- ments made by the Colorado Department of Health, for land application systems, a copy of their planning guidance is included in this report in Appendix H. FORECLOSURE OF FUTURE OPTIONS The foreclosure of future options resulting from the implementa- tion of any alternative is related to the committment of land, other resources, capital investment and potential for future service expansions. Special consideration of these items should be given when considering the overall system, and the outfall and pumping station components. The land application system obviously requires the committment of large amounts of land as compared to the treatment and discharge alternatives. Good potential exists for expansion of this system to meet future needs beyond the twenty years planning period. The proposed storage reservoir can easily be expanded to a capacity of up to 9,000 Ac-Ft. and adequate land exists to increase the area under irrigation. In addition, this system is capable of producing effluent which exceeds present water quality standards and in this respect may offer greater advantages for future service needs. Consideration of the foreclosure of future options is significant for the location of the outfall lines such as the North Line alternative. - 70 - As indicated previously, this routing alternative would interfere with • the development of a recreational lake as proposed as part of a gravel extraction project. If the outfall line is constructed through this area, substantial modification to this plan would be required. The location of the pumping station (Delta or First Avenue) is also significant when a consideration of providing future sewer service to the east Greeley area is made. Gravity service could not be provided if the wastes were pumped from First Avenue. However, service could still be provided through the use of a collection system pump station which would require the use of energy. CULTURAL RESOURCES See Appendix I for a complete analysis of Cultural Resource considerations. LAND AVAILABILITY Land availability is a significant concern for all system alternatives with the exception of the "Delta" alternate. Sufficient land is currently owned by the City to construct the facilities proposed with the exception of the rights of way necessary for the outfall lines to the site. Although the City has the power of condemnation to obtain the property rights necessary for any alternate, this action can be lengthy, costly, and a should only be used as a last resort. As of this time, it is unknown whether or not the land needed for any of the proposed alternatives can be obtained through negotiation processes. Generally, it would be desirable for the City to own all property asso- ciated with the project with the exception of land necessary for crop produc- tion. This area could either be owned by the City, leased, or could remain • the property of the present owners. This question can only be resolved through discussions with present landowners. - 71 - WATER RIGHTS • Water rights are an important consideration in the evaluation of each of the alternatives under consideration. A complete discussion of issues relating to water rights is included within Appendix B of this document. A summary of the more significant issues, both legal and technical , is provided in the following material . Treatment and Discharge at the Delta Site Implementation of this alternate would affect water rights only in the area relating to the point of discharge. Historically, all wastes have been treated at the First Avenue Plant and discharged above the intake of the Ogilvy Ditch. Treatment of the wastes at the Delta Site with direct discharge to the river at that location would mean the discharge would not be available for diversion to the Ogilvy Ditch as has been the case in the past. Under normal circumstances, the City may change the point of discharge without being held legally responsbile for damages to users between the old and new discharge points. The Colorado Supreme Court has recently addressed this question in Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1 V Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company, 179 Colo. 36, 499 P.2d 1190 (1972), in which the Court determined that there is no vested right in downstream appropriators to maintenance of the same point of discharge for municipal effluent. This ' would presume that there is no existing contract between the municipality and the downstream appropriator being affected. It appears that through the terms of a contract and ordinance (Ordinance No. 70, Nov. 4, 1893) a contractual obligation to continue discharge at the present location may exist. If this is determined to be a valid agreement or if the City desires to meet the terms of this agreement whether legally • required to do so or not, the effects appear to be minimal . Based upon - 72 - assumptions contained in the more complete discussion included in Appendix B • (p58-60), the estimated diversions of effluent to the Ogilvy Ditch over the past several years has been as follows: Total Amount Year Ac-Ft 1974 129 1975 118 1976 59 1977 873 1978 6 Other than the potential need to meet the requirements described above, implementation of this alternative would not appear to adversely affect any other existing water rights. Treatment and Discharge to Crow Creek Water rights are impacted in the same way for this alternate as with treatment and discharge at the Delta Site. No other direct diversions are made between the Delta discharge point and the confluence of Crow Creek and the South Platte River. Consequently, no adverse effects would be expected should this alternative be chosen for implementation beyond those identified in connection with the Delta alternate. Land Application with Crop Production Treatment of the wastewater by land application methods as proposed can have significant and adverse effects to downstream appropriators. The treat- ment process will increase the historic consumptive use and change the timing and location of the return flows. Any plan of implementation must include methods for mitigating these potential adverse impacts to existing water rights. - 73 - A complete discussion relating to these issues is contained in Appendix • B. Also included in Appendix B are very preliminary calculations relating to the potential effects of implementation of this alternative on existing water rights. The following is a discussion of the more pertinent issues contained in the above referenced data and pertinent to this alternate. The need to protect the rights of other appropriators has been well documented. A similar situation was addressed by the Supreme Court some 55 years ago in Pulaski Irr. Ditch Co. v. City of Trinidad, 70 Colo. 565, 203 P. 681 (1922) . In Pulaski, the city attempted to sell its effluent to a ditch company which intended to use the effluent for irrigation. Other appropriators who had become dependent on the continued discharge of the effluent sought to restrain the sale. The Supreme Court clearly held that the effluent did not belong to the city and that it had no right to sell it. The following quota- tion illustrates the Court's reasoning: "It is elementary that the waters of the public streams of this state belong to the people, and that appropriators acquire only a right of use. It is also settled law that an appropriator is limited in his use of water to his actual needs. He must not waste it, and if there is a surplus remaining after use, it must be returned to the stream whence it came." ,. .p "When a city appropriates water for the use of its citizens, it is subject to the limitation and requirements above stated. When it provides water for the various purposes for which water is used in communities having sewer systems, it assumes full responsibility for the care of the sewage produced. If the situation is such that the sewage cannot be turned into a running stream and be carried away without causing condi- • tions which are unsanitary and obnoxious to the public, the city must - 74 - find some other way of disposing of the sewage. The use of water in • cities by which it is contaminated is principally as a vehicle for carrying away noxious matter; and when that duty has been discharged and the city, under its obligations to prevent the sewage becoming obnoxious, has withdrawn the solid matter from the water, the water should be returned to the stream. It has performed the service required of it as truly as has water which has passed over a mill-wheel ." • (emphasis supplied) Even more pertinent to Greeley's situation, the court offered the following dicta. : "It is said, however, that the city might have disposed of the sewage by evaporating the water from it, from which it is argued that it had a right to destroy the water; hence it could not belong to the public." "It would seem that, according to the established public policy of this state, this right to destroy the water by evaporation can exist only when there is no other practicable method of disposing of the sewage; that is to say, if all other methods were very expensive as compared with the cost of evaporation, public policy might, in the interest of the community producing sewage, permit its disposal by the evaporation of the water. That case, however, is not before us. We are dealing with water which the city is voluntarily purifying." It seems clear that Greeley cannot move directly to reuse without the real danger of having its reuse operations successfully enjoined by downstream users. In other words, the city must find additional water to support any reuse operations. Consumptive use is increased and altered significantly as a result of evaporation losses from the pretreatment and seasonal storage facilities, • losses associated with the irrigation application system, and consumptive use - 75 - • by the crops being grown. Evaporation losses from the treatment and storage • facilities can be easily calculated based upon climatological factors and the determination of the area of exposed water surfaces. However, these losses will vary from year to year depending upon weather conditions, i .e. temperature, wind, rainfall , etc. and for this reason, can only be estimated on a basis of area averages. This is also the case when determining the consumptive use related to irrigation application and crop production. The type of crop grown and the weather conditions in any given year will significantly effect the total amount of wastewater consumed in the treatment process. Consequently any plan of augmentation developed to mitigate adverse impacts must take into account annual variations of the factors cited. Calculations have been made which estimate the total consumptive use assuming different crops which might be grown and using actual climatalogical data for the period of 1941 through 1966. The following table summarizes the consumptive use which would have occurred during this period of time had the proposed system been in operation. These data are derived from Tables 14 through 18, Appendix B and are based upon a total design flow of 12 MGD or approximately 13,400 Ac-Ft per year. • - 76 - TOTAL CONSUMPTIVE USE ESTIMATES • AC-FT (Year) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1941 8,889 8,360 8,287 8,714 7,457 1942 8,990 8,305 8,363 8,656 7,525 1943 10,601 9,479 9,589 9,882 8,605 1944 10,040 9,062 9,167 9,448 8,228 1945 8,399 7,769 7,912 8,097 7,127 1946 9,836 9,561 9,009 9,969 8,092 1947 9,433 8,504 8,724 8,863 7,841 1948 11,095 10,458 9,973 10,904 8,937 1949 9,996 8,994 9,133 9,375 8,200 1950 9,126 8,530 8,465 8,892 7,714 1951 8,317 7,978 7,868 8,408 7,071 1952 10,261 9,457 9,336 9,860 8,377 1953 10,320 9,246 9,378 9,640 8,415 1954 10,699 10,244 9,671 10,684 8,671 1955 9,784 9,118 8,971 9,505 8,057 1956 9,800 9,482 8,984 9;884 8,068 1957 9,584 8,599 8,818 8,964 7,922 1958 9,602 .r 8,832 8,831 9,205 7,934 1959 10,093 9,100 9,206 9,487 8,263 1960 10,243 . 9,434 9,322 9,835 8,366 1961 7,640 7,297 7,330 7,602 6,617 1962 8,669 9,081 8,118 9,468 7,310 1963 9,515 9,434 8,764 9,835 7,877 1964 10,531 9,796 9,542 10,215 8,558 • 1965 8,049 7,773 7,642 8,100' 6,892 1966 10,010 9,051 9,144 9,436 8,208 Mean 9,598 8,959 8,829 9,343 7,936 - 77 - (1) see footnote, Table 14, Pg. 49 Appendix "B" 0 (2) see footnote, Table 15, Pg. 50 Appendix "B" (3) see footnote, Table 16, Pg. 51 Appendix "B" (4) see footnote, Table 17, Pg. 52 Appendix "B" The above table reflects the estimated total consumptive use based upon the assumptions sited but should not be assumed to mean that this would have been the amount of augmentation water required during the period studied. Replace- ment water necessary to prevent damage to downstream appropriators due to the increases in consumptive use needs to be provided only when a "call" exists on the river. A summary of historic calls which would have required augmentation is shown in Table 19, Pg. 61, Appendix "B". Based upon the information contained in Table 19 and using return flow esti- mates from Table 16, Pg. 51 which assumes corn grown on 100% of the land, 3,000' underdrain spacing, and other referenced factors, very rough estimate of augmentation requirements are summarized as follows: Augmentation Requirements (AC-FT) Year with maximum J F M A M JJAS0 N D Total Call Days - 1944 1147 1073 1147 70 (575) 498 266 826 703 417 1110 1147 7829 Year with minimum Call Days - 1947 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 Average 1941 - 1966 222 222 296 (337) (41) (158) 181 197 289 (101) 370 370 1510 The above estimates are provided only to allow some insight into the magni- tude of future augmentation requirements which might be expected should this alternative be chosen for implementation. A much more rigorous analysis would be undertaken in the design phase as part of the development of a complete augmentation plan required for submission to the Water Court for approval . • - 78 - WATER QUALITY • The following discussion of water quality is divided into three parts: a presentation of existing surface and groundwater quality, a discussion of the anticipated water quality produced by each alternate treatment scheme, and finally an analysis of the impacts of the alternatives on surface and ground- water quality. The surface waters to be discussed include: the Cache La Poudre River, the South Platte River, Crow Creek, and Ogilvy Ditch. Groundwater quality discussions include both deep and shallow waters in the area of the proposed farming operation. Appendix J presents the flow and discharge quality from the existing First Avenue Treatment Plant for reference. Description of Existing Water Quality in the Area Chemical Characteristics The water quality of the Cache La Poudre and South Platte Rivers is typical of that associated with young alluvial deposits arising from the natural erosion of the Rocky Mountains. As indicated in Table 16 and 17, this water contains substantial amounts of total dissolved solids (TDS), most of which are calcium sulfate. These high total dissolved solids levels require extensive treatment for use as municipal and industrial water supply sources because the TDS levels are more than twice the 500 milligrams per liter (mg/1 ) U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) standard for potable water. The sulfate concentration in the Poudre River varies annually between 50 and 800 mg/1 (the USPHS drinking water standard is 250 mg/1 ) ; orthophosphate varies between 0.1 and 1.4 mg/1 ; and nitrite-nitrate varies between 0.2 and 7 mg/1 on an annual basis. The pH values range between 7 and 9 which are acceptable for aquatic life. However, the ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) down- stream of the existing Greeley wastewater treatment plant is higher than that in the upstream samples presented in Table 18. Within the documented pH • range, total ammonia concentrations greater than 2.5 mg/1 could be toxic to certain species of aquatic life on the Poudre. Similarly, sulfate and nitrate - 79 - values are greater downstream of the First Avenue plant than they are upstream. • Values for orthophosphate and BOD concentrations in upstream water are slightly less, on an average basis, than those downstream. The flow in the Cache La Poudre River at Greeley varies from 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) in August to 1,500-2,000 cfs in May and June. The seven day ten year low flow is 42.4 cfs. Because the South Platte is the major river draining the area, concentra- tions of its chemical constituents should be higher than that of its tributaries, such as the Cache La Poudre. Examination of the data indicates that for most parameters, this is the case. However, certain chemical constituents in the South Platte are of a lower concentration than the Poudre and this can only be explained by dilution by the larger volume of water. The seven day ten year low flow for the South Platte at Kersey is 20 cfs. The Ogilvy Ditch withdraws water from the Poudre River downstream of the First Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant. Because of this fact it is assumed that the ditch will have the same quality as that presented in Table 16 for the Poudre. The existing quality of Crow Creek is presented in Table 19. Comparison of these data with that of the Poudre and South Platte Rivers indicates that in general the concentration's of the chemical constituents are higher in Crow Creek. Because the creek -is an argricultural return drain, this lower quality is to be expected. 'Examination of the data indicates high total solids, total dissolved solids, conductivity, fecal coliform, and sulfate concentrations which could be expected with an agricultural return. No flow stations have been maintained on Crow Creek and therefore no flow data are available. However, sources in the area indicate that Crow Creek is a seasonal stream and • normally has a flow only during the three or four months of the irrigation season. - 80 - Groundwater from the alluvial aquifers is generally satisfactory for • agricultural irrigation and livestock watering; however, it is often too high in sulfate and TDS to be used as a potable water source. Calcium, magnesium, and sodium are the principal cations while bicarbonates and sulfates are the principal anions. Average groundwater quality from the alluvial aquifers is presented in Table 20. Comparison of these average data with the results from sampling of wells located in a deeper strata in the Study Area indicate that the deep-source groundwater is generally of better quality than the average alluvial aquifer. Biological Characteristics In the Greeley Area, the Cache La Poudre and South Platte Rivers are slow and turbid, with shifting sand bottoms which support limited warm-water species. Manmade and naturally induced pollution combine with fluctuating water levels to create relatively severe environmental conditions for aquatic life. Because benthic macroinvertebrates (large immature insects which live on the river bed) are a major food for fish, their abundance and species diversity affects both fish species and populations and the stability of the entire aquatic community. The ability of these insects to accept pollution in their environment can be classified as intolerant, facultative, and tolerant. Intolerant organisms such as immature stoneflies, caddisflies, and mayflies will not exist in even moderately polluted conditions. Facultative organisms such as immature dragonflies, damselflies, midges (except chironomus) and scuds can exist in a wide range of water qualities and will thrive in moderately polluted water but cannot survive severe pollution. Tolerant organisms such as sludgeworms, leeches, and midges (chironomus) can exist and even thrive in • - 81 - _. ! severe pollution. The type of these organisms available and the preference • for warm or cold water breeding determines the species of fish present. The Cache La Poudre River in the Greeley Area has been said to be a fair to moderately polluted river. An EPA algal study indicated a very limited species diversity but moderately high counts of individuals, with four of the five algal genera identified considered to be tolerant of heavy pollution. The shifting sandy river bottom and pollution limit species diversity. Tolerant benthic organisms dominated at all the sampling stations. The pre- sence of only five species at river mile 0.5 and the large increase in the numbers of Tubificidae indicate the presence of heavy pollution. Fish divers- ity is also limited by urban and agricultural pollution to the most tolerant species. At river miles 17.9 and 9.4 the most common fish were the algae feeders such as river shiners, white suckers, and creek chubs. Eariler studies have also indicated the presence of the common shiner, brassy minnow and plains killifish in this area. However, at river mile 0.5 (below the First Avenue Treatment Plant discharge) only carp, long-nose sucker, and green sunfish were identified by the EPA study. The South Platte River in the Greeley area is considered to be a heavily polluted stream receiving excessive quantities of organic material from urban and agricultural areas. This pollution is reflected in the low species diversity and low numbers of individual organisms found in the area. A shifting sandy river bottom and organic pollution are the chief reasons for this reduced benthic population and the dominate presence of pollution tolerant invertebrates. At Kersey, pollution tolerant invertebrates comprise 37 percent of the population while sensitive species are 3 percent. The presence of some intolerant invertebrates such as mayflies and dragonflies is only an indicator • of tolerable conditions for a few individuals and not an indication of good - 82 - water quality. Most of the fish found in the South Platte near Greeley are • rough or forage species which feed primarily on algae or decaying organic matter. The most common species are the longnose suckers which are tolerant of brackish waters, river shiners which are tolerant of continuous high turbidity, and green sunfish which are tolerant of extremes in temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and flow. The following tolerant species were also identi- fied: creekchub, bigmouth shiner, sand shiner, fat head minnow, white sucker, and orange-spotted sunfish. Ogilvy Ditch would be expected to have a biological quality similar to that of the Poudre River at river mile 0.5, below the First Avenue Treatment Plant. That quality would include a limited number of species that are tolerant of pollution as was indicated in the previous discussion of the Poudre River. Because Crow Creek is a conduit for the return of agricultural waters and it only has a seasonal flow, its biological communities should be very limited or non-existent. Any species that are present should be similar to those of the agriculturally polluted Poudre River. Because it is a subsurface water, the groundwater of the Study Area will not contain any of the biological communities previously discussed. Existing Classification Both the Cache La Poudre and South Platte Rivers have been classified by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission as B2 class streams. A summary of these standards and those for the other classes in the State classification system are presented in Table 21. This classification is the minimum water quality which must be maintained in the stream. The B2 classification designates that the current and future use of these two rivers • - 83 - will be as a warm water habitat (fishing) and that these waters are suitable • or should become suitable for all purposes for which raw water is customarily used, except primary contact recreation, such as swimming and water skiing. In July 1978, the Water Quality Control Commission adopted the "Water Quality Standards for Colorado" presented in Table 22. These criteria have not been applied to new classifications for the Poudre and South Platte Rivers as of the date of this report. Hearings on applying these criteria to particular classifications for the rivers were cancelled and no new dates have been set. However, it should be recognized that it is the intent of the Commission to apply the new criteria to the state waters in the Greeley area. State waters are now defined as any and all surface and subsurface waters which are contained in or flow in or through this state, except waters in sewage systems, waters in treatment works of disposal systems, waters in potable water distribution systems, and all water withdrawn for use until use and treatment have been completed. 4 • - 84 - 1 • • Description of Alternate Water Quality Discharges 0 4-Day Lagoon With 160 Day Storage and Filtration Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) The proposed four-day aerated lagoon system is designed to remove 73 percent of an influent BOD concentration of 300 milligrams per liter (mg/1 ). This results in an 81 mg/1 BOD concentration before the effluent enters the storage lagoon. The storage lagoon which has an design average 160 day detention period, will remove approximately 75 percent of the remaining 81 mg/l . Thus, it is anticipated that the final BOD concentration in the effluent will be 20 mg BOD/i . Nitrogen Total nitrogen is the amount of nitrogen contained in wastewater and is found in several forms. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is the combination of nitrogen found as ammonia (NH3-N) and as organic nitrogen. The other forms of nitrogen that may be found in wastewater are nitrates (NO3-) and nitrites (NO2-2). The concentration of total nitrogen present in the effluent of the 160 day storage lagoon was estimated, based on several previous studies (1, 2, 3) . The Muskegon, Michigan project (1) reports the lowest amount of nitrogen removal (32 percent) . This value is used in our calculations as a minimum value which would have the most severe impact on water quality. Based on an influent concentration of 25 milligrams per liter (mg/1 ) as total nitrogen, a 32 percent removal results in storage lagoon effluent concentration of 17 mg/l . Of this 17 mg/1, an average of 5.7 mg/1 is expected to be in the form of NH3-N and 3.9 mg/1 as organic N (based on a total suspended solids concentration of 45 mg/1 of which 20 percent are non-contri- • butory to organic nitrogen) . - 85 - Thus TKN will be found in concentrations of approximately 9.6 mg/1 in the • storage lagoon effluent. The remaining nitrogen (7.4 mg/1 ) will be found as nitrate (NO3-N) and nitrate (NO2-2-N) . AMMONIA NH3-N in effluent = (NH3-N in influent) (1-(NH3-N removal ), based on Muskegon, MI) = (14.15) (1-0.6) = 5.7 mg/1 ammonia ORGANIC N Reaction of bacterial to form algae C7.1H12.603.0 + 3.002 C5H903N + 2.1CO2 + 1.8H20 C5H903N MW = 131 MW = molecular weight AW = Atomic weight N AW = 14 amu amu = atomic mass units 14/131 = 10.7% N (assume 45 mg/1 TSS with 20% non-organic) then (45) ( .107) x .80 = 3.9 mg/1 N as organic NITRATE - 7.0 - (3.9 + 5.7) = 7.4 mg/1 Total N - organic + NH3 = N as NO3-1NO2-2 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) The 4-day lagoon system including microscreens is designed such that the final plant effluent concentration of the total suspended solids (TSS) will not exceed 30 milligrams per liter. The pH values for the treatment plant effluent will range from 7.0 to 9.0. Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) The SAR is determined from the following cations: 'magnesium 'calcium 'sodium As a worst possible case, the concentrations of these ions in the treatment plant influent were used to calculate the SAR. The following equation yields • a value of 2.2 for SAR. - 86 - Nab • SAR = Ca++ + Mq++ where Na+, Ca++ and Mg++ 2 are in milliequivalents per liter It is assumed that the concentrations of these ions do not change through the treatment process. Salinity Over a one year period, based upon a net yearly evaporation rate of 26.5 inches (412 million gallons), it is expected that the salinity values will increase by 9.4 percent. From an influent value of 657 micromhos per centimeter (umho/cm), it is expected that the value of 718 umho/cm will be observed in the final effluent. Fecal Coliform Calculations were made to determine the estimated fecal coliform concen- tration in the final effluent of the proposed 4-day lagoon treatment system (including storage ponds) . Winter (2'C) and summer (20'C) values of 5621/100 ml and 307/100 ml , respectively, are below the effluent quality requirements established by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission for direct discharge. 24-Day Lagoon With Filtration Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) The proposed 24-day storage/treatment process consists of two lagoons with a water surface area of 34 acres each and a detention time of 12 days in each cell followed by microscreening and chlorination. Design is based on a desired BOD reduction of 88 percent which results in a final BOD concentration of 30 mg/1 from an influent concentration of 250 mg/l . • - 87 - Nitrogen • Based on an influent concentration of 25 mg/1 as total nitrogen, it is estimated from previous studies (5, 6) that 38 percent will be removed, leaving a final concentration of 15.5 mg/1 as total nitrogen. In the same manner that values were calculated for the 4-day lagoons, it was determined that the level of nitrogen as ammonia will be 7.1 mg/l , as organic will be 2.6 mg/1 , and 5.8 mg/1 will be nitrate ammonia. ORGANIC N - Based on TSS of 30 mg/1 in final effluent and 20% non-contributory (30) (0.80) (.107) = 2.57 mg/1 AMMONIA - Based on Mt. Shasta + Moriarity Projects 49% reduction 58% reduction Assume 50% reduction (14.15) ( .50) = 7.08 mg/1 NITRATE + NITRITE = Total - (organic and ammonia) = 15.5 - (2.6 + 7.1) = 5.8 mg/1 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) The microscreen provided in this alternative is designed to remove enough suspended solids to provide a final effluent concentration of 30 mg/l . PH The pH will range from 7.0 to 9.0 in the final effluent. Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) The SAR value of 2.2 calculated for the 4-day lagoon system should remain the same in this alternative as no change in the concentration of calcium, • magnesium, or sodium is expected. - 88 - Salinity • The salinity level as measured by electrical conductance (EC) is expected to remain closer to the influent concentration than is expected in the 4-day lagoon system. This will result from a decrease in evaporative loss from the two 12 day lagoons than is expected in the 160 day storage pond. Thus, the EC value should remain constant at 657 micromhos per centimeter. Fecal Coliform Values for both winter (2'C) and summer (20.C) fecal coliform levels were calculated using the same equation that was used to calculate fecal coliform levels in the 4-day lagoon system. During winter months, it will be necessary to add chlorine to the filtered effluent as a result of the high fecal coli- form count (33,791/100 ml ) . During summer months, chlorination may not be necessary as the concentration of fecal coliform is calculated to be only 3,156/100 ml , which is below the limits established by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. With chlorination, the concentration of fecal coliform in the treated effluent will be below the limits of 6,000/100 ml for any 7-day period and 12,000/100 ml for any 30-day period. Delta Site Activated Bio-Filter Mechanical Plant Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) It is anticipated that the Delta Treatment Plant will provide a BOD reduction of 91 to 96 percent. Based upon an influent concentration of 250 mg/1, a final effluent concentration of 10 to 23 mg/1 is predicted. This range is within the discharge limits established by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (30 mg/1 ) . Nitrogen • The nitrogen removal efficiency of the Delta plant will be similar to that experienced in a similarly designed plant in Helena, Montana. Personal - 89 - 7 1 1 communication revealed a total nitrogen reduction of 32%. Based on an influent concentration of 25 mg/1 , 17.5 mg/1 will be found in the plant effluent. Of this 17.5 mg/1 , an average of 6.1 mg/1 is expected to be in the form of NH3-N and 4.8 mg/1 as organic nitrogen. The remaining nitrogen concentration of 6.6 mg/1 will be in the form of nitrates and nitrites. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) The final effluent leaving the Delta site is anticipated to have a TSS concentration of approximately 25 mg/l . This results from an average reduc- tion of 87.5 percent of the original 168 mg/l . 21.11. The pH values are expected to remain the same or slightly increase from the average influent value of 7.6. This falls within the recommended range of 6 to 9 for effluent discharge as established by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) Because there is no active means to remove sodium, magnesium, or calcium, the SAR value of 2.2 calculated for the 4-day and the 24-day lagoon systems is expected to be the same for the Delta plant. Salinity Because evaporation from the Delta site will be limited, the salinity value of 657 micromho/cm found in the influent is expected to remain in the effluent. Fecal Coliform The Delta plant was designed to limit fecal coliform levels in the • effluent to 6,000/100 ml in any 30-day period and 12,000/100 ml in any 7-day period. - 90 - Land Application Return to Groundwater • Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) The land application site at Muskegon, Michigan and other sites have provided BOD reductions of 99 percent and greater. It is expected that the Greeley land application should do as well and therefore a BOD concentration in the underdrain system should be about 1-2 mg/1 . Nitrogen The nitrogen removal efficiency of the land application system will be similar to that of the Muskegon system. Total nitrogen reduction at that facility is 44 percent. Based on an influent of 25 mg/1, 13.9 mg/1 will be found in the underdrains of the site. Of this 13.9 mg/1 , an average of 0.7 mg/1 is expected to be in the form of NH3-N and none as organic nitrogen. The remaining 13.2 mg/1 nitrogen will be in the form of nitrates and nitrites. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Because of the filtering capability of the soil , the anticipated TSS in the underdrains is expected to be near zero. PLI The pH values are expected to remain the same or slightly increase from the average influent value of 7.6. This is well within the recommended range of 6 to 9 for an effluent discharge as established by the Water Quality Control Commission. Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) As has been indicated previously, SAR is determined from a calculation using the magensium, calcium, and sodium cations. Based on data from Muskegon • which indicates a 75 percent reduction in sodium and no change in calcium and - 91 - magnesium, the SAR expected from the land application underdrain system should • be 0.56. Salinity Data from Muskegon indicates that a 43 percent reduction in salinity can be expected. Based on an influent concentration of 718 umhos/cm, the expected discharge quality should be 409 umhos/cm. Fecal Coliform As indicated by data from Muskegon and numerous other reports, fecal coliform should be largely retained at or near the soil surface with limited transfer downward through the soil . Removals of 99 percent and greater have been reported and therefore it should be expected that the Greeley discharge should be similar with a concentration of 0-10/100 ml being typical . Description of Treatment Alternatives Impacts Soil Impact Agricultural soil samples were collected at the sites indicated in Exhibit 23. From the test results of these samples presented in Appendix K, it can be seen that without proper fertilization, the soils are not inherently capable of producing the anticipated crops at the desired yields. Texture analyses indicate that the soil particles are sufficiently coarse to allow rapid permeability and good drainage. In order to determine water application rates, the infiltration rates of various sites within •the Study • Area were measured. Based upon anticipated application rates for the 22 irrigators, it was concluded that the soil is hydrologically capable of accommo- dating the volume of wastes proposed to be applied. The maximum application • rate anticipated is presented along with infiltration rates obtained from areas within 13 of the 22 sprinklers in Table 23. - 92 - In addition; to soil infiltration rates, other parameters are useful in assessing the potential impact of wastewater land application on soils. Among these is CEC. The cation exchange capacity (CEC) is the quantity of exchange- able cations (postively charged ions) that a soil is able to adsorb. It is a measure of the chemical reactivity of the soil and is generally an indication of the effectiveness of the soil in absorbing cationic contaminants from wastewater, such as heavy metals. The adsorption occurs as a result of the attraction of the positively charged cations by negative charges that exist on the surface of clay minerals, hydrous aluminum, iron oxides, and organic matter. The major cations held on the exchange sites include calcium, mag- nesium, potassium, sodium, aluminum, hydrogen, and ammonium. Also involved in ion exchange, to a small extent, are micronutrients such as manganese, iron and zinc. Eleven of the twelve soil samples had CEC values that ranged from 6.6 meq/100 gm to 11.2 meq/100 gm. One soil that had a relatively high clay content (30.8 percent) was classified as a sandy clay loam and had a CEC value of 23.0 meq/100 gm. The relatively high permeability and low clay content of all the soils makes the soil favorable for the application of ions with minimal soil impact. For examples, the exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) is the percentage of total CEC that is occupied by sodium. Based on an average soil sodium content of 56.6 pounds per acre ( .03 gm Na+/gm soil) and an average CEC value of 9.8, the ESP is calculated to be 1.26 percent from the following equation. NA± (meq/100 gm) ESP = CEC (meq/100 gm) x 100 According to EPA guidelines presented in Table 24, this value is within the range of 0.0 to 5.0 that prevents permeability reduction, poor soil aeration, and difficulty in seedling emergence due to excessive sodium. Thus • - 93 - with the anticipated application rates, no problems will be observed as a • result of sodium application with an effluent SAR value of 2.2. This value is below the "no problem" value of 6 established by EPA guidelines. Another potential hazard to soil is salinity. As indicated in the soil analyses (Appendix K), salinity content of the soil is presently zero. When production of crops is a goal of land application, the concentration of dissolved salts in the irrigation water may impact crop production. The average concentration of salts in the sewage was found to be 657 micromhos per centimeter (umho/cm). Generally, in arid climates, salt concentrations in the soil profile are approximately three times the concentration in the wastewater applied. Thus, an estimated concentration of 1980 umho/cm may be found in the soil profile (1) . Corn is slightly tolerant to salts and is unaffected with concentrations up to 1800 umho/cm (2) . Thus, with a concentration of 1980 umho/cm, it may be expected to observe a one to five percent reduction in anticipated yield. However, the drainage properties of the soil may prevent an excessive build-up of these soils and in fact, no reduction in crop yield due to salts is anticipated. Certain true elements and heavy metals may be toxic to crops when present in excessive amounts. Application amounts and crop requirements for the elements present in the wastewater influent are presented in Table 25. Application amounts presented are an extreme case in which none of the listed elements are diminished in concentration through the treatment process. This situation would have the most severe impact. It is evident from Table 26 that the only nutrient not available in sufficient amounts in the wastewater is zinc. The other nutrients are applied in sufficient quantities. It is felt that because of the low soil holding • capacity for ions (low CEC), the excess in nutrients will be leached through the soil mantle and a buildup of elements toxic to plants will not occur. - 94 - . Water Quality Impacts • Nitrates. Nitrogen is potentially detrimental togroundwater quality when 9 we applied as a fertilizer in excess of the requirements of the crop. The nitrogen (N) is usually applied as anhydrous ammonia and when mixed with water, is converted to useable nitrites and nitrates. Once converted to nitrate, the nitrogen becomes soluble and is easily transported in water. The positive aspect of this conversion allows the nitrogen to be accessible to and easily utilized by crops. However, the fact that the nitrate is so easily transported makes it a potential hazard to the maintenance of groundwater quality. Current fertilization practices tend to follow the philosophy that an excess of nitrogen applied before planting is necessary to provide germinating seeds and young crops with sufficient nutrients. This pre-planting application is generally in values approximately one-half of the total yearly requirements. For the Greeley 201 Study Area, it is estimated that approximately 250 pounds of nitrogen per acre (lb N/ac) will be required for the first year's desired yield of 150 bushels per acre (bu/ac). Thus, in the conventional fertilizer application scheme, 125 lb. N/ac would be applied as a pre-plant. The presence of this nitrogen, which remains idle until germination some 25 to 30 days later, is very susceptible to conversion and, therefore, leaching to the groundwater. The proposed land application system will alleviate some of the groundwater contamination problems by decreasing initial application amounts. By distri- buting the required nitrogen over a longer period of time, the chances of the dangerous nitrates reaching groundwater are greatly diminished during pre-season application. • - 95 - • From Exhibit 24, it can be seen that the current farming application • schemes apply over three times as much nitrogen at one time than is applied at any one time with the land application scheme. It should also be reemphasized from Figure 24 that any nitrogen applied as preplant is subject to conver- sion and leaching. Thus, currently utilized application schemes potentially have a more detrimental impact on groundwater quality than does the proposed wastewater application scheme. The U.S. Public Health Service recommends that the nitrate concentration should not exceed 10 mg/l in public water supplies. Calculations based on a treatment plant effluent of 25 mg/l indicate that the average concentration of nitrate in leaching water is approximately 7 mg/l . The presence of the underdrains, which will collect any excess irrigation water after it has moved through the soil, would prevent any high nitrogen water from entering water supplies. As shown in Exhibit 25, leachate water is isolated from aquifers that supply potable water. Should there be a leak in the impervious stratum which isolates these potable waters, the 7 mg/1 concentration of nitrates still meets USPHS standards for nitrates in drinking water. It should be noted that these calculations were based on an effluent nitrogen concentration of 25 mg/1 . Based on several other studies, a minimum of 32 percent of influent ammonia will be removed in the treatment process. However, in order to determine the situation with the potential for the most severe impact, a worst situation of no nitrogen removal is assumed. Other Parameters. The impacts of the treatment alternatives of 'Land application with pivot sprinklers 'Treatment at the Delta Site 'Treatment and discharge to Crow Creek • 'Treatment and discharge to Ogilvy Ditch - 96 - 1 are presented in Tables 27 through 32. The existing quality data presented in • these tables were taken from the data presented in the discussion of existing quality. The impacted quality was determined by assuming either no change in quality, quality being similar to another site, or through the use of a mass balance depending on the new point of discharge in relation to the location being evaluated. Presented in Table 33 are the recommended livestock salinity and nitrate water quality guidelines for comparison with the water quality impact tables. The general form of this mass balance equation is presented below: FR ( ) + DA MD) = ()Total + FD FR - River flow QR - River quality (any chemical consitituent) FD - Discharge flow QD - Discharge quality (any chemical constituent as long as it is the same as the river chemical constituent) QTotal - Combined quality To understand the data presented in Tables 27 through 32 it is important to understand the hydrologic configuration of the area as presented in Exhibit 26 and the simplifying assumptions made to develop the tables. In addition it can not be over-emphasized that the numbers presented in the tables are not absolute numbers representing quality that could actually be measured in the affected waters. But that they are indications of the relative impacts of the various alternatives. An important consideration which causes these results to only be indicators is the lack of consistent simultaneous data on all the effected waters. Current data as indicated in the exhibit is limited to four locations and is not consistent in the chemical constituents monitored or • period of sampling record. Due to this limitation, small mathematical varia- tions in existing and impacted qualities in these tables may not indicate a - 97 - 7 t real impact problems, the impacts of the various alternatives were calculated • assuming the following factors: 'The quality of the Ogilvy Ditch is the same as the Poudre River below the First Avenue treatment plant. 'All alternatives will eliminate the First Avenue treatment plant and therefore the quality of Ogilvy Ditch and the Poudre River at the confluence will become that of the Poudre River historically monitored above the treatment plant. 'The historical South Platte River quality above the confluence of the Cache La Poudre can be determined by a mass balance of the quality of the Poudre River and the quality of the South Platte at Kersey. This calculated quality can then be used as required in the calculation of water quality impacts. 'To observe the most extreme impact on water quality when discharge is made to Crow Creek and the groundwater, the flow of Crow Creek and the groundwater were assumed to be zero. In the appropriate alternatives, this results in the quality of those waters becoming the discharge quality. 'Impacted quality of the South Platte River at Kersey was calculated by using the mass balance equation with the calculated quality and flow data for the South Platte above the Poudre confluence and the Delta discharge (where applicable) and the actual data of the Poudre above First Avenue. 'South Platte River quality downstream of Kersey was determined through • the mass balance of the calculated South Platte quality at Kersey and the appropriate flow and quality introduced from Crow Creek. - 98 - w INTANGIBLE BENEFITS • Intangible benefits are secondary effects which cannot be easily quanti- fied. These benefits are expressed as expansion of recreational opportunities, enhancement of wildlife habitat and/or the potential for providing secondary employment opportunities. Generally, the land application alternative is the only alternate providing these potential benefits. The expansion of irrigated agriculture will provide secondary employment related to farm operations and various support businesses. This alternate would also provide for improvement in wildlife habitat by creating food and cover areas which do not presently exist. Recreational opportunities could include hunting of waterfowl, pheasant, quail, and other wildlife typical to the area. EXTERNAL DISECONOMY External diseconomy is the elimination or reduction of an economic base outside of a project's sphere of direct influence which is caused by the implementation of an option. For example, should the need arise to use water for augmentation which is presently utilized for other beneficial purposes an external diseconomy could develop. At this time, the relative degree of such impacts has not been established. . FLOOD PLAIN Alternatives other than the "Delta" project do not involve construction of facilities within designated floodplains. The proposed storage reservoir associated with the. land application alternative is located in a natural drainage way but would be designed to accommodate runoff from upstream areas without incurring property damage to the facility. AIR QUALITY The principal cause of air quality impacts associated with the project • will be caused by construction of associated facilities. Although the in- stallation of various components affects air quality, this impact occurs only - 99 - during the construction phase of the project. There is also the potential for • air quality impacts during seasonal agricultural practices, such as planting. If agricultural land is not stabilized during the non-agricultural season (winter), fugitive dust may create air quality degradation. It is not uncommon in the Greeley agricultural areas that the combina- tion of high winds, low precipitation rates, and the nature of agricultural practices (e.g., tillage), impact air quality. The development of new irri- gated agricultural areas during the summer months poses potential air quality hazards. Treatment and discharge alternatives may impact air quality during construction, but with proper control measures these impacts should be kept to a minimum and be short-term in character. a .0. • - 100 - I REFERENCES • (1) Summary of treatment performance, Muskegon, Michigan Project in Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater, Enviro me n — Protection Agency, 625/1-77-008, October 1977, pp. 7-40. (2) Pierce, D.M., "Performance of raw waste stabilization lagoons in Michigan with long period storage before discharge", in Upgrading Wastewater Stab- ilization Ponds to Meet New Discharge Standards, ed. E.J.• Middlebrooks, D.H. Falkenberg, R.F. Lewis, and D.J. Ehreth, Symposium Proceedings, Logan, Utah, August 21-23, 1974, Utah State University. (3) Oswald, W.J., "Experiences with new pond designs in California, "in Ponds As A Wastewater Treatment Alternative, ed. E.F. Gloyna, J.F. Mulina, Jr. , and E.M. Davis, Water Resources Symposium No. 9, Center for Research in Water Resources, University of Texas, 1976. (4) Boulier, G.A. and T.J. Atchison, Practical Design and Application of the Aerated Facultative Lagoon Process, Hinde Engineering Company, 1974. (5) Middlebrooks, E.J. , N.B. Jones, J.H. Reynolds, M.F. Torpy, and R.P. Bishop, Lagoon Information Source Book, Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, 1978. (6) Russell , J.S. , E.J. Middlebrooks, and J.H. Reynolds, Evaluation of Wastewater Stabilization Lagoon - Intermittent Sand Filter Systems at Ailey, Georgia; Moriarty, New Mexico; and Mount Shasta, California, Environmental Protection Agency, preliminary draft - unpublished. • - 101 - TABLE 2 • LAND APPLICATION WITH PIVOT SPRINKLERS Construction Cost Summary Operation and Maintenance SYSTEM COMPONENT Estimated Present Worth Estimated Cost Without Inflation With Inflation Outfall System South line with pumping to Delta Site $ 6,632,400 $ 505,100 $ 890,400 Pretreatment Screening 459,400 212,700 374,900 Pumping Pumping with dual transmission line 1,771,000 898,900 1,584,600 Transmission Dual Pipeline from Delta Site 6,775,000 164,700 290,400 Preliminary Treatment 24-day Aerated Lagoon 4,509,000 3,649,000 6,432,300 Storage Dual Cell Storage Reservoir 5,748,000 148,500 261,800 Final Treatment and Disposal Pivot Sprinkler Irrigation System 11,401,600 5,717,900 10,079,300 Crop Revenue (11,168,400) (19,687,200) TOTAL $ 37,296,400 $ 128,400 $ 226,500 TOTAL PROJECT PRESENT WORTH (Construction + O&M) $ 37,424,800 $ 37,522,900 • High Construction Cost and Total Project Present Worth Alternative - 102 - TABLE 3 • LAND APPLICATION WITH PIVOT SPRINKLERS Construction Cost Summary Operation and Maintenance SYSTEM COMPONENT Estimated Present Worth Estimated Cost Without Inflation With Inflation Outfall System _ West Line with pumping to First Avenue $ 2,815,500 $ 155,100 $ 273,400 Pretreatment Screening with Grit Removal 955,000 437,500 771,200 Pumping Pumping with one transmission line 1,993,000 1,060,500 1,869,400 Transmission Single Pipeline from First Avenue 6,110,000 190,500 335,800 Preliminary Treatment 4-day Aerated Lagoon 4,443,000 3,293,800 5,806,200 Storage Single Cell Storage Reservoir 4,319,000 127,100 224,000 Final Treatment and Disposal Pivot Sprinkler Irrigation System 11,401,600 5,717,900 10,079,300 Crop Revenue (11,168,400) (19,687,200) TOTAL $ 32,037,100 $ ( 186,000)* $ ( 327,900)* TOTAL PROJECT PRESENT WORTH (Construction + O&M) $ 31,851,100 $ 31,709,200 • Low Construction Cost and Total Project Present Worth Alternative * ( ) Revenue - 103 - TABLE 4 • LAND APPLICATION WITH PIVOT SPRINKLERS Construction Cost Summary Operation and Maintenance SYSTEM COMPONENT Estimated Present Worth Estimated Cost Without Inflation With Inflation Outfall System South Line with pumping to Delta Site $ 6,632,400 $ 505,100 $ 890,400 Pretreatment Screening with Grit Removal 955,000 437,500 771,200 Pumping Pumping with one transmission line 1,993,000 1,060,500 1,869,400 Transmission Single Pipeline from Delta Site 4,486,000 135,500 238,900 Preliminary Treatment 24-day Aerated Lagoon 4,509,000 3,649,000 6,432,300 Storage _ Dual Cell Storage Reservoir ,•5,748,000 148,500 261,800 Final Treatment and Disposal Pivot Sprinkler. Irrigation System 11,401,600 5,717,900 10,079,300 Crop Revenue (11,168,400) (19,687,200) TOTAL $ 35,725,000 $ 485,600 $ 856,100 TOTAL PROJECT PRESENT WORTH (Construction + O&M) $ 36,210,600 $ 36,581,100 • High Operation and Maintenance Alternative - 104 - TABLE 5 • LAND APPLICATION WITH PIVOT SPRINKLERS Construction Cost Summary Operation and Maintenance SYSTEM COMPONENT Estimated Present Worth Estimated Cost Without Inflation With Inflation Outfall System North Gravity Line to Delta Site $ 5,740,500 $ 120,900 $ 213,100 Pretreatment Screening 459,400 212,700 374,900 Pumping Pumping with dual transmission line 1,771,000 898,900 1,584,600 Transmission Dual Pipeline from Delta Site 6,775,000 164,700 290,400 Preliminary Treatment 4-day Aerated Lagoon 4,443,000 3,293,800 5,806,200 Storage 4 Single Cell Storage Reservoir 4,319,000 127,100 224,000 Final Treatment and Disposal Pivot Sprinkler ' Irrigation System 11,401,600 5,717,900 10,079,300 Crop Revenue (11,168,400) (19,687,200) TOTAL $ 34,909,500 $ ( 632,400)* $ ( 1,114,700)* TOTAL PROJECT ' PRESENT WORTH (Construction + 0&M) $ 34,277,100 $ 33,794,800 • Low Operation and Maintenance Alternative * ( ) Revenue - 105 - TABLE 6 S . TREATMENT AT DELTA SITE - Construction Cost Summary Operation and Maintenance SYSTEM COMPONENT Estimated Present Worth Estimated Cost Without Inflation With Inflation Outfall System South Line with Pumping to Delta Site $ 6,632,400 $ 505,100 $ 890,400 Final Treatment and Disposal Delta Treatment Plant 18,091,750 5,894,000 10,390,000 TOTAL $ 24,724,150 $ 6,399,100 $ 11,280,400 TOTAL PROJECT PRESENT WORTH (Construction + O&M) $ 31,123,150 $ 36,004,550 High Construction Cost and Total Project Present Worth Alternative High Operation and Maintenance Alternative • - 106 - 11 TABLE 7 • TREATMENT AT DELTA SITE Construction Cost Summary Operation and Maintenance SYSTEM COMPONENT Estimated Present Worth Estimated Cost Without Inflation With Inflation Outfall System North Gravity Line to Delta Site $ 5,740,500 $ 120,900 $ 213,100 Final Treatment and Disposal Delta Treatment Plant 18,091,750 5,894,000 10,390,000 TOTAL $ 23,832,250 $ 6,014,900 $ 10,603,000 TOTAL PROJECT PRESENT WORTH (Construction + O&M) $ 29,847,150 $ 34,435,250 Low Construction Cost and Total Project Present Worth Alternative Low Operation and Maintenance Alternative • - 107 - • TABLE 8 • TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE TO CROW CREEK Construction Cost Summary Operation and Maintenance SYSTEM COMPONENT Estimated Present Worth Estimated Cost Without Inflation With Inflation Outfall System South Line with Pumping to Delta Site $ 6,632,400 $ 505,100 $ 890,400 Pretreatment Screening 459,400 212,700 374,900 Pumping Pumping with dual transmission line 1,771,000 898,900 1,584,600 Transmission Dual Pipeline from Delta Site 6,775,000 164,700 290,400 Preliminary Treatment 24-day Aerated Lagoon 4,509,000 3,649,000 6,432,300 Storage Dual Cell Storage Reservoir 5,748,000 148,500 261,800 Final Treatment and Disposal Chlorination ' 127,000 265,300 467,700 Filtration 4,676,000 593,400 1,046,000 Outfall to Crow Creek from Storage Reservoir 420,000 27,000 47,600 TOTAL $ 31,117,800 $ 6,464,600 $ 11,395,700 TOTAL PROJECT PRESENT WORTH (Construction + O&M) $ 37,582,400 $ 42,513,500 • High Construction Cost and Total Project Present Worth Alternative - 108 - TABLE 9 • TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE TO CROW CREEK Construction Cost Summary Operation and Maintenance SYSTEM COMPONENT Estimated Present Worth Estimated Cost Without Inflation With Inflation Outfall System West line with pumping to First Avenue $ 2,815,500 $ 155,100 $ 273,400 Pretreatment Screening with Grit Removal 955,000 437,500 771,200 Pumping Pumping with one transmission line 1,993,000 1,060,500 1,869,400 Transmission Single Pipeline from First Avenue 6,110,000 190,500 335,800 Preliminary Treatment 24-day Aerated Lagoon 4,509,000 3,649,000 6,432,300 Final Treatment and Disposal Chlorination 127,000 265,300 467,700 Filtration 4,676,000 593,400 1,046,000 Outfall to Crow Creek from 24-day lagoons 565,000 42,700 75,300 TOTAL $ 21,750,500 $ 6,394,000 . $ 11,271,100 TOTAL PROJECT PRESENT WORTH (Construction and 0 & M) $ 28,144,500 $ 33,021,600 LOW CONSTRUCTION COST AND TOTAL PROJECT PRESENT WORTH ALTERNATIVE • - 109 - TABLE .10 • TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE TO CROW CREEK Construction Cost Summary Operation and Maintenance SYSTEM COMPONENT Estimated Present Worth Estimated Cost Without Inflation With Inflation Outfall System South line with pumping to Delta Site $ 6,632,400 $ 505,100 $ 890,400 Pretreatment Screening with Grit Removal 955,000 437,500 771,200 Pumping Pumping with one transmission line 1,993,000 1,060,500 1,869,400 Transmission Single Pipeline from Delta Site 4,486,000 135,500 238,900 Preliminary Treatment 24-day Aerated Lagoon 4,509,000 3,649,000 6,432,300 Storage Dual Cell Storage Reservoir 5,748,000 148,500 261,800 Final Treatment and Disposal Chlorination 127,000 265,300 467,700 FiltrAtion 4,676,000 593,400 1,046,000 Outfall to Crow Creek from Storage Reservoir 420,000 27,000 47,600 TOTAL $ 29,546,400 $ 6,821,800 $ 12,025,300 TOTAL PROJECT PRESENT WORTH (Construction and 0 & M) $ 36,368,200 $ 41,571,700 HIGH OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ALTERNATIVE - 110 - TABLE 11 TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE TO CROW CREEK Construction Cost Summary Operation and Maintenance SYSTEM COMPONENT Estimated Present Worth Estimated Cost Without Inflation With Inflation Outfall System North Gravity Line to Delta Site $ 5,740,500 $ 120,900 $ 213,100 Pretreatment Screening 459,400 212,700 374,900 Pumping Pumping with dual transmission line 1,771,000 898,900 1,584,600 Transmission Dual Pipeline from Delta Site 6,775,000 164,700 290,400 Preliminary Treatment 4-day Aerated Lagoon 4,443,000 3,293,800 5,806,200 Storage Single Cell Storage Reservoir 4,319,000 127,100 224,000 Final Treatment and Disposal' Chlorination . . 127,000 265,300 467,700 Filtration 4,676,000 593,400 1,046,000 Outfall to Crow. Creek from Storage Reservoir 420,000 27,000 47,600 TOTAL $ 28,730,900 $ 5,703,800 $ 10,054,500 TOTAL PROJECT PRESENT WORTH (Construction and 0 & M) $ 34,434,700 $ 38,785,400 • LOW OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ALTERNATIVE - 111 - • TABLE 12 . . • TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE TO OGILVY DITCH Construction Cost Summary Operation and, Maintenance SYSTEM COMPONENT Estimated Present Worth Estimated Cost Without Inflation With Inflation Outfall System South Line with Pumping to Delta Site $ 6,632,400 $ 505,100 $ 890,400 Pretreatment Screening 459,400 212,700 374,900 Pumping Pumping with dual transmission line 1,771,000 898,900 1,584,600 Transmission Dual Pipeline from Delta Site 6,775,000 164,700 290,400 Preliminary Treatment 24-day Aerated Lagoon 4,509,000 3,649,000 6,432,300 Storage Dual Cell Storage Reservoir 5,748,000 148,500 261,800 Final Treatment and Disposal Chlorination 127,000 265,300 467,700 Filtration 4,676,000 593,400 1,046,000 Outfall to Ogilvy Ditch from Storage Reservoir 2,108,000 94,400 166,400 TOTAL $ 32,805,800 $ 6,532,000 $ 11,514,500 TOTAL PROJECT PRESENT WORTH (Construction and 0 & M) $ 39,337,800 $ 44,320,300 • HIGH CONSTRUCTION COST AND TOTAL PROJECT PRESENT WORTH ALTERNATIVE - 112 - 1I TABLE 13 • TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE TO OGILVY DITCH Construction Cost Summary Operation and Maintenance SYSTEM COMPONENT Estimated Present Worth Estimated Cost Without Inflation With Inflation Outfall System West Line with Pumping to First Avenue $ 2,815,500 $ 155,100 $ 273,400 Pretreatment Screening with Grit Removal 955,000 437,500 771,200 Pumping Pumping with one transmission line 1,993,000 1,060,500 1,869,400 Transmission Single Pipeline from First Avenue 6,110,000 190,500 335,800 Preliminary Treatment 24-day Aerated Lagoon 4,509,000 3,649,000 6,432,300 Final Treatment and Disposal Chlorination 127,000 265,300 467,700 Filtration 4,676,000 593,400 1,046,000 Outfall to Ogilvy Ditch from 24-day Lagoons 1,726,000 112,300 198,000 TOTAL $ 22,911,500 $ 6,463,600 $ 11,393,800 TOTAL PROJECT PRESENT WORTH (Construction and 0 & M) $ 29,375,100 $ 34,305,300 LOW CONSTRUCTION COST AND TOTAL PROJECT PRESENT WORTH ALTERNATIVE • - 113 - 7 7 TABLE 14 • TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE TO OGILVY DITCH Construction Cost Summary Operation and Maintenance SYSTEM COMPONENT Estimated Present Worth Estimated Cost Without Inflation With Inflation Outfall System South Line with Pumping to Delta Site $ 6,632,400 $ 505,100 $ 890,400 Pretreatment Screening with Grit Removal 955,000 437,500 771,200 Pumping Pumping with one transmission line 1,993,000 1,060,500 1,869,400 Transmission Single Pipeline from Delta Site 4,486,000 135,500 238,900 Preliminary Treatment 24-day Aerated Lagoon 4,509,000 3,649,000 6,432,300 Storage Dual Cell Storage Reservoir 5,748,000 148,500 261,800 Final Treatment and Disposal Chlorination 127,000 265,300 467,700 Filtration 4,676,000 593,400 1,046,000 Outfall to Ogilvy . Ditch from Storage Reservoir 2,108,000 94,400 166,400 TOTAL $ 31,234,400 $ 6,889,200 $ 12,144,100 TOTAL PROJECT PRESENT WORTH • (Construction and 0 & M) $ 38,123,600 $ 43,378,500 HIGH OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ALTERNATIVE - 114 - 3 • TABLE 15 • TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE TO OGILVY DITCH - Construction Cost Summary Operation and Maintenance SYSTEM COMPONENT Estimated Present Worth Estimated Cost Without Inflation With Inflation Outfall System North Gravity Line to Delta Site $ 5,740,500 $ 120,900 $ 213,100 Pretreatment Screening 459,400 212,700 374,900 Pumping Pumping with dual transmission line 1,771,000 898,900 1,584,600 Transmission Dual Pipeline from Delta Site 6,775,000 164,700 290,400 Preliminary Treatment 4-day Aerated Lagoon 4,443,000 3,293,800 5,806,200 Storage Single Cell Storage Reservoir 4,319,000 127,100 224,000 Final Treatment and Disposal Chlorination 127,000 265,300 467,700 Filtration 4,676,000 593,400 1,046,000 Outfall to Ogilvy Ditch from Storage Reservoir 2,108,000 94,400 166,400 TOTAL $ 30,418,900 $ 5,771,200 $ 10,173,300 TOTAL PROJECT PRESENT WORTH (Construction and 0 & M) $ 36,190,100 $ 40,592,200 • LOW OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ALTERNATIVE - 115 - • TABLE 16 • WATER QUALITY OF THE CACHE LA POUDREI Cache La Poudre at gaging station at highway bridge, 3 miles east of Courthouse in Greeley, Weld County, and 3 miles upstream from mouth, State of Colorado Department of Health, Station No. RPS-27. PARAMETER MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM Temperature °F 57.2 77 32 Turbidity JTU 93 2500 4.8 Conductivity micromho/cm 1637 2105 461 Dissolved Oxygen mg/1 7.5 13.0 2.8 BOD5 mg/1 16.9 87 3 pH 8.0 9.1 7.2 NH3-N mg/1 1.7 6.0 0 NO3-N mg/1 2.7 7.6 0 Total PO4 mg/1 2.9 6.8 .2 Total Hardness (CaCO3) mg/1 728 1009 151 Sodium (Diss.) (Na) mg/1 119 152 23 Chloride (C1 ) mg/1 42 83 2 Sulfate (SO4) mg/1 658 799 393 Boron (B) ug/1 248 400 0 Chromium (Cr+6) ug/1 0 • 0 0 Cadmium (Cd) ug/1 0 0 0 Copper (Cu) ug/1 0 0 0 Iron (Fe) ug/1 295 2000 0 Manganese (Mn) ug/1 37 200 0 Molybdenum (Mo) ug/1 0 0 0 Lead (Pb) ug/1 0 0 0 Zinc (Zn) ug/1 23.4 310 0 Selenium (Se) ug/1 3.4 13 0 Total Coliform MPN/100 mis 938,007 .240x108 2.3 Fecal Coliform MPN/100 mis 45,442 490,000 27 Total Dissolved Solids mg/.l'' 1,318 1,638 298 NFLT Residue mg/1 102 362 15 1Sanitar r Sewage System for the Greeley Region, Weld County, Colorado, • Facilities Plan Report, Part II Alternative Plan Formulation Master Plan Initial Program, Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, 1975. - 116 - TABLE 17 WATER QUALITY OF THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVER1 South Platte at gaging station, at bridge on State Highway 37, 1.9 miles North of railroad in Kersey, Weld County, and 2.5 miles downstream from Cache La Poudre River. State of Colorado Department of Health, Station No. RPS-22. PARAMETER MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM Temperature 'F 56.4 80 32 Turbidity JTU 73.0 600 8 Conductivity micromho/cm 1397 1900 550 Dissolved Oxygen mg/1 7.5 11.6 4.2 BOD5 mg/1 10.1 30.0 0.4 pH 8.0 8.7 7.1 NH3-N mg/1 1.05 8.6 0.0 NO3-N mg/1 3.4 7.0 .325 Total PO4 mg/1 2.7 7.9 0.1 Total Hardness (CaCO3) mg/1 537 834 219 Sodium (Diss.) (Na) mg/1 118.0 165 46 Chloride (C1) mg/1 55 94 3 Sulfate (SO4) mg/1 656 5335 182 Boron (B) ug/1 245 430 0 Chromium (Cr+6) ug/1 0 0 0 Cadmium (Cd) ug/1 0 0 0 Copper (Cu) ug/1 0 0 0 Iron (Fe) ug/1 243 1000 0 Manganese (Mn) ug/1 42 300 0 Molybdenum (Mo) ug/1 2.85 20 0 Lead (Pb) ug/1 0 0 0 Zinc (Zn) ug/1 30.7 420 0 Selenium (Se) ug/1 2.8 12 0 Total Coliform MPN/100 mis 473,240 .160x108 2.2 Fecal Coliform MPN/100 mis 102,010 5,420,000 150 Total Dissolved Solids mg/1 1,049 1,435 438 NFLT Residue mg/1 142 531 14 1Sanitary Sewage System for the Greeley Region, Weld County, Colorado, • Facilities Plan Report, Part II Alternative Plan Formulation Master Plan Initial Program, Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, 1975. - 117 - TABLE 18 • WATER QUALITY OF THE CACHE LA POUDRE ABOVE THE GREELEY FIRST AVENUE TREATMENT PLANT CONSTITUENT(1) Nitrate, as NO3, mg/1 3.25 Ammonia, as NH4, mg/1 2.35 Ortho-phosphate as PO4, mg/1 5.0 Sulfate as SO4, mg/1 500.0 pH 7.8 Total Hardness as CaCO3, mg/1 730.0 Calcium as CaCO3, mg/1 510.0 Calcium as Ca, mg/1 202.0 Magnesium as Mg, mg/1 220.0 Alkalinity as CaCO3, mg/1 227.5 Chloride as Cl, mg/1 40.0 Specific Conductance, micro- mhos/cm 610.0 Sodium as Na, mg/1 38.4 SAR 0.60 (1) Organic Nitrogen not measured - estimated to be 10-15 mg/l . • 'Sanitary Sewage System for the Greeley Region, Weld County, Colorado, Facilities Plan Report, Part II Alternative Plan Formulation Master Plan Initial Program, Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, 1975. - 118 - lw OOl/# o . 0 0 0 0 I 'w.ioj.! !00 leoaH e r'1 1 1 1 Cr • !/6w 'A;!u! lemly M ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t/6w iIOS C3 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 L/6w '£00e0 se o I N COo 0 co U' U) I 0 I ssaupJeH V103 r; A !/6w O N .-1 0 IS) Cr 'N-ale.13!N Cr LO o o 0 r+ o 0 0 t/6w r; 4N- a2!-I3!N o 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 t/6w r-1 Co CO O N N 1 • 1 1 O 1 'N o!ue6.10 No 0 0 0 .--I F- t/6w ,N-£HN CD CD O I 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 J Q _ W o• t/6w No 1 N 0 O U' Cr LID I O I r~-I W •S 41 M CO 4.0 ko .4- M O Liz N I- °1 • o !/6w `d !e�o1 0 I CD O CD O 0 0 I 0 I Ir Z W = _ CO J Ce !/6w CC =co 'd-'Od 0I 0 O o 0 0 o O CD O o 0 0 I-1 CI Cd CC 0cs , wo o / 4 I COI 1 I I I I 0i I 00 4 so w o.io!w , C-I CC 'A3!A!3onpUO3 Cr; o � 30 • = aanleaadwa 0 ,!, 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 N en I. 1/6w °Ss1 r-.c I M M C) .-e M a I C') I 1/6w 's p t !o g 1 (8 o o I I I 1 I I Co I Co 14401 1 rn rn O N .--I O N U' Ln Cr LC) r-I v--I yd Co Co Co o I, 1... h. CO h. h. rn h. Cn al h. N. ^ N. N. w I I N. I N. N. I I I I I 1 Ln ill r-1 III .--1 Q .-I M r-I .--I .--I r--1 •--e r-I M r•-I M O I I I I I I I 1 I I I Ln CO Lel Ln Lo Lc) in L() CO Ln Co • = CL I\Q) d 0 "CI 0C Q) C C1 C 0.N 0.Cr 0-CO V) r0 r0 CD (0 Q) (0 Q) N N CO Q)N Y 0 — r Q) '— Q) r• a) r- Q) a) -o CC O •CI'0 - 'V -C) '- 07313 .---0 C r• pc ,— CI C Z Q) b0 b r0 O r0 r0 Q) r0 r0 Q) 0 Q) 0 Q) 0 O i- O N N 0 0 Cr 0 0 3 - 0 0 3- •r- 3 - •,- 3- •,- 1.-1 U Ce I.° CC CC CC <Y O CC CC O 4-) CD +-+ O +) I— Y C) -.C lD U Y CO U ,C to U Q 3 C)1 4- r- CO to '-MUD U N NCO Ur-1 C) U.-I Q) Ur-1 Q) U 0 Ln 0 r- LD LO .- lD Lo 0 LID Lo 0 N 0 V) 0....Cl) O c 3 3 N N N im V) 119 • W CC .+•. CI a) _ C O •O Q N CO• f• • d J +a M N CO CO r1 O •,- W C CO N .-� CO 01 .--1 CO 01 2 C U•b � 1 r-1 W Q M U N !!: CCW31-- OC..)W ? C _ MI J r Q WCC C W O in CC = CC ti Y f••• LL CO W N C,1 I- O N F- N Q ~ N CO CO a CA col M ►•+ > J Z CO Cr) f•-• r-1 N J Q CC I- CO = 2 2 1¢- O +> >ti fY +, c)CC W rd (.1] CO Q CI- C=1 .C Z +) = O O O CL V) C9 d W > C.0 •r- CC C CC UJ O W ›. .C I- < O W E 0 4 N U CL O t f E O N i U U S- •r- = E O V) O v •r- CL) Its C CC b C U O O r- +-1 C G. O 0) L U E O \ r- \ \ N Q U CT \ CY) r- O N •r- E C71 E E CU E L • E Cr) C = 4-1 O J OCf) E O b O r- N U Z OO )-- 2 V) W - 120 - • 1 • O ` • > a) . ' o V- a i 4_ a0 +1 OEM 1- e0 0 "0 .• U. U- O 1. 1- C I. 1 E 0 0 O O • O a) e0 4- 0 0 > 7 • of LC%en_ N •— O 10 Z— M 0 F-- — O 10 1 1 1 • 0 g — U 3 E C 1n • C I O C 1 • E 0 8 C � � 0l-0 o - 0 E o E i L L. L. L 10 .0 C 1 1- - v' 1- O EECUI ' U. L. La. 1 — 10 u\ 0) U -- .C 7 7 0 0 CI) 1- Y "0 0) 0— c E E L. -C • a) 0 0 0) v1 0) cc E O 0. — C cn — — a+ 10 a) a) a) a) 7 .C — 10 0 0 E CI E X X N J LL- L L. A a+ •L. L 0) -- 10 0 .C 10 (0 I. La. Li Li. L..) O 0 u% L7 V N Z a+ Ln X Z CI L- T 0) c — a a) • "-4- >. 0 0 • as O En) E /1 . 1- e0 O 13 O 1- 1- C L. 1 4-. • E O a) • 0 a) 104- 0 00 7 • 01 E — a+ a) en E a. LL c 1 O 10 , — 0) F- 0 10 • co •- U 3 E c N • c I cos I 0 0 4- N IA o1.0 �) CA U � _c 0 %0 1...) O O L. L. L. 1. 10 '0 C 1_ L. — Ll 1- 0 • E E U. U. W U. — C a+\ 0) U — .0 7 7 0 0 L. .-Y 17 0) 0 -- C E E _ a a) m 0) a) a) ) C c c o o. •- c 07 an I- 0 1. L- 110 u 1- ate+ O o CEa 0 -C E 100 1X0 owe en u.. U. Li. •1. L3 n c U) 0 VIA Z 1. .0 Z Z . . i a`— --. O J a. L. a.' L.) I C > 0. 0) ' 0 U) 0 —E I- 4- > N 0 O L. I- 1- C O �e '+- • I - s 61 0 O o1 E i Z O w 0 4- C". E e)0 LL C O M L 1-O J }Q- E O 10 Z 0) I— •— O CI I 0'•- ln N N EE EE .— U 3 C tr. • C C co C > C • !- ¢ O O O us 4- 01 v. u 0E •- -i4.7 .— c I.11 01 u E e0 E•- F- )- L 1- L. 10 " C L. L. 0 dl L. O - E E C (/' >.0 Y1 am LL 1L La. La. — CO a+ — O) U — .0 7 7 0) 0) —0 0 - J 0 I- .x 13 a\ — c \ E E .. -x -C-- Q 0 0 a) 0 ut 0) CC Eo 0 -- c Qf a, ca a+\ -O a) a) a) a) 7 .c - 1O O 0 E C E X X Vf J COE • L. 1. 1- 1- ma. L. a+ Q) N 10 0 .C e0 /0 0 N 10 U. Li W Li e..) O C) v) c7 V 1n Z r LA Z Z Z V Vt CC W - - e 1.-• L L OC > 00. L0• . U 4••. > 0. O 4- A E 41 N O La. t0 I- e0 E -0 a) O 1_ L. C 0 • 4- E U. a) 0'F I O E — a00 O + 00 4- en. • E c co 1a. L o a — o ea Z O) i— O to 0 4- Q — U 3 C N • C I 0 -C > C + 1• a E E E 4- vl tn U E — eon — .O1...) e0-.- •h L. L L. a" tO t0 C 1- O v1 L. C E LA E E >•0 'n • LL 1L LL Li. .— CO u — 0) U .0 7 7 —a 0 0 L. Y v 0 �— C -. E E -c-- a) a) a) to w a) cc E o a — c 0) 4.+m a) 01 a) a) 7L •— eO 0 E /0 E X X COE L. L. L. L. as a.+ L L 0) N (0 0 C A 10 0 N 10 �T LL 1a. Lt. 4. LJ O 0 1/) 0 s/ H Z u .O Z X X V to . 1'3- , • •-- a. 10 ^• a I. a. V —al 10 as v) L. — U 7 co { L. C •- V) 0 N4, a) O • Z -7 O 0 .0 t) - t0 vt Z L. en >. U 0 K U) 10 O X a+ Q O L. I- 0) a) 4- 0 a) 0. Z - an - as co > —a) >. .0 7 L > < .0 0) 0 t0 a.) O as 0 44 u '— F— f0 C X '0 U L) > IS N) M -U a+ 0 U t0 O — — O a) o O 0 0 In X .0 U In E O. U 4-- '0 4. a) P. 10 0 — IS a) 7 S V (1) • Q W N La. H H 0 CC W I— O d I— La. . — 121 - • • 1 .-.0 L Q =I- C.4 0 `-� u .-. 0 O ` in )0 .N v.. I N 3 b > ;0- 3 u, o • -.1 I..) II) o 0 La a. I- 0 a• O Vii UN x r L o C = _ W `...V [. L Q a. Q 0 X w 0 -- 0 N Q- .—. H Ina U o • N 0 c a ai =I - = 0 I o u o L o a f•••• i... a) lL CO Q LA •- !C > LL O •-U Q T`- W W •-••••X C m 0 > > I- I- I- w J J U u u - -0 a - - 0 0 0 et z L ... 0 x x > ALL.. 0 UN m V v _ • CO a) U CO L in X r•••• y ` F 30 al La v �C 1b E a L a ¢ of rnc.) a CC I O xrn 0 W ? 10\ U. - LA .o — X 3 > [a. x cc u N• ~ W LL LIN J .. = W Q J )0 = m Cl U 0 `/ U Q C I- m N X ~ H Lal < L L 0 3 Q m ¢ U a O 3 c)- . c m o Q .o a 0 .0 K - MIn a\ NU .3 O 0 i I O J c.7 •0 • to - rQ\ U. a sOIs• so E 3 > lL OC Li u U co J = . C 0 NC.) U N T - X ill L N I- '5 (5 atl a-v u .-4 U C .- • 1 .Z.. o a a U O 0 J I- o < Vl v . a Z v a 0 Q x !t x l U_ .-I I-- w < u x W m lr ., U W — o X cc u — in N Em I- Vt a w CO L U 0 - X X u E - ON - L O LA O a_ Cl li Q .O lL NI -. E 1- u a I- 0 L VI v u U in EEW • - — — E 6 V N L O O v c vl -a v 0 L J 4.3 CC \ T1 .D 7 G W J CP Si L u .o 0 La E l+) u v u c I- L C7 c T_ - vl a) Si o a) - o 60 In • a- w CL J- T N O Q) d Y O _ N E. O IT U - E 0- 0 p a Fes- m •f l� • • COLORADO WATER QUALITY CRITERIA TABLE I - FOOTNOTES (1) Where dissolved oxygen levels, less than the standard, occur naturally, a discharge shall not cause a further reduction in dissolved oxygen in receiving water. (2) An effluent shall be regulated to maintain aerobic conditions, and a guideline of 2.0 mg/liter dissolved oxygen in an effluent should be maintained, unless demonstrated otherwise. (3) A 7 mg/liter standard, during periods of spawning of coldwater fish, shall be set on a case by case basis as defined in the NPDES permit for those dischargers whose effluent would affect fish spawning. (4) Suspended solid levels will be controlled by Effluent Limitations and Basic Standards. (5) Temperature shall maintain a normal pattern of diurnal and seasonal fluctuations with no abrupt changes and shall have no increase in temperature of a magnitude, rate and duration deemed deleterious to the resident aquatic life. Generally, a maximum 3°C increase over a minimum of a 4-hour period, lasting for 12 hours maximum, is deemed acceptable for discharges fluctuating in volume or temperature. Where temperature increases cannot be maintained within this range using BMP, BATEA, and BPWTT control measures, the Division will determine whether the resulting temperature increases preclude an Aquatic Life classification. (6) Free from objectionable and toxic algae. It has been well established that heavy growth of some strains of blue-green algae, upon death and degradation, may release one or more substances which are toxic to humans and many other animals. Although no fixed numbers can be recommended at this time, it is clear that streams, lakes and reservoirs should not be permitted to bear heavy growth of algal blooms, nor allow these blooms to disintegrate. Every effort should be made to control algal growths to levels that are not hazardous. (7) For drinking water with or without disinfection. • - 123 - U. -- o Class 2 • v N U. OLIN UN � O — Ln ^ V1 O O 1"'1 O O O > X O O X UN a Raw Water x 00 x 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 OO N ~^u. W. • ^ ^ ^CC Class 1 • W — -- OW..1— �. W •v ^ O .W.. .Ni .Lai W.. s Ground Water x x O V VI W�Oy� 0 > x _ L�x - O a 0 o AN 0 I O O • • O 470 •-• 0000- —0 _ 0 m1 I V _ w �1 x m X UN CO acl AGRICULTURE x V a m m x m m >1 N CO — O - N N N o 0 0 0I O O O O O o O N C I ^ O L v (0 N m m m O m m m l .a,. m U O^ n n NI LL U) N Q 6 Q m A < Cl) A. L — — w — u al m m I m. Q 03 RI O O O O O O O o m a m-c O O c o CO CO I m 0 m m 0 O O m CO O I1 ^ UU � ^ in a .V_. .v. ) .-- O v v N CO ^ L7 1 < O .V.. 0 00 u1 O .-• O xi Q O O - O O x -7000 -1- .43 a - - ( - OO .- O .- O 0 0 0 0 - O 0 O lI - O I U S V .-) U1 .-. .-. O1 v r. O V v N v Q1 aO+ ) I L1 �I Q O .V-. O X O u1 O - •-) O IA O O o-' - o o I - O O M or O O CO AN CO Al O• • • • • • • •-• .- O• I O• O O O - O OOOOOO 4C OM •••-•• 41 L _ 1- CU O V 3 v v wI O .V.. • L>, o '- -. W E E u v Li"O --I - Q UN o x o u, 0� a v LIN o C - L • • ^ O OI O O O N O O O s - C ¢ -� 3 ^ OO 0� o o - 0 -• 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 O O N O O I O v m ~ m O I _W ¢ L L) N f m o .... ^ ¢ 3 L o .. v v WI O o u` W a 3 , +' v ; I - r0 "Q'' .Q N V O X O O O O N O m O OI OI O O •JCn — 3 0 —• o• ' rn• • • • • - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 < O o — OO I O O o O O "O ----1 u vO w ^ r. ^ O Q' U V9 .-. ........ O v .-. .-. - v w •-• O - O a �I o 00 x N O o v - O - O rn LIN •-• 0 X 0 0 - O CI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O CO O 0 0 0 -I O - 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Class 2 Secondary X x X X X x XXXXXXX XXXX X Contact a z O f- a u, C1ass 1 • W Primary x x x x x x x XXX XXX XXX x x °C Contact co E u C W O u .o 7 • m O E - F E E N c E E U LA - E ? aid > a = L = E c E •- 'E y I cul 7 .0 d •c v .- •- K 1-- •E .61 c_ c_ u CAN c —tJ u 61 -- m .ti c W W -- L m u !) L J Z = S Z VI V1 (— W = Q Q m m V V V ac x < O 0. H - X24 • • COLORADO WATER QUALITY CRITERIA TABLE II - FOOTNOTES (1) Concentrations of total alkalinity or other chelating agents attri- butable to municipal, industrial or other discharges or agricultural practices should not alter the total alkalinity or other chelating agents of the receiving water by more than 20%. Where the complexing capacity of the receiving water is altered by more than 20% or where chelating agents are released to the receiving water which are not naturally characteristic of that water, specific effluent limitations on pertinent parameters will be established. In no case shall in- stream modification or alteration of total alkalinity or other che- lating agents be permitted without Commission authorization. (2) Where indicated, bioassay procedures may be used to established criteria or standards for a particular situation. (3) For bioassay lead concentration is based on soluble lead measurements (i.e. non-filterable lead using a 0.45 micron filter). (4) The appropriate value for molybdenum depends on many factors, such as soil type, crop and irrigation practices. A numerical value for molybdenum will be assigned on a case by case basis. (5) Uranium is listed in Table II for its toxicological properties to aquatic life, and also in Table V (Radiologicals) for limitations on other uses. h • - 125 - L. - N Y Y N A Eo CO in• = v ' yf m ^ v 1J- ...... - LL N J. ; m W w .m.. N (0•O. U CO C N N Q O O O N O O 0 O X O N O -- O X N .- X Cl m N C W H L Q Y S DI U. V 3 E _ N ••••• ^ N•O W' m LL LL = LL. CO C m W Q .m./ v v U O N O O LOIN N N . X O N O Q.0 7 - 0 O X N X N C C _ 43 J J GO Q _ _ C C N O COv X O O O ' 6 Q X 0 X O X X X X Q A -o a+ " .1 O0 m U 0 L In N in Y 3 c E =EN 3IIII �-. WX X O O X X X X X 0'] CD CC C Y 4-1 ~ LL L O = J ate.+ 4 4., CO (J O' .. O .. v in W Q 0 N I-- O 1 N vl s N 3 ¢ •"" C v T to O Q C > II �"� G 7 ed — N Lrli = N n OJO V p O OI O O d O O O Oi X X O O X X X X X co c.) u U CO c O N I-) ill T m L_ X X X X X X X X X X X X mA '° C N UC o O A 1.$J O 1/1 m < Z O I.... " Cr U W 10 C 'a L.) - O C U N co vI T X X X X X X X X X X X X vt N CO L. A7 (.1 E C CO a- O .- a- f0 N d A Z .-. Z Z \ O C VI v O \UI 7 m Ln ." E \ = E E L. • _ v O yi .E.. Q) 1—L7 E E E ut \ Ol 7 . 7 WI MCI 41'+C 'O O1 u O) - •O N E O L OJ 7 t CC U 0 LU - W Q •� ~p •p um l L_ w O O C •_ ut " ~ 7 O -C c0 L U LA- Z Z VI m U 1= 2 a d - 26 - • • COLORADO WATER QUALITY CRITERIA TABLE III - FOOTNOTES (1) Because ammonia may be indicative of pollution and because of its significant effect on chlorination, it is recommended' that ammonia nitrogen in public water supply sources not exceed 0.5 mg/1. (2) Fluoride limits vary from 2.4 mg/1 at 12.0 C and below, to 1.4 mg/1 between 26.3 C and 32.5 C, based upon the annual average of the maximum daily air temperature (see "National interim primary drinking water regulations for specific limitations", or any modification thereto). (3) In order to provide a reasonable margin of safety to allow for unusual situations such as extremely high water ingestion or nitrite formation in slurries, the NO3-N plus NO2-N content in drinking waters for livestock and poultry should be limited to 100 ppm or less, and the NO2-N content alone be limited to 10 ppm or less. (4) Phosphorous criteria or standards are to be determined by an algal bioassay using the method described in the latest edition of "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater", American Public Health Association. • - 127 - • I • I. CV V �� Ai J. r r r 0 r a v r U r r r r > �� O O O O o O O O O O a. O O . O O O an Cg W H I. a u DI " r. i v -- — VI „c r r >- r N r r r r r r > O a v Ln • LI 0 0 0 — 0 — 0 0 4.2 O O O 0 O 0 0 Li L • � I- ..1 u u r r r r r > r > r r >- > > r > > > r CC 0 O O O Q VI O m CO L V al fa g E -- 3 s a lal 13- v < Q � Q Q Q v v M v v v J K O - a O 0 C L1 •C 0 O O O O 0 O O ^• O a O .Q.. C C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Y- 1p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O •� W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ,i,) lr_ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O J C Q J RI O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Y > O O Vd u O N 3 Q IS 10 W OO - cc v CO • O O J L7 O u 0 V C O N O „ T >- >- >- >- > >- Y >- > >- > >. >- >- >- >- •Y >- > N L RI A C) C O V J Y Q N Z O f- 4 W 1p CC U C w •- O CC tJ „ > Y > >- r Y Y > > r Y > >- Y > Y > > > >- ✓ L n u E C. cn al N — v!1 N- v ..0 u v 1 -7-I a> u '^ a) m 4 a al O1 a v L • v a _ ^ O E O t•1 I- 0 N C .-. IL`•� L v L O L a u. a� v ry L U N VI C C F > _ w ' C -a • M •C U O X L O O 7 O L 1 - I- u V I-, O• O w V •L O `-- •L u C W M 71 O .C • VI 6.• C ._ x O E a .� I- 03 .7' •• Cl xQ Q CO • N •L--- O L 61 C 7 L O ' q w x s s F- O w (J . a N N m C. O.O O v a - 128 - 1 ‘ • COLORADO WATER QUALITY CRITERIA TABLE IV - FOOTNOTES (1) All organics, not on this partial list, are covered under Basic Standards, Section 3.1. (2) Numerical values in tables based on experimental evidence of toxicity. No point source discharges of organic pesticides shall be permitted to state waters. (3) The persistence, bioaccumulation potential, and carcinogenicity of these organic compounds cautions human exposure to a minimum (EPA). (4) Aldrin and dieldrin in combination should not exceed 0.000003 mg/l. (5) Every reasonable effort should be made to minimize human exposure (EPA). . r h • - 129 - T 1. N U 4J in m N3LiN v _ • T - # - COLA LA DO 0 0 \ J U 10 .O 0 0 q1 a CC E Cla O = LA N cd F▪ L • < V C., = v - .. 3 .� w m • in -. v v v v .W.. C.7 .... N y UN0 — C _ 0 0 - 1A coOD O O \ UN CO .O 0 al • u ` o E 0 N •u\ O W W CC CC ^ O = .W.. v I-• F- v v .0.. v .Wi �0.. O J J O _ = LA O O LA LA CO O O O7 v u — un m — E cc z 0 0 0 N LA Q Q A Y O CO CO L d Cl •' 3 E L to .-. L 3 •3 W al r 7 z w c ca v C ...... •-•••.W.. .W.. .0 LLI.. .Wv .0.. 0 C W A 141 o o — u\ CO O 0 s C — La.— — LA Co — .o .1 COQ > J 4:1 0 ,— 0' 41 O N ce W l•-• m N < O' v 3 < m W J 0 3 m o Q < — I— o uO f 0 0 N U It C C O Cl 0 L N X X X X X X X X 0J 0 X t..) C O U J W < N Z 0 Fy u W A CC V V C W — O CC U VI N X X X X X X X X X RI L V E t. 6 at M-...7 L • N N N Ci O1 '70 L) _M C O' f•-'1N N C C N CO M • 0 •- .-. N .•. N 7 Cl •- t_^ m 7 o v w 7— U L Cl W N 0% X U 0 0 u—• J w x E s .0 m I 0 E - - E N F N v a u 7 u 7 F Cr L) N C E E E W C L7 •C N 0 E •C E •' 7 7 7 F-•- CJ '0 '0 L 7 0 7 C - W J 1 L !0 u •- i-• •- 0 ,L •..+ C • L O C, 7 u N •in 7 -0 L 0 •- 'C Z-.. 0 y C) r0 u r L L K c Cl •f m Li I a Cc N F F-• _ d O•- •t a u C: - 130' - • COLORADO WATER QUALITY CRITERIA TABLE V - FOOTNOTES (1) Concentrations given are maximum permissible concentrations above naturally occurring or "background" concentrations ex- cept where otherwise noted. (2) If Alpha or Beta are measured in excess of 15 or 50 pCi/1 respectively, it will be necessary to determine by specific analysis the particular radionuclide or radionuclides re- sponsible for the elevated level. Particular radionuclides should not exceed the value given in the table. If an ele- vated level of Alpha or Beta emissions is caused by radio- nuclides, the Division should be consulted. (3) Maximum permissible concentrations including naturally oc- curring or background contributions. (4) See Uranium in Table II for aquatic life limitations. r •r • - 131 - TABLE 23 AGRICULTURAL SITE INFILTRATION RATE ANALYSIS Irrigator # Maximum Application Rate (in/d) Infiltration Rate (in/d) 1 0.43 104.64 2 0.35 "N/A* 3 0.32 346.56 4 0.37 N/A 5 0.40 212.16 6 0.59 136.32 7 0.47 N/A 8 0.30 82.80 9 0.36 100.80 10 0.64 213.60 11 0.56 628.08 12 0.50 N/A 13 0.43 N/A 14 0.26 356.16 15 0.24 N/A 16 0.41 N/A 17 0.35 N/A 18 0.44 319.44 19 0.30 N/A 20 0.43 121.20 21 0.40 125.52 22 0.29 236.64 • *Data not available - 132 - w I TABLE 24 • INTERPRETATION OF SOIL CHEMICAL TESTS Test Result Interpretation pH of saturated soil paste <4.2 Too acid for most crops to do well 4.2-5.5 Suitable for acid-tolerant crops 5.5-8.4 Suitable for most crops >8.4 Too alkaline for most crops, indicates a possible sodium problem CEC, meq/100 g 1-10 Sandy soils (limited adsorption) 12-20 Silt loam (moderate adsorption) >20 Clay and organic soils (high adsorption) Exchangeable cations, % of CEC (desirable range) Sodium <5 Calcium 60-70 Potassium 5-10 ESP, % of CEC <5 Satisfactory >10 Reduced permeability in fine-textured soils >20 Reduced permeability in coarse-textured soils ECe, mmhos/cm at 25' of saturation extract <2 No salinity problems 2-4 Restricts growth of very salt-sensitive crops 4-8 Restricts growth of many crops 8-16 Restricts growth of all but salt-tolerant crops • >16 Only a few very salt-tolerant crops make satisfactory yields - 133 - ' r • • U r- >1.- .----..... 0 O-CL E IC) O .--1 ON r. O O O O 0 -0 I • I I • I I I I I I I 1 • 1 ro i C O 0 0 S- N 10 O O )73 D 0 3 Rs N N I-- _ W R) \ i--1 N 1.0 CD LO W _O * M I I I CO• O O• I at i 1 N 1 1 1 C • 1 r-• WF- L ..b 0 O O O O O O oz, aE WC3 E4 U .-1 r •r Q F-- i CC V) CL ( I.-- LUO LL. Z C Cr O ►--_ U a..) L C r1 O .--1 CO O O r-1 01 0 O 0 O W = = I C• I O• 0 0 I •-i1 I .-i 1 I I •-y S U r- C O 0 O O O 0 O O O O C 4) V V N ¢ U = .-•g LU 1--. LL. J _J CO 0L F- Q d = F- < O S M I- -II M 3 .-. Q ..1• N E C) V) •••-••r 0 •;:t- CO O d- N CO lO O CO C) CO O W 0.•r > V) F- C C) O O N O C) C) O M0 O LO 0 C) O O 00 N N LU S.- CD 4-) • CO C = O N U C 0 U C O 0 L •r- U 4-) 10 Ili•"..... U.0 •r r.. ✓- O- .. O N N C) CO N .--1 a C) O • et CO 1,0 O 0..- CO CO CO .-i CO qt' 1,0 N Co CO • 1.0 l0 ri %i- t°•r- O 1.0 r-1 CO O O • .--1 ri CO O ^ w . a N Vl �7' .4t- • r-1 v, co O M E 4-17 U = E = -0 E H WO C C •r P. O •r 4-) 1- •r O C!) - •,- W •E N >, 0 •E 0 o 0. of •r-c v t rt >, . W U • N O (1l S.. L -O i .0 0. ^ 0 rO 4) 0) r- c.) r- C r- S.- Cl) 0 its .C 0 0 S.. Cl) •r b o •r cu •r W < Q CO CO U U U U LL. .-r J J S M Z V') N - 134 - ' I a. Values were developed for sensitive crops on soils with row capacities to • retain elements in available forms. . b. Based on reaching maximum mass application in 20 years at an annual application rate of 4 ft/yr. c. Boron exhibits toxicity to sensitive plants at values of 0.75 to 1.0 mg/L. d. Lithium toxicity limit is suggested at 2.5 mg/L concentration for all crops, except citrus which uses a 0.075 mg/L limit. Soil retention is extremely limited. 1 lb/acre = 1.2 kg/ha 1 ft = 0.305 m *The actual quality of the wastewater applied in the agricultural site may be lower than these values due to the treatment that it will receive. • - 135 - . TABLE 26 • WASTEWATER TRACE ELEMENTS VERSUS CROP REQUIREMENTS Amount Applied Crop Requirements (lb/ac) Element (lb/ac) Corn Alfalfa Copper 2.47 1.0 1.5 Cadmium - - - Lead 1.37 - - Boron 8.22 0.5 1.0 Zinc 1.23 10.0 10.0 Mercury 0.18 - - Potassium 219.21 None None Sodium 1302 None 70 Calcium 972.8 None None Magnesium 561.7 5 None Chromium 0.14 - - Nickel - - - Arsenic - - - Selenium - - - Barium 41.1 - - • - 136 - a , CD W>- CeWU► I . 01 N. N U) LI- QJ • 01 • 01 F-)-+ a Q r-1 co O O co O I 0 O O 3N � a ri rl N. d• 0 • Z C7 CD • =Q Z >- F- F- ►-I 'CO LO 01 LO O L[) C cc sr) --I I I • X = N O O r-I Lo ^ .�-I N W ..-1i Cr Co YW>- •wI- F- ne' sO CL'W L) ►-•• r-1 if 01 01 N Ce Q J I I • I I I I p I cc W I- U � = r-I' ct N. � -J Q31-1CY Y JO Z.-i � C.).) Z> O r--1 CC S •--I F- LIB p d F-3 I- .--I •.-I O it O N. w V) =O V) J • I • 1 I • I 01 N I- CO/) W >G = 4 r-i M CO Cr) O O CC) W Cr r-i r-I ii 0 CL W>- I- F- is) C9 Y U f-. 01 1. N LO 01 ► I W a Q .--i M O O CV) O C I O O co tY M = r-I r--1 N. = L) -+ Cr Z 3C'3 O CeI r I-CD I.- �- -ICD CD CC U V) J I N r . r• I CO O r--. X = O 0 N d CO '-I Cr Q' WO• ce 1•-i • 0 CL' W>- o_ I- I--• 01 co O W L) .•--i .-i LC) O nt- CL' F->- < J 1 1 • 1 1 • i - 1l`... 0 .- QV) L = i M CO 1 r-I N 2 J CY •--I O' I- ca.. w .--. Y C-0 O w 3 S Z >- ....I 00 Z = Q O F- ►-' LC) w Q O O V) J .--I O Cr O N. N I— .--I U) .-r Q I I I I 01 O F- >< = O .--I co CO co .-i Q w O• r-I .-.1 U ---i 0 J w } CL = I- I- Liz LC) O CL U U i••-I M N CO LO O Q r~-+ 0- Q i 1 N 1 CO 1 I N. O L0 C) 0M = Z r'-- or • Q >. J CD J Z > CV - LL_ ►--I r-i I- C)1 N. N. O 1� •4:1- 0 C'3 I- ►•i I • I 1 • I co d• C/1 O v) --I 1.0 r-I NOD 1.0 w F- X = r-i Liz U W O' ti Q • C1. IY D Z W >- r-I W I- F- Ln . t.c) p >- O < J 1 1 co• 1 �. I •CO •0 O 1 I- = a. Q N co N. O C0 — O _ J CLI-ICa = QCD 01 N. N. O N. ct CD' J Z >- 3 I • I I • I co cr r--i F- 0 CO r-1 N CO Lfl IY W F- i-♦ 0. .-i e-I U1 W SV) J a) 4- cl- F- U r--• Q .0 N 3 U W p' a) LC) 111 O > M N CO LCJ O I 0 0_ I I • I I .--I 4-) tO ) N CY) 1. O CO • E w a) w w w w \ E L N ac) v ate) a) Cr) 0 4- r crr- I C).- CPr- Cn r- d •r 0 .r r- CL' \ O\ CO O\ 0 O\ a) O\ N w 0 w-0 E W C) C L C) •r L C) •r L C) +) L C) = N d•r F— E a) � E C ) E a E 10 ++ E sr, S. � 0 0 -4-) + •i-' 00 w (0 •r 0 •r CO•r S.. •r •r E 0 CO •r L O w 0 z E a rn a +.) a .- Ln i CU .-i E (0 0 • CC o 4-)a-+ 4 O z (.11 -0 to r C) 0 2 0 (0 E CD a m • z • - 137 - F- n. cr) v) LL Ca LLI >- F- cc W ►--, Lit I- J I CO t0 01 LO I O F-r--r Q N 0 0 .--1 LC) 3 N =1%. N CI • Z CD =QZ >- O F- • C9 Q J I 00 MD • 0• to 0 LC) i-+ Q N 0 O r•I LC) N. 1 N LU ' � p r Y >-•CC W r~ CO-r N. er W CL J I I O• 1 • 1 C I I N 1 F- WUQQ LC) M 0 Q Q 3 CY I-I J J O O_ CL tY O U Z >- r•-I I- F-3 r--r .-1 O Cr O f\ • 01 CV N N <W C)C I rr--I I Ch I 03 I Cr) O r-1 .--I CO CT W = p F- W >- F- F- W J N .-I to .--IO O W Q 1 LO O N Cr Is.. 1 03 C) W CL = Cr 03 ,-4 Cr CD U C . CC Q 3 2 O >- C.) CC I- ►-r U N . 1 N I-I tO N. .-I O O I 03 CD p i•-• Q LO O N Cr CO Cr N = IX .-I Cr F- ►-. • 3 C].' >- W W I—I01 N. I-0 F-W Q I I •LO I M I I N I NI O CO N Q N = e--I N CY Q C- LU I- Y O r--I =Q I-- LC) • m C I F- F- N Q .--•-I I C • I I •Cr• C I pt O Q 2 O .--4 Cr) 00 Cr) e--1 W F- Z C3 W >- F- U --r Cr) N 00 CO 0 L4 I- Q 1 I CV I en I • O .--I I ce CI- Cr fF >- LL. O f--r Z I— CT I.% N. O N. Cr C/) CD r--r • I • I I • I M Ct I- O►-r Q .o ). .--I CV 03 LO w Q X = 'h r-1 Ln it d LU Cr • • ►.-r Ce . >- >- U J I- LC) LC) O ►I p t J 1 I• I M I N 00 lO O I Q O = N CI) Is.. O LO Cr LS- Cr N CC J C f Z >- 3 • I • I • 0I • I M cr cr LUl F- 0 l0 .--I N 03 LO w 3 U Q V) Q = U CY CU L) LC) O > M N 03 tO C) O C1 I I • I I e--1 -' N Mr.,. O l0 ni• '0 w w w n n � � E cu U CIC) W E C 'U ) 4-- CT.— t c)•-• c)•-- c.- C1 •r 0 •r .— cc \ O\ 413 O\ U0"•-•-.. CLIO\ N w 4-' 0 . 4— E Lu 0) a L CT •r L CT •r i- CJ) 4--) L C7) O N Q.•r I— E a)r- +-) E a 4) E a E ro 4-) E in -0 L +-) 4J o u C) LL) O)r0 •r 0 •r r0•r L •r •^ E 0 b •r L O w o +� z E C me 4-1C w L C U ter♦ Lc) L 0 E L •r CO O •r - •r •r (CS\ CC O 4-)1- Q O Z 4-. N y (0 r- E U Q C) r 0 = 0 ICI CU a CC) z -. 138 - I- a N Le) L.L. 0 W >- F- Ce W F- J 1 � • 0• CO I O • LC) I- r"i ¢ ' N 0 0 r•-I L[) Cr N 3V) M Q N- r--I CI r"I Z O Y = 4 Z >- W CD F- • w CC I- r-i CO LO 01 t0 1 �O LC)U CO Q►'-I ¢ I N O 0 .-I I t) N- v--I N 3 W cr r"I O CC O C..) Yi >- •O CC W r--i N- CD W LUI— C) I 1 r�-•1 1 ^ 1 NI 1 Ln I M I� I,r)C.D < 3O' r-i _ � � >- OLnr--I CD 1/) I-- 3 ►~-' rI O Ct O nOO OQ OI •r-4 1 •M I •00 I 01 CV M O C/J WO � I-I r--I CD COO' Z d CD W >- F- O W J) LLOr--1 CO CD COC Q LCL _ N- l0 ct CO O t • N- 01 v-ICO I's N N CL Cr CD I— U N J 3 r-•4 0 Z >- LL ce F- C.) r"'4 N r-I CO N- rl O 0 O V) J I 03 CD Z >C = LO O N CO I CY CV Cf w Cr LU CO • CD Q Ce >- CC I— 01 CO CD W r-. N F- LU O_ ¢ I I r-I I CO) I 0 1 � 1 CO r•I 01 CC Cf)N >- J O' � O' r-i < CD LU I 2 Z >- O r-I m l0 = Q � 0 4 r-I O V) -J r-I I- V) ) l < I C• I • I • I 0) O I-- W = O r-I M03 M .--I v-I r--I 3-1 C w Y. 0 U '-4 LC) O CD I--- a¢. Q I I I I CO0 I �• CO l0 0 N CO N- O CO -J Cr } >- O r-i Z -iF- 01 N. N I O •-) • I I f • 1 0 1 CO Cr Cr O r-� Q r0 r-I N CO LO w > r-I LC)- >< = CO W CrCI- • I- C4 Z >- LU w IC) L M CC 4-In O F- C < I I M i • I COO 4.0 O 1 Q = CL CC N M f\ O L0 W O M ~ N LL. J Z >- 3 0• I • I • I C• I M O I--I F- 0 4.0 .-I N CO L0 w LU F- '--' O. .--I r-I LO N 2 CO ___I a) -r-' F- Ur--iQ _O N U < = aL C) w Cr a) In LC) 0 O_ > CO X 0 a I I I N COL O I I • 1-1 ) N in N- C) C0 >- I- 1--I 721 w • J 0 ,__ E Q w w w w '0\ E L = C C C C C C11 a O' Cl) a) a) a) W E 0 \ 4-- 04.— I 0)r— O IY \ O\ 'O 0\ U 0\ a) 0\ N w -I-) 0 w-C E LU W 0) C S.. 0) •r S.- 0) •- L 0) +3 i o) = 1/) CI...-. I— w E cu rn� E a .,-' E C +) E ors 4-J E in -a L 4-) 4-) o UUO X w O4--) Z E a 0) C y- a .— .— E O M •C L O �L I-0 L O E L rd v o i C U .--I IZ' O 4) H. Q O Z O •rte •r U\ Q O •_ +� N (Cl CU a m z • I- a. vim) N E L. - 139 - O Lii >W V I--4 CO t0 Q1 LC)LLI LO I O F- a ¢ I . N O 0 r-1 L11 N. N 3N " 0• O • Z CD C3 =QZ >- 0 I—r- II- 03 LO 01 O L1) • O¢ ►N-1 ¢ I • .N O O . • r1 Ln • Lt� I .--1 N Y >C = r♦ W W Cr' W IY O C-) CV •W I- I-- 3 CC W c� .-I 1 LOo al O I I I I O � Q J 1 r-1 M N. .--I CC I CC WUaC r..1 C-) Q3 ►-iO* O I— aJ,. O c3 ir-1 W = �+ I- U) O (3 F- 3 I- ►-. .--1 I • 1 �• I • 1 CA N Q O.__ID U) Q p v—I M CO M O = V)W X = r1 r-1 r--1 U 00 W Cr V) ►--I O CD O W O Y U ►— co .-1 L0 CO O 01 N N. w p 1 Q W d < UU) N. N I.11 L1•) N Cr) N. N 1.0 .--I cd Z U � Cam. OM O ►-1 3 CO Q CC I- ce U I- ►-1 N r-I 1.0 N. .--I 0 O F- C:0 CD J ►N-r Q I L0 0 N et 00 I •i• N H X = .--1 ct LL W O' O • O Z Ce W >- Q I- F- Oft M W U )--a ezt Z I-->- < J 1 I r• I •LI• 1 0 I 03 O I-W C.. Q rI M 00 ri O O ¢CNE = ri M C9 J CC .--i C7' Q 0 W Id C.3 0 .--1 -J >- F-F- ►-I >- O 00 Q =Q f- ►-+ Q O O Cr) J .-i F- I V) 1--e Q • I • I �. I O I O) O it X = O I-I M 03 M .--I N W O• .--1 v--I >- O CO W >- F- U U ►~-r LC) L[') CD M N CO 4.0 O W I-.4 ¢ I I I 1 1 -1 a. < N M N. 0 1,0 H O pp• Q >- LU C..3 CC J Z >- N N. 0 _ _J L0 . I .•--1 CV I 1 O I--v < r1 N 03 v-I en el- U- O Cl) X = .--1 U') Cl) W Cr it F • - U CC CI Q W >- O_ W I- F- LC) U) O 4--iC I Q J I I M - I CV I •03 t 0 1 >- O Z = N M N. O LO I- CL. I--I Cam' I-I N Q JZ > 3 O• I •N. N.I • I C • I N. cr _ ►-v F- O C0 .-) N CO L0 w Cr W I- i-+ 0. .•-i .--i LA CU CC U )--i Q N W Q X = Q U W CJ > 111 1.0 0 M N CO 1.0 O 3 O a I I • I I • v-i 4-1 N N C") N. 0 L0 b •C1 w • Wv- E w w w w . \ L CU CU F. 0 \ 4- C))r- 1 0).- Cr).-- Cr).-- 0. •.- 0 .r r- CC \ O\ r0 0.. U 0\ CU O\ Inn .) 0 ^ C ,' . E W C7) a L C7) .r L_ C7) •r L C)) 4-) L 0) = N 0-•,•-• I- E0:1)- 4-) Eb C +) E C +) E r0 +•) E Ln "0 s_ +.) 4-)) 0 O )C O LLJ0 •r' cc)•r L •r ,-- •r• E 0 (0 •r i. O ^ 0 +) ZE E C Cl) C .1-) C ,- in S... C U r- .--I CC p _. Crp y-) I- Z b O •r •r •E t0\ Q p .r 4-, N r0 0 d m Z • a0 2 0 1 r0 O 40 F- 0. Cl) V) LL O W>- 1- 03 t0 CT in CC W W I- J I N 0 O .--I Ln LO• I O N Q V) _ N. .-4 Cr = C • U Z C3 • I- = QZ >- ~ • 03 t0 01 t0 O U) • • C ce F-- I-•' >< • CD < = I N O • O .--1 to N.• I v. 'r-I -I N ►••. W Cr J CD C O O LU r~-• I • I V• 1 CI I • M 1 W ILU-C') L< I r--I M N. N. .-t � C3 Q 3 1--1 O' CC J CD • O 2 L) Z>- Ln O C.) 2 1- O ct 0 N. w C .-- 1 • 1ON cv I.-, = C) J • r-1 Cr") IiCo03 Cr) O C O -J Q O .--1 .--1 V) W = .--I C) CO O' Z Q C >- C) Z W_- N .--1 t0 CD CD� IL W <J t0 O N d' N.• e-•• I 03 I- Lu O N Q Ce a = I c! 03 iIzt-I ci CC U Cr I- J 3 ►-I O Z >- U_ CC I-- C) ►-1 N r-I t0 N .--I O CD OD CD Z .--L Q I t0 O N •:41- 03 I Ci' N Q LLu ri d W CD • q CC >- CC I- 01 M 1-- I— >- <J 1 1 �• t O O I • I 1 OD 1 v-I V) Q V) = r--1 CO CO 0- W CD Y CD CD z r- -1-.J J O I- I- I- CD CO (.0 = Q f-• Ln w Q .--I O N J r-I CD ct CD N. N I- N Q 1 • I I I 01 CD I-- W Or �O .-i Cr) CO .M r-I -I C W>- Z 2 1- t0 in O U r-L N. Ln 01 N. O O I- J I I • I • I 1 N 1 CD C = N Cr) N. O LO -J C7 >- 0 Z I- CT N. N. O N. it I CD .--I • I • 1 I • I M ct. ▪ O i--L < '-4 r-I N CO r�-I L[) CO W O'= 11:1' • I- IY o Z >- W LU I- Ln Ln O M C4 ►--I M N CO 1.0 CD 1 W O0- I 1 N• 1 CO I N. CD t0 CC CL Cam' • I— N 01 N. LL J Z>- 3 • I • 1 • I • I M •4- o I- O t0 .-I N CO 1.0 w LU r-I r- 0. '-I r-I Ln V) = J a) +-) Ct' H U Q -0 N U Q = Q C..) Cr Q) Ln Ln CD > Cr) CV CO CO O 1 0 CL I I • I I ►-+ .0 +) N M N. CD 1.0 r0 to >- - • rr __I N.— 'ID E Q w w w w \ E s_ = c c c c c Cr) O• a) a) a) a) a) E C \ w 0).— I CT.— CT,— CT,--• 0. •r 0 •r r- fY fY \ 0\ ICS 0 S. 00\ a) 0 S. L/I w 4-) 0 ••.C r- E W W 0) C S.. 0) •- L CT .r 5- 0) {.a i. CI) = VI 0.•r 1- 1- E a - 4-) .a-)• � E C E C .- E (0 +-) E H ID S.. 4-) 4)) 0 00 O Q W C '- 0 •r ers •r S.. ••- •� 3 w O +) Z E c CTc ++ C vii co CU �� c O I— C CD = .e-) Lrij O/) -0 b ••-r- •E IC\ E Q0 0 2 0 eV C 0_ CO Z • 0 .. 1 41 ^ 1— 0- In V) LL • CI W >- I- F- CO C0 01 I O LC 1 IY W L) ►-r . W F- < J I N a O .-•1 U1 • et N 3N10. r-1 0 • ZCDCD • • • Q _ i_ zi_ 0 I- F- r•-1 O LO• C1 LG O LL CDQ � JQ 1 N 0 O •r-1 LL1 I\ I r�L • X = .-� W O' 0 S Y LU >- N M U •W I- F- M an 01 LO I- CC W U I' l I • I 1 I 1 M 1 I--I Ce Q J I .-•1 C') N. r-1 C LU U X = r L >- Q3 ,-fCT O — d CC C'3 r-1 -J U Z >- Ill C9 S ►-• I- 0 it 0 n r. O F- 3 I- I-• ri I • I I I 01 N 2 0 0 .-1 V) Q O M CO M 0 F- U) W >< = .--1 ...--I .--i CO W (f' W CD 0 O S IL I-- I-- N r-• (0 U W ¢ J La 0 N Kt f\ .-• I 03 0 N N W CL Q I CO 'r .4- 6-i c = r1 O U •--• CY O 3 C.D Q IYrZF- Z U I-Cr) J I N i--1 LO F r"1• ' 0 O 03 0 O X = CG O N 4:1' CO .-I •:1- I- CV CVF- W O' Q CC • O I- CC W >- I.L. I ->- Q -~.1 I I • I • I • I 03 CD 0 I N 0 Q V) X _ •--I M CO r�-1 M Z Jd' HC) Q C1 W Y co O W Z 2 Z >- .-� J O F-F- ►-I F- CO O = Q F- �-+ LC) Ow Q cm O C/) J r-1 0 it O f� N F- Q N ).••. Q • I • I I • I 01 O J LX 0' O r-1 M co en .-1>. r-1 Q 0 CI W >- 1 S F- F- CT 01 LC) N •~-- d < .. • I CT • ,-I 1 ›- 0 M 2 N M F.: 0 LO 03 1--+ C7' • F- >. CD Z J Z >- N W ►-4 I-IF- 01 n f\ 0 f\ •ZI- XL C3 F- ,. 1 • I • I • I CO it I-Q Co V) JQ (.0 * r-1 CV CO LSO w r-Ir-L in LU X = CC W Cam' I- Ce O LI_ W >- O COQJ I e • I M I CV I CO La O I U O � 2 N M f� O CO Q CL. •--+ Cam' CL N ►-i JZ � 3 O' I • I • I • I M W F- r-•' o a .--I ..-I N CO LO >- F- 2 V) J N a-.+ .• 1 t1') -J Q >G = = U W O > Cr) N 03 (.0 0 1 CD' 0 a I 1 • I I r1 rC3 4-, N M f� O (0 CC LU • Q w r- w w w w 73 \ E L C C C C C O C U 0 Q1.- I 01 r-- a)r- Cr,.- 0. E .,- 0 r r- r— CC \ O\ .O O\ U O\ CU O\ N •• ;1 0 w-C E LU 0) C L CT •r L 01 •r L CT 43 S- Q) O Ln 0--•-• F- E as .+-) E C a••+ E c4-1E (0 +-) E vs - E 0 b � 0 U O W b •r 0 •r r0•r L •rS... w 0 ) Z E C Q)C +1 C •.-• N L C U •-.-r L ) L 0 E L •r 0 •r -0 •r •r r0\ CC O < O Z 4) N -0 (0 r••- E U d 03 Z • - 142 42 - 0 I- a Cl) (Ti) Li' • SALINITY NITRATES Total dissolved solids (milligrams/liter • Nitrate content' or (ppm nitrate nitrogen) Comments parts/million)• Comments Less than 1000 From the standpoint of its dissolved solids, Less than 100'• Experimental evidence to date Indicates this water should be excellent for all that this water should not harm livestock classes of livestock. or poultry. live- 1000 to 2999 This water should be satisfactory for all 100 to 300 This water should not by itself harm classes of livestock. Those waters ap- stock or poultry: could Wu add gs allycon ton he proaching the upper limit may cause some tiaras, this water greatly the watery droppings in poultry, but they uld intake to concern n it dangerous. This f should not adversely affect the health or could be r h epso duringe o in the case of production of the birds. cattle or sheep drought years and especially with waters containing levels of 3000 to 4999 This water should be satisfactory for live- nitrates that approach the upper limits. stock. If not accustomed to it they may re- Over 300•" This water could cause typical nitrate fuse to drink it for a few days, but they will poisoning in cattle and sheep, and its use to time adapt to it. If sulfate salts pre- for these animals is not recommended. Be- dominate, they may show temporary diar- cause this level of nitrate contributes sign- rhea, but this should not harm them. It is, ificantly to salinity and also because ex- however, a poor to unsatisfactory water for perimental work with levels of nitrate nitro- poultry. It may cause watery feces, and gen in excess of this are meager, the use particularly ,near the upper limit it may of this water for swine, horses or poultry cause increased mortality and decreased should also be avoided. growth, especially in turkey poults. • Includes nitrite nitrogen. 5000 to 6999 This water can be used for livestock ex- •• Less than 443 ppm of nitrate or less than 607 ppm of sodium cept those that are pregnant or lactating, ••� nitrate. Over 1329 ppm of nitrate or over 1821 ppm of sodium nitrate. without seriously affecting their health or productivity. It may have some laxative ef- fects and be refused by the animals until they become accustomed to it. It is un- satisfactory for poultry. 7000 to 10,000 This is a poor livestock water that should not be used for poultry or swine. It can be used for older, low-producing ruminants • or horses that are not pregnant or lactating with reasonable safety. Over 10,000 This water is considered unsatisfactory for all classes of livestock. r 'Electrical conductivity expressed in micromhoeper centimeter at 25° C can be substituted directly for total dissolved solids without Introducing a great error in interpretation. From: Cooperative Extension Service, Great Plains States, United States Department of Agriculture, "Livestock Water Quality" • TABLE 33 SALINITY AND NITRATE GUIDELINES FOR LIVESTOCK - 143 - a. 1(------''''2 --* - CT_ T-�! *,� 3e I ''.: ,,,IL i -� _ v 1 ` - L IAq�o „felt /A -_�- - - +- _`.> ti\` _k___lc 0 l'-'"-----' ___i 1.5 I /' I - / >:i ,,--.\,_._ j___.-) /-, 7', 14 , ,h 460// \ � �;,� So ,,_,,� ' .9d, N._,_ ii—I:;46 ' .: $4 ,. ` 1 Ji }/ 4779L/ - t--�$ I41,2 �' X l 4760 J \� !( - ' i ' ii,' / ;) , ,. .11,r( - ‘j 1 r , M 22 % t • y, ) , 2 / ,f \\ c)I 4„ 1 • i , it-' 1 i) \'s :c 0 1 \ , )r--" g N �I / `\\\ f II , l `f � �rJ N ; 4536„ 4: 17 f- -_�,,,,A,,,? .- I5B/, —��- ' - .. (- _ ll4hol r`l }_—__r`� \ �, aB14 / Ir Nx r r- " �' �� J I1r- _/ J'I . '') f _�, \'-:if , c , F N . 1 J PQ N /r ' �� 1.' J " )I , / J H/ /I ` f 2 26 ! 4s ' ((, I I ' )(i fiz ' \ 4.,W A• �- Il I Mifilt N Q 4X r , - l \\C )) 7 \k y 5. o • 1 37-_-- -- -- ♦ 5 � ' 4BGI �/ .,./\... BO J - 1 i -) ( 4 . / � l `b \ ( /I Q 0 I I N 0 r o 4 39. I �\ I \ J / K r \ ll3 I)1 I O I I _ _ —=34 35 \3r . \ ; ,;N1`--1i- ` ( `` \ i i Y �1/0637 I \ '6 11:ty '''' \J" Ji ,r\ .:r'\ / \; / ' \�,`. I4 f..-..= s I\J / /\I \\ 4733 �/^ \ (� .l $ x4yioi .,j bY °— i � ' 2 I\ �1 2 \___.,(--1---/-N-/- 0 / \— x623 �,I6'?7 \ 70Q114/3 � / � 1 t " b N 4610 I b, N ca-../ 1 '' % \ 466 _ �.,��S `-S�--* ,-t > *- �,\ as/i -V e=_= '// G dal \ 4A`vz d''+.p'„''. �/' \) P � +I - �/ 9 1 .P0 3 0 O / `,'. EXHIBIT 23 • ° " AGRICULTURAL SOI ), ' L `_ N 46� LE36T _ y TEST SITES . 46/Q l O° _ 4603 °• _ N469C i 1� 12 , '90 i FORK ' Y610 Q 6 xI�1 o-',, .44641R ll 4600 00/LVy N , 130 • 120 CURRENT AGRICULTURAL APPLICATION SCHEME 110 -•- PROPOSED APPLICATION SCHEME -- (N) DEMAND BY CORN 100 90 80 w 70 0 4 cr w a 4 60 o EXHIBIT 24 o COMPARISON OF °- 50 NITROGEN (N) UPTAKE BY CORN WITH VARIOUS APPLICATION SCHEMES 40 IA 30 1 1 1 20 I l / \,_-. r 1 1 1 Ito , i 1 III III III APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT W i _.1 W m Q cc O W o- Q y Z fr 0 cc M3380 M02:13 o z m min • to Q �- Q 1-- Cl, Ei {�— W w w w 0 X J Q U O !n Qw 1- Q x w U 0 fn ≥ 2 u) 0 0 °" 0 Z • w W . m QO z � o j x W 0 W ir J 0 J Q • • EXHIBIT 26 HYDROLOGIC SCHEMATIC OF THE GREELEY AREA _ 201 STUDY SAMPLING STATION LAND APPLICATION CROW SITE CREEK TREATMENT PLANT SAMPLING SITE OGILVY DITCH C4CyF CDH ■ SAMPLING STATIONS FIRST �q p AVENUE 0VOR TREATMENT FRip KERSEY PLANT FR <Z- �J 4, P° QN. CO NOTE: NO SAMPLING DATA IS AVAILABLE FOR THE: •SOUTH PLATTE RIVER ABOVE THE POUDRE RIVER •OGILVY DITCH •SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BELOW CROW CREEK • Hello